Jainendra Kumar Verma, - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/44145/2/... · 1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs 46 1.7.1.1 Innovative 46 1.7.1.2

1 | P a g e

A Study of Entrepreneurship in Micro, Small andMedium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uttar Pradesh

ThesisSubmitted to the University of Lucknow

for the Award of the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophyin

Applied Economics

Submitted by

Jainendra Kumar Verma,Formerly Auditor at Indian Audit & Accounts Department (under C.A.G.), Govt. of India

U.G.C.-N.E.T. & J.R.F. (Economics), U.G.C.-N.E.T. & J.R.F. (Management),R.G.N.F. (Applied Economics), R.G.N.F. (Business Administration)

M.A.N.F. (Entrepreneurship), I.C.S.S.R.D.F. (Entrepreneurship)M.B.A., M.A. (Economics), B.M.S.

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Madhurima,D. Litt. (Business Administration), D.Litt. (Applied Economics),

Ph.D. (Business Administration),M.B.A., M.Com., M.A.

Professor at Department of Applied Economics,University of Lucknow

Submitted to the

Department of Applied Economics,Faculty of Commerce,University of Lucknow,

Lucknow, India

2013

2 | P a g e

Prof. Madhurima,D. Litt. (Bus. Adm.), D.Litt. (App. Eco.),Ph.D. (Bus. Adm.), M.B.A., M.Com., M.A.

(Most highly qualified person of India as recordedin Limca Book of World Records in 2008)

UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOWDepartment of Applied Economics,

Lucknow, U.P., IndiaMobile No.: +919454323847

E-mail: [email protected]

Date: 30-Aug-2013

CERTIFICATE BY SUPERVISOR

This is to certify that Mr. Jainendra Kumar Verma, a Ph.D.

candidate at the Department of Applied Economics, University of

Lucknow, Lucknow, India with Enrolment No. LC/96/2012 has

completed his doctoral thesis on A Study of Entrepreneurship in

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uttar Pradesh

under my supervision and guidance.

The thesis contains the original work of the candidate (except

quotations & citations), which is by and large based on the analysis

made by him on primary data collected for the purpose. In case of

quotations & citations appropriate references and acknowledgement

have been made.

Further the thesis does neither include in whole nor in part of

any matter which is either accepted or rejected for any other

degree/diploma/certificate/associate membership or for requirement

of any academic distinction.

The thesis has been submitted for the award of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Applied Economics of University of

Lucknow, Lucknow, India.

(MADHURIMA)

3 | P a g e

Copyright©

(2013) by

Jainendra Kumar Verma

4 | P a g e

Dedicated to

Bharat Ratna Late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar,

D.Sc. (Economics), L.L.D. (Honori Causa), D.Litt. (Honori Causa),Ph.D. (Economics), M.Sc. (Economics), M.A. (Economics), Bar at Law (L.L.B.)

Formerly Professor and Principal at Government Law College, Mumbai,Labour Minister to the Executive Council to the Viceroy of India,

Chairperson, Constitution Drafting Committee,Union Cabinet Law Minister &

Member of Parliament (Rajyasabha),

Dr. Madhurima,

D. Litt. (Business Administration), D.Litt. (Applied Economics),Ph.D. (Business Administration), M.B.A., M.Com., M.A.,

Professor at Department of Applied Economics, University of Lucknow,Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

&

my parents;

Smt. Shashi Prabha

and

Shri Ragghudas

5 | P a g e

Acknowledgement

Working on my thesis has been one of the most challenging pursuits I

have undertaken. There were many times I considered why I was doing this

and whether I actually had it in me to see it through to the end. It often felt

like I was on a long, solo journey, with many twists and turns, with flickers

of light and hope, but with no end on the horizon. Yet as arduous and lonely

as the journey often seemed, I was never completely alone. The fact that I

have even got to this stage has been due, in no small measure, to the people

I had around me and I owe it to them for helping me to get this far.

I would like to begin by giving many thanks to my doctoral thesis

supervisor Prof. Madhurima for her continued advice, guidance, support

and care which motivated me to undertake such a monumental task of

conducting research through primary data and reporting the same in the

form of research papers and doctoral thesis. Her liberty given to me for

original thinking, trust on my research competence and potential and her

promptness in academic proceedings is highly appreciable. She is a source

of inspiration for me to achieve academic excellence & success in life.

I am thankful to Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Finance Officer &

Controller of Examination of University of Lucknow, Lucknow for their

extended support & cooperation for this research effort and availing good

governance in the university.

I am thankful to Prof. A. Chatterjee (Dean, Faculty of Commerce)

University of Lucknow, Lucknow) for his extended support & cooperation

for this research effort.

I am thankful to all faculty members of Dept. of Applied Economics,

University of Lucknow, Lucknow viz. Prof. Nar Singh (Head of

Department), Prof. J. V. Vaishampayan, Prof. Madhurima, Prof. R. K.

Maheshwari, Dr. Archana Singh, Dr. Rachna Mujju, Dr. V. K. Goswami,

Dr. Anup Kumar Singh & Dr. Bimal Jaiswal for their extended support for

this research effort.

6 | P a g e

I am thankful to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt.

of India for extensive funding for my doctoral research and University

Grants Commission, New Delhi for efficient disbursement of the funds.

I am thankful to Indian Council of Social Science Research, New

Delhi for funding various Workshops on Research Methodology I attended

during my Doctoral research.

I would also like to thank all the people who took part in this research

effort and made the writing of this thesis possible. Special thanks to all of

my respondents for sharing their stories with me and for making my

fieldwork experience one in which I grew as a person.

I’m thankful to Mr. Ashish Kumar & Mr. Vijayendra Kumar Gautam

for assisting me in data feeding.

I’m thankful to Ms. Nidhi Nagar who extended support for analysis of

data & interpretation in this research effort.

I express my gratitude to my fellow researchers/students who assisted

me in data collection in short span of time from highly diversified

geographical area.

I am thankful to all the members of university administration who for

extending its support for this research effort.

My thanks is also due to all members of non-teaching staff who

assisted/supported me in the preparation of my doctoral thesis or otherwise.

I am also thankful to all those who contributed in this research effort

otherwise.

Finally, the completion of this thesis would not have been possible

without the love, support and encouragement of my family members and

friends.

(JAINENDRA KUMAR VERMA)

7 | P a g e

AbstractThe research entitled ‘A Study of Entrepreneurship in Micro, Small and

Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uttar Pradesh’ is an empirical study for various

dimensions of entrepreneurship. The study is by and large hypothesis based.

Major objectives of this research are to study the level of technology, causes

of entrepreneurship, entrepreneur’s sources of funding, entrepreneurs’ satisfaction

with their enterprise, personal entrepreneurial attitude & tendencies,

entrepreneurs’ psychology, perception and opinion about their enterprises, factors

of competitive advantage, enterprises’ organisation and planning, relationship of

MSMEs with their industry, problems of MSMEs, entrepreneurs’ perception &

opinion, in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, about external environment, skills and ability of

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh at the time of starting the enterprise and at

present income level/sales growth of entrepreneurs/MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

The study is based on primary data collected for the purpose from 18

representative districts of Uttar Pradesh through Multi-Stage sampling.

Percentage, proportion, descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation, chi-square test, t-

test, F-test & ANOVA is used to analyse the data for testing hypothesis to fulfil

the objectives of the research.

The research may be beneficial to all concerns especially researcher,

academicians and policy makers to understand relationships between

variables/attributes related to entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

8 | P a g e

List of Content

Sl. No. TitlePageNo.

I Title Page 1

II Certificate by Supervisor 2

II Copyright 3

IV Dedication 4

V Acknowledgment 5

VI Abstract 7

VII List of Content 8

VIII List of Figures 22

IX List of Tables 23

X List of Acronyms 29

1 Introduction 31

1.1 Preliminary 31

1.1.1 Profile of Indian MSME Sector 32

1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units 32

1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs 33

1.1.4 Production by MSMEs 34

1.1.5 Administrative Framework for MSMEs 35

1.1.6 MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh 36

1.2 Official Definition of MSMEs in India 37

1.3 Concept of Entrepreneurship 38

1.3.1 Meaning of Entrepreneurship 38

1.3.2 Definitions of Entrepreneurship 40

1.3.3 Basic Characteristics of Entrepreneurship 40

9 | P a g e

1.4 Entrepreneurial Action 41

1.5 Entrepreneurial Process 41

1.5.1 Aspects of the Entrepreneurial Process 41

1.6 Entrepreneur 42

1.6.1 Functions of Entrepreneurs 43

1.6.1.1 Idea Generation 43

1.6.1.2 Determination of Objectives 43

1.6.1.3 Raising Funds 43

1.6.1.4 Procurement of Raw Materials 44

1.6.1.5 Procurement of Machinery 44

1.6.1.6 Market Research 44

1.6.1.7 Determination of Form of Enterprise 44

1.6.1.8 Recruitment of Manpower 45

1.6.1.9 Implementation of the Project 45

1.7 Types of Entrepreneurs 45

1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs 46

1.7.1.1 Innovative 46

1.7.1.2 Imitative/ Adoptive 46

1.7.1.3 Fabian 47

1.7.1.4 Drone 47

1.7.2 Arthur H. Cole’s Classification of Entrepreneurs 47

1.7.2.1 Empirical 47

1.7.2.2 Rational 47

1.7.2.3 Cognitive 48

1.7.3 Classification of Entrepreneurs on the Basis of Ownership 48

1.7.3.1 Private 48

10 | P a g e

1.7.3.2 Public 48

1.7.4 Classification of Entrepreneurs Based on the Scale ofEnterprise

48

1.7.4.1 Micro, Small and Medium Scale Entrepreneurs (MSMSEs) 48

1.7.4.2 Large Scale Entrepreneurs (LSEs) 48

1.7.5 Other Classification of Entrepreneurs 49

1.7.5.1 Solo Operators 49

1.7.5.2 Active Partners 49

1.7.5.3 Inventors 49

1.7.5.4 Challengers 49

1.7.5.5 Buyers (Entrepreneurs) 49

1.7.5.6 Life Timers 50

1.8 Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Development 50

1.8.1 Promotes Capital Formation 50

1.8.2 Creates Large-Scale Employment Opportunities 50

1.8.3 Promotes Balanced Regional Development 51

1.8.4 Reduces Concentration of Economic Power 51

1.8.5 Wealth Creation and Distribution 51

1.8.6 Increasing Gross National Product and Per Capita Income 51

1.8.7 Improvement in the Standard of Living 51

1.8.8 Promotes Country's Export Trade 52

1.8.9 Induces Backward and Forward Linkages 52

1.8.10 Facilitates Overall Development 52

1.9 Rural Entrepreneurship 53

1.9.1 Meaning of Rural Entrepreneurship 53

1.9.2 Need for Rural Entrepreneurship 53

1.9.3 Problems of Rural Entrepreneurship 54

11 | P a g e

1.9.4 Rural Women Entrepreneurship 55

1.10 Entrepreneurial Motivation Theories 55

1.10.1 Abraham Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory 56

1.10.1.1 Physiological Needs 56

1.10.1.2 Safety & Security Needs 56

1.10.1.3 Love & Belonging Needs 56

1.10.1.4 Esteem Needs 56

1.10.1.5 Need for Self-Actualization 57

1.10.2 McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory 58

1.10.2.1 Achievement Motivation (n-ach) 58

1.10.2.2 Power Motivation (n-pow) 59

1.10.2.3 Affiliation Motivation (n-affil) 59

1.11 Motivating Factors for Entrepreneurship 59

1.11.1 Entrepreneurial Ambition 60

1.11.2 Compelling Reasons 60

1.11.3 Facilitating Factors 60

1.11.4 Internal factors 60

1.11.5 External factors 60

1.12 Business Project 60

1.12.1 Business Project Report 61

1.12.2 Contents of a Business Project Report 61

1.12.3 Formulation of a Business Project Report 62

1.13 Concept of Financial Planning 63

1.14 Sources of Finance 63

1.14.1 Internal Sources of Finance 63

1.14.1.1 Retained Profit 63

12 | P a g e

1.14.1.2 Sale of Assets 64

1.14.1.3 Reducing Stocks 64

1.14.1.4 Trade Credit 64

1.14.2 External Sources of Finance 64

1.14.2.1 Personal Savings 65

1.14.2.2 Commercial Banks 65

1.14.2.3 Building Societies 65

1.14.2.4 Factoring Services 66

1.14.2.5 Share Issue 66

1.14.2.6 Debentures 67

1.14.2.7 Venture Capital 67

1.14.2.8 Leasing and Hire Purchase 67

1.15 Capital Structure and its Determinants 67

1.16 Institutional Support to MSMEs in India 68

1.16.1 Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO) 68

1.16.1.1 Activities of SIDO 69

1.16.1.1.1 Coordination Activities of SIDO 69

1.16.1.1.2 6. Industrial Development Activities of SIDO 69

1.16.1.1.3 Management Activities of SIDO 69

1.16.2 State Small Industries Development Corporation (SSIDC) 70

1.16.2.1 Functions of SSIDC 70

1.16.3 District Industries Centres (DICs) 70

1.16.3.1 Functions of DICs 71

1.16.4 Industrial Estates 72

1.17 Growth Strategies in MSMEs 73

1.17.1 Market Penetration 73

13 | P a g e

1.17.2 Market Expansion 73

1.17.3 Product Expansion 74

1.17.4 Acquisition 74

1.17.5 Expansion and Diversification 74

1.17.5.1 Expansion 74

1.17.5.2 Diversification 75

1.17.5.2.1 Types of Diversification 77

1.17.5.2.1.1 Concentric Diversification 77

1.17.5.2.1.2 Horizontal Diversification 77

1.17.5.2.1.3 Conglomerate Diversification (or Lateral Diversification) 78

1.17.6 Joint Venture 78

1.17.7 Merger 79

1.17.8 Subcontracting 80

1.17.8.1 Working with Subcontractors 80

1.18 Women Entrepreneurship 82

1.18.1 Traits of Women Entrepreneurs 83

1.19 Industrial Sickness 84

1.20 Impact of Govt. Policies on Economic Development ofIndia

84

2 Literature Review 86

3 Research Methodology 125

3.1 Need of the Study 125

3.2 Objectives of the Study 125

3.3 Hypotheses to be Tested 126

3.4 Research Methodology 144

3.4.1 Study Setting 144

3.4.2 Research Design 145

14 | P a g e

3.4.3 Population and Sampling Plan 145

3.4.4 Data Collection Procedures 146

3.4.4.1 Data Gathering Plan 146

3.4.4.2 Pilot Testing 147

3.4.4.3 Secondary Data 147

3.5 Data Analysis 147

3.6 Limitations of the Study 147

3.7 Significance of the Study 148

4 Analysis of the Data, Results, and Discussion 149

4.1 Year of Establishment 149

4.2 Self-started Enterprises 149

4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age 150

4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex 150

4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & StartingEnterprise by Self

151

4.5.1 Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

151

4.5.2 Strength of association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

152

4.6 Districts of Data collection 153

4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self 154

4.8 Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture

155

4.9 Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training

156

4.10 Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs 158

4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs 159

4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &

Sex of Entrepreneurs

160

4.12.1 Hypothesis testing for association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs

160

15 | P a g e

4.12.2 Strength of association between Independence for Categoryof Entrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs

161


Entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture

162

4.13.1Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture

162

4.13.2Strength of Association between Independence for Categoryof Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First EntrepreneurialVenture

163

4.14 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category ofEntrepreneurs

164

4.15 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing

Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs

164

4.15.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs

165

4.15.2Strength of Association between Independence for AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs

166

4.16 Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs 166

4.17 Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs 168

4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture 169

4.19 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting

Enterprise by Self

169

4.19.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

170

4.19.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

170

4.20 Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs 171

4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level 171

4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self &

Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

172

4.22.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training

173

16 | P a g e

4.22.2Strength of Association between Independence for StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training

174


Starting Enterprise by Self

174

4.23.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

175

4.23.2 Strength of Association between Category of Entrepreneurs& Starting Enterprise by Self

175

4.24 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Any

Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

176

4.24.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training

176

4.24.2Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training

177

4.25 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & EnterpriseStarted by Self

178

4.26 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Sex ofEntrepreneurs

178

4.27 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture

179

4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ First

Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training

180

4.28.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training

181

4.28.2Strength of Association between Independence for BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training

181

4.29Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training toEntrepreneurs

182

4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training 183

4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background 184

4.31.1 T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground

184

17 | P a g e

4.32 Type of Industry/Business 185

4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service 186

4.34 Investment in Enterprises 187

4.35 Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology 188

4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs 189

4.37 Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)

190

4.38 Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, orTrained (or Educated) as Engineers or Scientists

192

4.39 Causes of Entrepreneurship 192

4.39.1 T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship 195

4.40F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Entrepreneurs who startedenterprises themselves and who did not

199

4.41 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh

203

4.42 Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise

206

4.42.1 T Test for Availability of Outside Funding / Financing atthe Time of Starting the Enterprise

207

4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding 207

4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding 210

4.45 Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding

211

4.46 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them

211

4.47Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding forthem

212

4.48 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them

213

4.49Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for Them

214

4.50 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them

214

4.51 Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for them

215

18 | P a g e

4.52F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Categories of Number ofAvailability of Sources of Funding

216

4.53 Most Available Source of Funding 220

4.54 Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & MostAvailable Source of Funding

221

4.55 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding 222

4.56Enterprise being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Most Available Source ofFunding

222

4.57 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & MostAvailable Source of Funding

223

4.58Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Most Available Sourceof Funding

224

4.59 Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most AvailableSource of Funding

225

4.60 Most Available Source of Funding & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for them

227

4.61F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Types of Most AvailableSource of Funding

228

4.62 Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 231

4.62.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 232

4.63 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 233

4.63.1 T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 235

4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology 237

4.64.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables 249

4.65 Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about TheirEnterprises

264

4.65.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion aboutTheir Enterprises

267

4.66 Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in UttarPradesh

271

4.66.1 T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs inUttar Pradesh

273

4.67 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 276

19 | P a g e

4.67.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 277

4.68 Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry 279

4.68.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry 281

4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises

284

4.69.1 T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises

289

4.70 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh

296

4.71 Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment 303

4.71.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about ExternalEnvironment

305

4.72 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment 308

4.72.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment

313

4.73 Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterprise andat Present

318

4.73 (a) Confidence Interval of the Difference for Change in Skillsand Ability

322

4.73.1 Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise

325

4.74 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits)

330

4.75 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

331

4.76Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

332

4.77 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

333

4.78Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

335

4.79 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

335

4.80Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding

338

4.81Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Most AvailableSource of Funding

339

4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises 340

20 | P a g e

4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

340

4.83.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between EnterprisesStarted by Self & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives

341

4.83.2 Strength of Association between Enterprises Started by Self& Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

341

4.84 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

342

4.84.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives

343

4.84.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

343

4.85 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise being Entrepreneur’sFirst Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth asOne of Enterprises’ Objectives

344

4.85.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprisebeing Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

344

4.85.2Strength of Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

345

4.86 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Entrepreneurs Highest Educational Level

346

4.87 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives

347

4.87.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

347

4.87.2Strength of Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growthas One of Enterprises’ Objectives

348

4.88 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business

348

4.89 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

349

4.90 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Most Available Source of Funding

350

4.91F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Enterprises with and withouthaving Sales Growth as One of their Enterprises’ Objectives

351

4.92 Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth 359

21 | P a g e

4.93 Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5Years as a Cumulative Percentage

360

5 Findings & Conclusions 361

5.1 Findings 361

5.2 Conclusions 382

6 Bibliography/References 401

A Appendices 422

A.1 Questionnaire used for data collection 422

22 | P a g e

List of FiguresFig. No. Title of Figure Page No.

1.1 Products of MSMEs 31




1.7 Types of Entrepreneurs 45

1.10.1.5 Maslow’s Need Hierarchy 57

1.10.2 McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory 58

1.17.5.2 Ansoff matrix of Product/Market 76





4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture 169








4.37 Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees (IncludingEntrepreneur)

191







4.66 Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh 273


4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises 288


4.74 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)

331


23 | P a g e

List of Tables

Tab.No.

Title of Table PageNo.

1.1.1 Profile of Indian MSME Sector 32




1.2 Official Definition of MSMEs in India 37

4.1 Year of Establishment 149


4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age 150


4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

151

4.5.1Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

152

4.5.2Strength of association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

152


4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self 154

4.8Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture

156

4.9Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training

157

4.10 Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs 158


4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs

160

4.12.1Hypothesis testing for association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs

161

4.12.2Strength of association between Independence forCategory of Entrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs

161

4.13 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &Entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture

162

4.13.1Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture

163

4.13.2Strength of Association between Independence forCategory of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture

163

4.14 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category of 164

24 | P a g e

Entrepreneurs

4.15 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs

165

4.15.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs

165

4.15.2Strength of Association between Independence for AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs

166

4.16 Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs 167

4.17 Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs 168

4.18Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First EntrepreneurialVenture

169

4.19 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

169

4.19.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

170

4.19.2Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

171

4.20 Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs 171


4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self &Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

173

4.22.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training

173

4.22.2Strength of Association between Independence for StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training

174

4.23 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

174

4.23.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

175

4.23.2Strength of Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

176

4.24 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training

176

4.24.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training

177

4.24.2Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training

177

25 | P a g e

4.25Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & EnterpriseStarted by Self

178

4.26Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Sex ofEntrepreneurs

179

4.27Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture

180

4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training

180

4.28.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training

181

4.28.2Strength of Association between Independence for BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training

182

4.29Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training toEntrepreneurs

182


4.31Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground

184

4.31.1T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground

185






4.37Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)

191

4.38Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, orTrained (or Educated) as Engineers or Scientists

192


4.39.1 T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship 198

4.40F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Entrepreneurs who startedenterprises themselves and who did not

202

4.41F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh

205

4.42Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise

206

4.42.1T Test for Availability of Outside Funding / Financing atthe Time of Starting the Enterprise

207



26 | P a g e

4.45Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding

211

4.46Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them

212

4.47Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding forthem

212

4.48Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them

213

4.49Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for Them

214

4.50Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them

215

4.51Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for them

216

4.52F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Categories of Number ofAvailability of Sources of Funding

219


4.54Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & MostAvailable Source of Funding

222

4.55 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding 222

4.56Enterprise being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Most Available Source ofFunding

223

4.57Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & MostAvailable Source of Funding

224

4.58Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Most AvailableSource of Funding

225

4.59Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most AvailableSource of Funding

226

4.60Most Available Source of Funding & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for them

227

4.61F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Types of Most AvailableSource of Funding

230

4.62 Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 232

4.62.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 232


4.63.1 T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 236


4.64.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables 261

4.65Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about TheirEnterprises

265

4.65.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about 269

27 | P a g e

Their Enterprises

4.66Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in UttarPradesh

272

4.66.1T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEsin Uttar Pradesh

275


4.67.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 278

4.68 Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry 280

4.68.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry 283

4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises

287

4.69.1 T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficultiesfor Enterprises

294

4.70 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh

301

4.71 Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment 304

4.71.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about ExternalEnvironment

307


4.72.1T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment

317

4.73Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterpriseand at Present

321

4.73 (a)Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise

323

4.73.1Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise

329

4.74Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits)

331

4.75Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

332

4.76Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

332

4.77Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

334

4.78Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Personal (Gross)Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

335

4.79Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

337

4.80Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding

338

4.81Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Most AvailableSource of Funding

339

28 | P a g e


4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

341

4.83.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between EnterprisesStarted by Self & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives

341

4.83.2Strength of Association between Enterprises Started bySelf & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives

342

4.84 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

342

4.84.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives

343

4.84.2Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

343

4.85 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

344

4.85.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprisebeing Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

345

4.85.2Strength of Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

345

4.86Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Entrepreneurs Highest Educational Level

346

4.87 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives

347

4.87.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

347

4.87.2Strength of Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growthas One of Enterprises’ Objectives

348

4.88Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business

349

4.89Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

350

4.90Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Most Available Source of Funding

350

4.14

F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Enterprises with and withouthaving Sales Growth as One of their Enterprises’Objectives

358

29 | P a g e

4.92 Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth 359

4.93Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5Years as a Cumulative Percentage

360

30 | P a g e

List of Acronyms

Acronyms Meaning

DICs District Industries Centres

DRDA District Rural Development Agency

FG Financial Goals

FR Financial Resources

FT Financial Tools

GDP Gross Domestic Product

IRDP Integrated Rural Development Programme

LSEs Large Scale Entrepreneurs

MSMEs Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

n-ach Achievement Motivation

n-affil Affiliation Motivation

n-pow Power Motivation

PMRY Pradhaan Mantree Rozgaar Yojanaa

R & D Research & Development

REGP Rural Employment Guarantee Programme

SGSY Swarnajayantee Graam Swarozgaar Yojanaa

SIDO Small Industries Development Organisation

SISI Small Industries Service Institute

SSEs Small Scale Entrepreneurs

SSIDC State Small Industries Development Corporations

SSIs Small Scale Industries

SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunity & Threat

TRYSEM Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment

31 | P a g e

1. Introduction1.1 Preliminary

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in India constitute an

important segment of Indian economy with various types of product segmented in

pie chart given in Figure: 1.1. The MSMEs are dominant players in some of

India’s major export sectors namely textiles and garments, leather products, sports

goods, gems and jewellery, handicrafts among others. They also contribute

substantially in industrial goods segments in sectors such as electrical,

engineering, rubber and plastics. The products of MSMEs have been depicted in

Figure: 1.1.

Figure: 1.1; Products of MSMEs

Source: - Final Report of the Fourth All India Census of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises 2006-07:Registered Sector

32 | P a g e

“According to the quick result of the Fourth All India

Census of MSMEs (2006-07), there are 26 million MSMEs in

India which provides employment to about 60 million people.

The sector contributes about 40 % GDP, beside 45% to the

total manufacturing output and 40 % to the exports from the

country. There could be many opportunities identification

hidden inside the challenges for small business concerns.”1

1.1.1 Profile of Indian MSME Sector

From the Table: 1.1.1, it may be seen that there are 130 Lakhs of MSMEs

which provides employment to 130 Lakhs peoples. Besides that the contribution

of MSMEs alone has been greater than 8% to GDP and 45% to Industrial

production. It is also the second largest provider of employment after agriculture.

MSMEs also contribute to 40% of total exports directly and a significant amount

of exports indirectly through large trading houses or third parties.

Table: 1.1.1; Profile of Indian MSME Sector

S. No. Particular Value

1 Number of micro and small enterprises 130 Lakhs

2 Employment 410 Lakhs

3 Share in GDP 8-9%

4 Share in manufacturing output 45%

5 Share in exports 40%

Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html

1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units

From Table: 1.1.2 and Figure: 1.1.2 it may be seen that till Financial Year

2006 Registered MEMEs was 19 Lakhs and Unregistered MSMEs was 108 Lakhs

1Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Opportunities and Challenges in Small Business in the Indian Economy”

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanities (ISSN 2277 – 9809), Volume 4 Issue1 p. 581

33 | P a g e

and trend shows increase of 1 Lakh Registered MSMEs and around 4 Lakhs

Unregistered MEMEs in each succeeding Financial Year.

Table: 1.1.2; Growth in Number of MSME Units

Financial YearRegistered(In Lakhs)

Unregistered(In Lakhs)

Total(In Lakhs)

FY’ 03 16 93 109

FY’04 17 97 114

FY’05 18 100 119

FY’06 19 104 123

FY’07 (Provisional) 20 108 128


Figure: 1.1.2; Growth in Number of MSME Units

Growth in Number of MSME Units

1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs


2006 employed people in MSMEs were 300 Lakhs and trend shows an increase of

employment for 12.2 Lakhs people in each succeeding Financial Year.

16 17 18 19 20

93 97 100 104 108109 114 119 123 128

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Registered (In Lakhs)

Unregistered (In Lakhs)

Total (In Lakhs)

34 | P a g e

Table: 1.1.3; Total Employment in MSMEs

Financial Year Employment (In Lakhs)

FY’ 03 263.7

FY’04 275.3

FY’05 287.6

FY’06 300.0

FY’07 (Provisional) 312.5


Figure: 1.1.3; Total Employment in MSMEs

1.1.4 Production by MSMEs


2006 Production by MSMEs were worth Rs. 3,14,850 Crores and trend shows an

increase of Production by MSMEs of Rs. 68087.5 Crores in each succeeding

Financial Year.

Table: 1.1.4; Production by MSMEs

Financial Year Production (Rs. Crores)

0

263.7 275.3 287.6 300 312.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Total Employment (In Lakhs) by MSMEs

Total Employment (In Lakhs)by MSMEs

35 | P a g e

FY’ 03 314850

FY’04 364550

FY’05 429800

FY’06 497840

FY’07 P 587200


Figure: 1.1.4; Production by MSMEs

1.1.5 Administrative Framework for MSMEs

Government of India has set up a new governing body for promotion and

development of Micro, Medium and Small Scale Enterprises via “Micro, Small

and Medium Enterprises Development Act”, which came into force from 2nd

October, 2006. The President under Notification dated 9th May, 2007 amended the

Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. by which, Ministry of

Agro and Rural Industries (Krishi Evam Gramin Udyog Mantralaya) and Ministry

of Small Scale Industries (Laghu Udyog Mantralaya) have been merged into a

single Ministry, namely, “Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises”. The

Ministry of “Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises” (MSME) is the

administrative Ministry in the Government of India for all matters relating to

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. It designs and implements policies and

programmes through its field organizations and attached offices for promotion and

0

314850364550

429800497840

587200

0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000

Production (Rs. Crores) by MSMEs

Production (Rs. Crores) byMSMEs

36 | P a g e

growth of MSME sector. The Office of the Development Commissioner (MSME)

is an attached office of the Ministry of MSME, and is the apex body to advise,

coordinate and formulate policies and programmes for the development and

promotion of the MSME Sector. The office also maintains liaison with Central

Ministries and other Central/State Government agencies/organizations financial

institutions.

1.1.6 MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh being topmost state in terms of population and being poor

seeks govt. attention to provide employment to the people of state

“Uttar Pradesh has developed several schemes for

the development of Small Scale Industries such as

Transport Assistance Scheme, Technology Up-Gradation

Scheme, and Single Table System for providing prompt

and quick solutions to the entrepreneurs in the state.

Besides this, the state has also implemented Market

Development Assistance Scheme to facilitate marketing of

products of Khadi and Village Industries.”2

(As per Final Report of the Fourth All India Census of Micro, Small & MediumEnterprises 2006-07: Registered Sector)

There are 1.88 Lakhs working MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh which constitutes

12% of total Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh is 3rd largest state in India (following

Tamil Nadu with 14.95% and Gujarat with 14.70% share) in terms of MSMEs

share.

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, provides employment to 7.55 Lakhs people which

constitutes 8.11% of total employment provided by Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh

is 5th largest state in India (following Tamil Nadu with 15.32%, Gujarat with

13.37%, Maharashtra with 11.70% and Karnataka with 8.48% share) in terms of

total employment by Indian MSMEs.

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, gives output of Rs. 74065.17 Crores which

constitutes 10.47% of total output of Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh is 2nd largest

2Jainendra Kumar Verma, An Exploratory Study of Entrepreneurial Success Factors in Uttar Pradesh

International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology (ISSN 2250 – 1959) Volume 4 Issue 2

37 | P a g e

state in India (following Karnataka with 15.65% share) in terms of total output of

Indian MSMEs.

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, employs fixed assets of Rs 33666.01 Crores

which constitutes 7.50% of total fixed assets employed by Indian MSMEs. Uttar

Pradesh is 4th largest state in India (following Gujarat with 33.81% share

Maharashtra with 12.10%, and Tamil Nadu with 9.64% share) in terms of total

fixed assets employed by Indian MSMEs.

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, has investment in plant & machinery of Rs

4829.37 Crores which constitutes 4.60% of total investment in plant & machinery

in Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh is 4th largest state in India (following Gujarat

with 40.09% share Maharashtra with 11.79%, and Tamil Nadu with 10.58%

share) in terms of total investment in plant & machinery by Indian MSMEs.

Data given above implies that Uttar Pradesh state is in overall a major

constituent of Indian MSMEs. It seeks attention to study the entrepreneurship in

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in depth. So that low employment, less investment in

fixed assets and plant & machinery, high rate of untraced MSMEs despite of huge

output can be studied and the solution of related problems could be found out.

1.2 Official Definition of MSMEs in India

Operating official definition of MSMEs in India for the time being in force:

In terms of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006

enterprises are classified into two categories:

1. manufacturing; and

2. those engaged in providing/rendering of services.

Both categories of enterprises have been further classified into micro, small,

medium and large enterprises based on their investment in plant and machinery

(for manufacturing enterprises) or on equipments (in case of enterprises providing

or rendering services). The present ceiling on investment to be classified as

micro, small or medium enterprises has been given in Table: 1.2

Table: 1.2; Official Definition of MSMEs in India

Manufacturing Sector

38 | P a g e

Enterprises Investment in plant & machinery

Micro Enterprises Does not exceed twenty five Lakh Rupees

Small Enterprises More than twenty five Lakh Rupees but doesnot exceed five Crore Rupees

MediumEnterprises

More than five Crore Rupees but does notexceed ten Crore Rupees

Service Sector

Enterprises Investment in equipments

Micro Enterprises Does not exceed ten Lakh Rupees

Small Enterprises More than ten Lakh Rupees but does notexceed two Crore rupees

MediumEnterprises

More than two Crore Rupees but does notexceed five Crore Rupees

1.3 Concept of Entrepreneurship

The word entrepreneurship has been derived from a French root which means "to

undertake". It is also called by various names, e.g. adventurism, risk-taking, thrill

seeking, innovating, etc.

Entrepreneurship is the dynamic process of creating

incremental wealth. The wealth is created by individuals

who assume the major risks in terms of equity, time, and/or

career commitment to provide value for some product or

service. The product or service may or may not be new or

unique, but the entrepreneur must somehow infuse value

by receiving and bundling the necessary skills and

resources.3

.1.3.1 Meaning of Entrepreneurship

The concept of entrepreneurship is understood as a combination of creativity

and innovation. It is a stance taken within the business applying inherent creativity

as the act of 'thinking of' new things. It involves coming up with innovative ideas

3 Robert C. Ronstadt, Entrepreneurship (Dover, MA: Lord Publishing Co., 1984), p. 28

39 | P a g e

and trying out new methods within the operations. The concept of

entrepreneurship is also concerned with new ways of looking at opportunities and

identifying a new approach towards solving problems.

Entrepreneurship requires the entrepreneur to shift paradigms and do away

with old assumptions and perspectives. The entrepreneur basically adopts

techniques to stimulate creativity amongst employees.

The concept of entrepreneurship involves the consideration of a number of

opportunities to enhance employee performance and business profits. The

entrepreneur is expected to imply strategic planning to assess if the opportunities

provided for growth are worthwhile and how they could be successfully exploited.

Strategic planning is an essential part of the concept of entrepreneurship and

effective application helps to ensure successful operation. It is a useful tool within

the sphere of influence of entrepreneurship and serves a niche market for

improving on the business performance. The concept of entrepreneurship involves

the owner taking absolute responsibility of empowering the employees and in

turn, affecting sales and profitability of the business.

Entrepreneur traits, creativity, innovation, business planning and growth

management are five of the main concepts of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship – is the act of being an entrepreneur or "one who

undertakes innovations, finance and business acumen in an effort to transform

innovations into economic goods". This may result in new organizations or may

be part of revitalizing mature organizations in response to a perceived opportunity.

The most obvious form of entrepreneurship is that of starting new businesses

(referred as Start-up Company); however, in recent years, the term has been

extended to include social and political forms of entrepreneurial activity. When

entrepreneurship is describing activities within a firm or large organization it is

referred to as intra-preneurship and may include corporate venturing, when large

entities spin-off organizations. (Shane, Scott "A General Theory of

Entrepreneurship: the Individual-Opportunity Nexus", Edward Elgar, 2003)

‘A systematic innovation, which consists in the purposeful and organized

search for changes, and it is the systematic analysis of the

opportunities such changes might offer for economic and social innovation.’

40 | P a g e

--Peter Drucker

1.3.2 Definitions of Entrepreneurship

According to Higgins, "Entrepreneurship is meant the function of seeking

investment and production opportunity, organizing an enterprise to undertake a

new production process, raising capital, hiring labour, arranging the supply of raw

materials, finding site, introducing a new technique and commodities, discovering

new sources of raw materials and selecting top managers of day-to-day operations

of the enterprise”.

Jaffrey A. Timmons has defined entrepreneurship as "the ability to create

and build something from practically nothing. Fundamentally, a human creative

activity, it is finding personal energy by initiating, building and achieving an

enterprise or organization rather than by watching, analyzing or describing one. It

requires the ability to take calculated risk and to reduce the chance of failure….."

According to A. H. Cole "entrepreneurship is the purposeful activity of an

individual or a group of associated individuals, undertaken to initiate, maintain or

aggrandize profit by production or distribution of economic goods and services."

Entrepreneurship is the process of creating

something new with value by devoting the necessary time

and effort; assuming the accompanying financial, psychic,

and social risks and uncertainties; and receiving the

resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction.4

1.3.3 Basic Characteristics of an Entrepreneur

Entrepreneurial creativity requires a paradigm shift and there are many

techniques available to help the entrepreneur to see things in a different

perspective, to come up with new ideas. Innovation involves implementing newly

created ideas and the process can be classified as invention, extension, duplication

and synthesis. Strategic planning is used to assess the entrepreneur's position in

external/internal environments, to identify key success factors/competencies and

to implement a strategy. Fin ally, the issue of growth management requires the

entrepreneur to settle on what size of company he is happy with, how much direct

4 This definition is modified from the definition first developed for the woman entrepreneur. See Robert D.Hisrich and Candida G. Brush, The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, Financing, and Managing a SuccessfulNew Business (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985), p. 18.

41 | P a g e

control is afforded to him and how entrepreneurial spirit can be retained in a

growing business.

However the main characteristics of entrepreneurs may be enlisted as

follows:

1. Ability to deal with a series of tough issues

2. Ability to create solutions and work to perfect them

3. Can handle many tasks simultaneously

4. Resiliency in the face of set –backs

5. Willingness to work hard and not expect easy solutions

6. Possess well-developed problem solving skills

7. Ability to learn and acquire the necessary skills for the tasks at hand

1.4 Entrepreneurial Action

Entrepreneurial action is the act of seeking benefit by the exploiting

available or recognised opportunity.

Entrepreneurial action refers to behaviour in

response to a judgmental decision under uncertainty about

a possible opportunity for profit.5

1.5 Entrepreneurial Process

Entrepreneurial process refer to all the stages of entrepreneurship by which

entrepreneur attains or tend to attain his/her objectives.

“The process of creating something new with value

by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the

accompanying financial, psychic, and social risks and

uncertainties, and receiving the resulting rewards of

monetary and personal satisfaction”.6

1.5.1 Aspects of the Entrepreneurial Process

Entrepreneurial process has 4 stages which have been given in Table: 1.5.1.

Table: 1.5.1; Aspects of the Entrepreneurial Process

5 Robert D. Hisrich Michael P Peters and Dean A Shephered, Entrepreneurship (7th Edition), New Delhi, TataMcGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited

6 ibid

42 | P a g e

Identify andEvaluatethe Opportunity

• Opportunity

assessment

• Creation and

length of

opportunity

• Real and

perceived value

of opportunity

• Risk and returns

of opportunity

• Opportunity

versus personal

skills and goals

• Competitive

environment

Develop Business Plan

• Title page

• Table of Contents

• Executive Summary

• Major Section

• Description of

Business

• Description of

Industry

• Technology Plan

• Marketing Plan

• Financial Plan

• Production Plan

• Organization Plan

• Operational Plan

• Summary

• Appendixes (Exhibits)

ResourcesRequired

• Determine

resources

needed

• Determine

existing

resources

• Identify

resource

gaps and

available

suppliers

• Develop

access to

needed

resources

Manage theEnterprise

• Develop

management

style

• Understand key

variables for

success

• Identify

problems and

potential

problems

• Implement

control systems

• Develop growth

strategy

1.6 Entrepreneur

The one, who recognises business opportunity, initiate, enterprise,

coordinates factors of production and most importantly assumes risk of outcome

of the business opportunity.

“Entrepreneur is an individual who takes initiative

to bundle resources in innovative ways and is willing to

bear the risk and/or uncertainty to act”.7

“Although being an entrepreneur means different

things to different people, there is agreement that we are

talking about a kind of behaviour that includes: (1)

initiative taking, (2) the organizing and reorganizing of

social and economic mechanisms to bundle resources in

7 ibid

43 | P a g e

innovative ways, and (3) the acceptance of risk,

uncertainty and/or the potential for failure”.8

1.6.1 Functions of Entrepreneurs

An entrepreneur is an opportunity seeker. He is also the organizer and

coordinator of the agents of production. He has to execute many a good functions

while establishing a small scale enterprise. He not only perceives the business

opportunities but also mobilizes the other resources like 5 M’s: man, money,

machine, materials and methods. However, the main functions of the

entrepreneurs are discussed below.

1.6.1.1 Idea Generation

This is the most important function of the entrepreneur. Idea generation can

be possible through the vision, insight, observation, experience, education,

training and exposure of the entrepreneur. Idea generation precisely implies

product selection and project identification. Ideas can be generated through

environmental scanning and market survey. It is the function of the entrepreneurs

to generate as many ideas as he can for the purpose of selecting the best business

opportunities which can subsequently be taken up by him as a commercially -

viable business venture.

1.6.1.2 Determination of Objectives

The next function of the entrepreneur is to determine and lay down the

objectives of the business, which should be spelt out on clear terms. In other

words, entrepreneur should be very much clear about the following things: (i) The

nature of business and (ii) The type of business. This implies whether the

enterprise belongs to the category of a manufacturing concern or a service -

oriented unit or a trading business, so that the entrepreneurs can very well carry on

the venture in accordance with the objectives determined by him.

1.6.1.3 Raising Funds

Fund raising is the most important function of an entrepreneur. All the

activities of a business depend upon the finance and its proper management. It is

the responsibility of the entrepreneur to raise funds internally as well as

8 Albert Shapero, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development (Wisconsin: Project ISEED, LTD, TheCenter for Venture Management, Summer 1975), p. 187.

44 | P a g e

externally. In this matter, he should be aware of the different sources of funds and

the formalities to raise funds. He should have the full knowledge of different

government sponsored schemes such as PMRY, SGSY, REGP, etc. by which he

can get Government assistance in the form of seed capital, fixed and working

capital for his business.

1.6.1.4 Procurement of Raw Materials

Another important function of the entrepreneur is to procure raw materials.

Entrepreneur has to identify the cheap and regular sources of supply of raw

materials, which will help him to reduce the cost of production and face the

competition boldly.

1.6.1.5 Procurement of Machinery

The next function of the entrepreneurs is to procure the machineries and

equipments for establishment of the venture. While procuring the machineries, he

should specify the following details:

1. The details of technology

2. Installed capacity of the machines

3. Names of the manufacturers and suppliers

4. Whether the machines are indigenously made or foreign made

5. After-sales service facilities

6. Warranty period of the machineries

All these details are to be minutely observed by the entrepreneurs.

1.6.1.6 Market Research

The next important function of the entrepreneur is market research and

product analysis. Market research is the systematic collection of data regarding the

product which the entrepreneur wants to manufacture. Entrepreneur has to

undertake market research persistently in order to know the details of the

intending product, i.e. the demand for the product, the supply of the product, the

price of the product, the size of the customers, etc. while starting an enterprise.

1.6.1.7 Determination of Form of Enterprise

The function of an entrepreneur in determining the form of enterprise is also

important. Entrepreneur h as to decide the form of enterprise based upon the

45 | P a g e

nature of the product, volume of investment, nature of activities, types of product,

quality of product, quality of human resources, etc. The chief forms of ownership

organizations are sole proprietorship, partnership, Joint Stock Company and

cooperative society. Determination of ownership right is essential on the part of

the entrepreneur to acquire legal title to assets.

1.6.1.8 Recruitment of Manpower

Entrepreneur has to perform the following activities while undertaking this

function:

1. Estimating manpower need of the organization

2. Laying down of selection procedure

3. Devising scheme of compensation

4. Laying down the rules of training and development

1.6.1.9 Implementation of the Project

Entrepreneur has to work on the implementation schedule or the action plan

of the project. The identified project is to be implemented in a time –bound

manner. All the activities from the conception stage to the commissioning stage

are to be accomplished by him in accordance with the implementation schedule to

avoid cost and time overrun, as well as competition. Thus, implementation of the

project is an important function of the entrepreneur.

To conclude with, all these functions of the entrepreneur can precisely be

put in to the following categories:

1. Innovation

2. Risk bearing

3. Organization and

4. Management

1.7 Types of Entrepreneurs

Figure: 1.7 gives classification of entrepreneurs on the basis of certain

dimensions. Theses classification has been discussed below:

Figure: 1.7; Types of Entrepreneurs

46 | P a g e

1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs

Clarence Danhof classifies entrepreneurs into following four types:

1.7.1.1 Innovative

Innovative entrepreneur is one who assembles and synthesis information and

introduces new combinations of factors of production. They are characterized by

the smell of innovativeness. These entrepreneurs sense the opportunities for

introduction new ideas new technology, new markets and creating new

organizations. Innovative entrepreneurs are very much helpful for their country

because they bring about a transformation in life style.

1.7.1.2 Imitative/ Adoptive

Imitative entrepreneur is also known as adoptive entrepreneur. He simply

adopts successful innovation introduced by other innovators. These entrepreneurs

IClarenceDanhof's

Classification

Aggressive/Innovative

Imitative/Adoptive

Fabian

Drone

IIArthur H.

Cole'sClassification

46 | P a g e



1.7.1.1 Innovative










Entrepreneur

IIArthur H.

Cole'sClassification

Empirical

Rational

Cognitive

IIIOn the Basis

of Ownership

Private

Public

IVOn the basisof Scale ofEnterprise

Micro

Small

Medium

Large

46 | P a g e



1.7.1.1 Innovative










IVOn the basisof Scale ofEnterprise

VOn the basis

of Sector

Manufacturing

Service

Hybrid

47 | P a g e

imitate the existing entrepreneurs and setup their enterprise in the same manner.

Instead of innovating, they just imitate the technology and methods innovated by

others. These entrepreneurs are very helpful in less developed countries as they

contribute significantly in the growth of enterprise and entrepreneurial culture in

these countries. Further by adopting the technology, which is already tested, they

generate ample employment avenues for the youth and therefore they are treated

as agent of economic development.

1.7.1.3 Fabian

The Fabian entrepreneur is timid and cautious. He imitates other innovations

only if he is certain that failure to do so may damage his business. They are very

much skeptical in their approach in adopting or innovating new technology in

their enterprise. They are not adaptable to the changing environment. They love to

remain in the existing business with the age –old techniques of production. They

only adopt the new technology when they realize that failure to adopt will lead to

loss or collapse of the enterprise.

1.7.1.4 Drone

These entrepreneurs are conservative or orthodox in outlook. They never

like to get rid of their traditional business and traditional machinery or systems of

the business. They always feel comfortable with their old fashioned technology of

production even though the environment as well as the society have undergone

considerable changes. Thus, drone entrepreneurs refuse to adopt the changes.

They are laggards as they continue to operate in their traditional way and resist

changes. His entrepreneurial activity may be restricted to just one or two

innovations. They refuse to adopt changes in production even at the risk of

reduced returns.

1.7.2 Arthur H. Cole’s Classification of Entrepreneurs

Arthur H. Cole classifies entrepreneurs as follows:

1.7.2.1 Empirical

He/she is an entrepreneur hardly introduces anything revolutionary and

follows the principle of rule of thumb.

1.7.2.2 Rational

48 | P a g e

The rational entrepreneur is well informed about the general economic

conditions and introduces changes which look more revolutionary.

1.7.2.3 Cognitive

Cognitive entrepreneur is well informed, draws upon the advice and services

of experts and introduces changes that reflect complete break from the existing

scheme of enterprise.

1.7.3 Classification of Entrepreneurs on the Basis of Ownership

On the basis of ownership entrepreneurs may be classified as follows:

1.7.3.1 Private

Private entrepreneur is motivated by profit and it would not enter those

sectors of the economy in which prospects of monetary rewards are not very

bright.

1.7.3.2 Public

When enterprise is substantially owned by government or its any

organisation/institution then that enterprise is called public enterprise. And the

government or its any entity becomes public entrepreneur.

1.7.4 Classification of Entrepreneurs Based on the Scale of Enterprise

On the basis of scale of operations entrepreneurs may be classified into

following two categories.

1.7.4.1 Micro, Small and Medium Scale Entrepreneurs (MSMSEs)

This classification is especially popular in the underdeveloped countries.

MSMSEs or sometimes referred as Small Scale Entrepreneurs (SSEs) are

determined with the rules and regulations time being in force and they are entitles

and privileged with certain benefits and facilities in their interest by government

and its agencies. MSMSEs usually lack the necessary talents and resources to

initiate large scale production and introduce revolutionary technological changes.

1.7.4.2 Large Scale Entrepreneurs (LSEs)

In the developed countries most entrepreneurs deal with large scale

enterprises. These LSEs possess the financial and necessary enterprise to initiate

49 | P a g e

and introduce new technical changes. The result is the developed countries are

able to sustain and develop a high level of technical progress.

1.7.5 Other Classification of Entrepreneurs

In recent years, some new classifications have been made regarding

entrepreneurs. Following are some more types of entrepreneurs listed by some

other behavioural scientists:

1.7.5.1 Solo Operators

These entrepreneurs prefer to set up their business individually. They

introduce their own capital, intellect and business acumen to run the enterprise

successfully. They operate their business mainly in the form of proprietorship type

of concern.

1.7.5.2 Active Partners

Entrepreneurs of this type jointly put their efforts to build enterprise pooling

together their own resources. They actively participate in managing the daily

routine of the business concern. As such, the business houses or the firms which

are managed by the active partners become more successful in their operation.

1.7.5.3 Inventors

These entrepreneurs primarily involve themselves in Research &

Development (R & D) activities. They are creative in character and feel happy in

inventing new products, technologies and methods of production.

1.7.5.4 Challengers

Entrepreneurs of this type take challenges to establish business venture as

mark of achievement. They keep on improving their standard and face boldly the

odds and adversities that come in their way. They use their business acumen and

talent to convert the odds into opportunities thereby making profit. According to

them, if there is no challenge in life, there is no charm in life. Challenges make

them bold, and thus, they never hesitate to plunge themselves into uncertainties

for earning profit.

1.7.5.5 Buyers (Entrepreneurs)

These entrepreneurs explore opportunities to purchase the existing units

which may be seized or are in running condition. If the units they purchase are

50 | P a g e

sick they turn them around using their experiences, expertise and business

acumen. By purchasing these units they make themselves free from the hassles of

building infrastructures and other facilities.

1.7.5.6 Life Timers

These entrepreneurs believe that business is the part and parcel of their life.

They take up the business to reunite successfully as a matter of ego satisfaction.

They have a strong desire for taking personal responsibility. Family enterprises

which thrive due to high personal skill are included under this category.

1.8 Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Development

Recent studies emphasize entrepreneurship as a driver of economic

development and some authors include entrepreneurship as a fourth production

factor in the macroeconomic production function (Audretsch and Keilbach 2004).

Entrepreneurship is the factor that creates wealth by combining existing

production factors in new ways. Entrepreneurs experiment with new combinations

of which the outcomes are uncertain, but in order to make progress, many new

variations have to be tried in order to find out which ones will improve economic

life (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986).

The major roles played by an entrepreneur in the economic development of

an economy in various ways.

1.8.1 Promotes Capital Formation

Entrepreneurs promote capital formation by mobilising the idle savings of

public. They employ their own as well as borrowed resources for setting up their

enterprises. Such types of entrepreneurial activities lead to value addition and

creation of wealth, which is very essential for the industrial and economic

development of the country.

1.8.2 Creates Large-Scale Employment Opportunities

Entrepreneurs provide immediate large -scale employment to the

unemployed which is a chronic problem of underdeveloped nations. With the

setting up of more and more units by entrepreneurs, both on small and large -scale

numerous job opportunities are created for others. As time passes, these

enterprises grow, providing direct and indirect employment opportunities to many

51 | P a g e

more. In this way, entrepreneurs play an effective role in reducing the problem of

unemployment in the country which in turn clears the path towards economic

development of the nation.

1.8.3 Promotes Balanced Regional Development

Entrepreneurs help to remove regional disparities through setting up of

industries in less developed and backward areas. The growth of industries and

business in these areas lead to a large number of public benefits like road

transport, health, education, entertainment, etc. Setting up of more industries lead

to mo re development of backward regions and thereby promotes balanced

regional development.

1.8.4 Reduces Concentration of Economic Power

Economic power is the natural outcome of industrial and business activity.

Industrial development normally leads to concentration of economic power in the

hands of a few individuals which results in the growth of monopolies. In order to

redress this problem a large number of entrepreneurs need to be developed, which

will help reduce the concentration of economic power amongst the population.

1.8.5 Wealth Creation and Distribution

It stimulates equitable redistribution of wealth and income in the interest of

the country to more people and geographic areas, thus giving benefit to larger

sections of the society. Entrepreneurial activities also generate more activities and

give a multiplier effect in the economy.

1.8.6 Increasing Gross National Product and Per Capita Income

Entrepreneurs are always on the look-out for opportunities. They explore

and exploit opportunities, encourage effective resource mobilisation of capital and

skill, bring in new products and services and develops markets for growth of the

economy. In this way, they help increasing gross national product as well as per

capita income of the people in a country. Increase in gross national product and

per capita income of the people in a country, is a sign of economic growth.

1.8.7 Improvement in the Standard of Living

Increase in the standard of living of the people is a characteristic feature of

economic development of the country. Entrepreneurs play a key role in increasing

52 | P a g e

the standard of living of the people by adopting latest innovations in the

production of wide variety of goods and services in large scale that too at a lower

cost. This enables the people to avail better quality goods at lower prices which

results in the improvement of their standard of living.

1.8.8 Promotes Country's Export Trade

Entrepreneurs help in promoting a country's export -trade, which is an

important ingredient of economic development. They produce goods and services

in large scale for the purpose earning huge amount of foreign exchange from

export in order to combat the import dues requirement. Hence import substitution

and export promotion ensure economic independence and development.

1.8.9 Induces Backward and Forward Linkages

Entrepreneurs like to work in an environment of change and try to maximise

profits by innovation. When an enterprise is established in accordance with the

changing technology, it induces backward and forward linkages which stimulate

the process of economic development in the country.

1.8.10 Facilitates Overall Development

Entrepreneurs act as catalytic agent for change which results in chain

reaction. Once an enterprise is established, the process of industrialisation is se t

in motion. This unit will generate demand for various types of units required by it

and there will be so many other units which require the output of this unit. This

leads to overall development of an area due to increase in demand and setting up

of more and more units. In this way, the entrepreneurs multiply their

entrepreneurial activities, thus creating an environment of enthusiasm and

conveying an impetus for overall development of the area.

Entrepreneurship is not always contributor to economic development,

sometimes it may be detrimental onomic development also.

“There are various ways in which entrepreneurship

is identified to have negative (adverse) impact on the

economic development of India, thus not all types of

entrepreneurship are good for economic development. As

a consequence there has even been an argument for a tax

on entrepreneurship... The most salient adverse effects of

53 | P a g e

entrepreneurship can be due to either: (a) perverse

allocation towards activities that are personally profitable

but socially destructive or unproductive; and (b) low

quality entrepreneurship that may have negative

externalities.”9

1.9 Rural Entrepreneurship

1.9.1 Meaning of Rural Entrepreneurship

Rural entrepreneurship is that entrepreneurship which ensures value addition

to rural resources in rural areas engaging largely rural human resources. Rural

entrepreneurs are those who carry out entrepreneurial activities by establishing

industrial and business units in the rural sector of the economy. In other words,

establishing industrial and business units in the rural areas refers to rural

entrepreneurship. In simple words, rural entrepreneurship implies

entrepreneurship emerging in rural areas. Or, say, rural entrepreneurship implies

rural industrialization. Thus, we can say, entrepreneurship precedes

industrialization.

1.9.2 Need for Rural Entrepreneurship

The need for rural entrepreneurship in rural areas is embedded with

multiplicity of justifications as listed below:

1. Rural industries, being labour intensive, have high potential in

employment generation.

2. Rural industries have high potential for income generation in rural areas.

3. These industries encourage dispersal of economic activities in the rural

areas and, thus, promote balanced regional development.

4. Rural entrepreneurship builds up village republic.

5. Rural enterprises protect and promote the art and creativity, i.e., the age -

old heritage of the country.

9Jainendra Kumar Verma, Impact of Entrepreneurship on Economic Development in India: A Critical Study, Indian

Journal of New Dimensions (ISSN: 2277-9876), Vol. III, Issue-1, p.130

54 | P a g e

6. Rural industrialization curbs rural -urban migration, lessens the

disproportionate growth, reduces growth of slums, social tensions and

atmospheric pollution.

7. Rural industries being environment friendly lead to the development

without destruction.

1.9.3 Problems of Rural Entrepreneurship

Rural entrepreneurship has its own drawbacks. Policies such as keeping of

land in protection when there is already an over production and pricing subsidy

policies that helps to retain the minimum income are two of the greatest threats to

rural development. Due to the remote access and unavailability of knowledgeable

labour, it is difficult to advise the local entrepreneurs who are willing to take risk.

Access to capital labour, commercial markets and the managerial staff are

hindered due to the remote locations.

The major problems faced in developing entrepreneurship in rural areas are:

I. Lack of infrastructural facilities.

II. Non-supportive attitude of financial institutions which works more on pa

pers. The procedure to avail the loan facility is so time consuming that its

delay often disappoints the entrepreneurs.

III. Lack of technical know-how.

IV. Lack of communication facilities and market information. Information

technology has penetrated into rural areas through Internet but rural areas

have hardly availed its benefits.

V. Lack of warehousing facilities. The dilapidated condition of industrial

estates proves it and location of these houses hasn't been proper.

VI. Incentives offered are many. Banks do provide concessional loans but

their rules are very rigid. Their reluctance to grant loans for the working

capital adds to the problems of the rural entrepreneurs.

VII. Lack of Quality management.

Thus we see that rural industrialization is important for the country’s

prosperity since India lives in villages. Development of village industries in rural

areas is the solution to alleviate rural poverty. Such industries are an integral part

55 | P a g e

of the village economy and help in the uplift-ment of rural masses through

diversification of their occupational base.

1.9.4 Rural Women Entrepreneurship

According to Khanka (2000), a women entrepreneur is a confident,

innovative and creative woman capable of achieving economic independence

individually or in collaboration generates employment opportunities for others

through initiating establishing and running an enterprise by keeping pace with her

personal, family and social life.

“There are several factors which can initiate

entrepreneurship characteristics among women, basic

Entrepreneurial initiators are: personal motivations,

socio-cultural factors, availability of ease finance,

government schemes support and business

environment.”10

Rural women entrepreneurs’ problem in entrepreneurship is more than rural

me’s problems in operating a venture.

“Rural women entrepreneurs face lots of challenges

like business and family conflict, financial crisis,

illiteracy, low risk bearing capacity, lack of visibility and

leadership, lack of information and assistance, lack of

training and development, mobility constraints, lack of

infrastructure, high level of corruption, male dominated

society etc. which makes their work very difficult and

discouraging.”11

1.10 Entrepreneurial Motivation Theories

Entrepreneurial Motivation means what motivates an Entrepreneur. The

word ‘Motivation’ is derived from Latin word – ‘Movere’ – to move.

Psychologically, it means an inner or environmental stimulus to action, forces or

10 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Micro Enterprise Development in Rural India: A Way of Women’s EconomicEmpowerment” International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science (ISSN 2319 – 9202), Volume4, Issue 1, P.28611 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Challenges and Opportunities for Rural Women Entrepreneurs” InternationalJournal of Research In Commerce, Economics & Management (ISSN: 2231-4245)Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July), p.59

56 | P a g e

the factors that are responsible for initiation, and sustaining behaviour. The

importance of motivation to human life and work can be judged by the number of

theories that have been propounded to explain people’s behaviour. They explain

human motivation through needs and human nature. Prominent among these

theories and particularly relevant to entrepreneurship are Maslow’s Need Hierarchy

Theory and McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory.

1.10.1 Abraham Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory

One of the most widely mentioned theories of motivation is the hierarchy of

needs theory put forth by psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow saw human

needs in the form of a hierarchy (see Figure: 1.10.1.5), ascending from the lowest

to the highest, and he concluded that when one set of needs is satisfied, this kind

of need ceases to be a motivator.

As per his theory these needs are:

1.10.1.1 Physiological Needs

These are important needs for sustaining the human life. Food, water,

warmth, shelter, sleep, medicine and education are the basic physiological needs

which fall in the primary list of need satisfaction. Maslow was of an opinion that

until these needs were satisfied to a degree to maintain life, no other motivating

factors can work.

1.10.1.2 Safety & Security Needs

These are the needs to be free of physical danger and of the fear of losing a

job, property, food or shelter. It also includes protection against any emotional

harm.

1.10.1.3 Love & Belonging Needs

Since people are social beings, they need to belong and be accepted by

others. People try to satisfy their need for affection, acceptance and friendship.

1.10.1.4 Esteem Needs

According to Maslow, once people begin to satisfy their need to belong,

they tend to want to be held in esteem both by themselves and by others. This kind

of need produces such satisfaction as power, prestige status and self -confidence.

57 | P a g e

It includes both internal esteem factors like self - respect, autonomy and

achievements and external esteem factors such as states, recognition and attention.

1.10.1.5 Need for Self-Actualization

Maslow regards this as the highest need in his hierarchy. It is the drive to

become what one is capable of becoming; it includes growth, achieving one’s

potential and self-fulfilment. It is to maximize one’s potential and to accomplish

something.

Figure: 1.10.1.5; Maslow’s Need Hierarchy

As each of these needs is substantially satisfied, the next need becomes

dominant. From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although

no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates.

So if you want to motivate someone, you need to understand what level of the

hierarchy that person is on and focus on satisfying those needs o r needs above

that level.

58 | P a g e

Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among

practicing managers. This can be attributed to the theory’s intuitive logic and ease

of understanding.

However, research does not validate this theory. Maslow provided no

empirical evidence and other several studies that sought to validate the theory

found no support for it.

1.10.2 McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory

David McClelland is most noted for describing three types of motivational

need, which he identified in his 1961 book, The Achieving Society: His three

motivational needs are given below and have been depicted in Figure: 1.10.2.

1. Achievement motivation (n-ach)

2. Power motivation (n-pow)

3. Affiliation motivation (n-affil)

Figure: 1.10.2; McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory

These needs are found to varying degrees in all worker s and managers, and

this mix of motivational needs characterise a person's or entrepreneur's style and

behaviour, both in terms of being motivated, and in the management and

motivation of others.

1.10.2.1 Achievement Motivation (n-ach)

59 | P a g e

The n-ach person is 'achievement motivated' and therefore seeks

achievement, attainment of realistic but challenging goals, and advancement in the

job. There is a strong need for feedback as to achievement and progress, and a

need for a sense of accomplishment.

1.10.2.2 Power Motivation (n-pow)

The n-pow person is 'authority motivated'. This driver produces a need to be

influential, effective and to make an impact. There is a strong need to lead and for

their ideas to prevail. There is also motivation and need towards increasing

personal status and prestige.

1.10.2.3 Affiliation Motivation (n-affil)

The n-affil person is 'affiliation motivated', and has a need for friendly

relationships and is motivated towards interaction with other people. The

affiliation driver produces motivation and need to be liked and held in popular

regard. These people are team players.

McClelland suggested other characteristics and attitudes of achievement -

motivated people:

achievement is more important than material or financial reward

achieving the aim or task gives greater personal satisfaction than receiving

praise or recognition

financial reward is regarded as a measurement of success, not an end in

itself

security is not prime motivator, nor is status

feedback is essential, because it enables measurement of success, not for

reasons of praise or recognition (the implication here is that feedback must

be reliable, quantifiable and factual)

achievement-motivated people constantly seek improvements and ways of

doing things better

achievement-motivated people will logically favour jobs and

responsibilities that naturally satisfy their needs, i.e. offer flexibility and

opportunity to set and achieve goals, e.g. sales and business management,

and entrepreneurial roles

1.11 Motivating Factors for Entrepreneurship

60 | P a g e

Some studies have listed the following motivating factors for entrepreneurship:

1.11.1 Entrepreneurial Ambition

1. To make money2. To gain social prestige3. To secure self employment ;

1.11.2 Compelling Reasons

1. Unemployment2. Dissatisfaction with existing job or occupation3. To use technical or professional knowledge

1.11.3 Facilitating Factors

1. Previous knowledge & experience2. Encouragement from family members & friends3. Imitation of successful entrepreneurs

Some researchers have classified the factors of motivation into two broadcategories:

1.11.4 Internal factors

1. Educational background2. Occupational Experience3. Desire to work independently4. Desire to branch out to manufacturing5. Family background6. Desire for taking personal responsibility7. Success stories of entrepreneurs8. To gain social prestige9. Technical knowledge

1.11.5 External factors

1. Assistance from Government2. Assistance from financial institution3. Availability of technology/raw material4. Profit margin5. Anticipation of future possibilities6. Heavy Demand

1.12 Business Project

61 | P a g e

A business project is a time-bound intervention consisting of a set of

planned and interrelated activities executed to bring about a beneficial change. It

has a start and a finish, involves a multidisciplinary team collaborating to

implement activities within constraints of cost, time and quality, and has a scope

of work that is unique and subject to uncertainty. Business projects link policy

initiatives at a higher level (e.g. national or sectoral) with a specific problem faced

by a target group of local-level stakeholders or by institutions or organizations.

Project selection starts from where project identification ends. After having

some project ideas, these are analysed in the light of existing economic conditions,

the government policy and soon. A tool generally used for this purpose is, what is

called in the managerial jargon, SWOT analysis. The intending entrepreneur

analyses his/her strengths and weakness as well as opportunities/competitive

advantages and threats/challenges offered by each of the project ideas.

On the basis of this analysis, the most suitable idea is finally selected to

convert it into an enterprise. The process involved in selecting a business project

out of some projects is also described as the “zeroing in process”.

1.12.1 Business Project Report

Business project report or business plan is a written statement of what an

entrepreneur proposes to take up. It is a kind of guide frost or course of action

what the entrepreneur hopes to achieve in his business and how is he going to

achieve it. In other words, business project report serves like a kind of big road

map to reach the destination determined by the entrepreneur. Thus, a business

project report can best be defined as a well evolved course of action devised to

achieve the specified objective of the enterprise within a specified period of time.

So to say, it is an operating document.

1.12.2 Contents of a Business Project Report

A good business project report should contain the following components.

1. General Information: Information on product profile and product details.

2. Promoter: His/her educational qualification, work experience, project

related experience.

3. Location: Exact location of the project, lease or freehold, locational

advantages.

62 | P a g e

4. Land and building: Land area, construction area, type of construction, cost

of construction, detailed plan and estimate along with plant layout.

5. Plant and Machinery: Details of machinery required, capacity, suppliers,

cost, various alternatives available, cost of miscellaneous assets.

6. Production Process: Description of production process, process chart,

technical know-how, technology alternatives available, production

programme.

7. Utilities: Water, power, steam, compressed air requirements, cost estimates,

sources of utilities.

8. Transport and Communication: Mode, possibility of getting, costs.

9. Raw Material: List of raw material required by quality and quantity,

sources of procurement, cost of raw material, tie-up arrangements, if any

10. Manpower: Manpower requirement by skilled and semi -skilled, sources of

manpower supply, cost of procurement, requirement for training and its cost.

11. Products: Product mix, estimated sales, distribution channels, competitions

and their capacities, product standard, input -output ratio, product substitute.

12. Market: End-users of product, distribution of market as local, national,

international, trade and practices, sales promotion devices, and proposed

market research.

13. Requirement of Working Capital: Working capital required, sources of

working capital, need for collateral security, nature and extent of credit

facilities offered and available.

14. Requirement of Funds: Break-up of project cost in terms of costs of land,

building, machinery, miscellaneous assets, preliminary expenses,

contingencies and margin money for working capital, arrangements for

meeting the cost of setting up of the project.

15. Cost of Production and Profitability of first ten years

16. Break-Even Analysis

17. Schedule of Implementation

1.12.3 Formulation of a Business Project Report

The process of business project formulation can be divided in to eight

distinct and sequential stages. These stages are:

1. General Information.

63 | P a g e

2. Project Description.

3. Market Potential.

4. Capital Costs and Sources of Finance.

5. Assessment of Working Capital Requirements.

6. Other Financial Aspects.

7. Economic and Social Variables.

8. Project Implementation.

1.13 Concept of Financial Planning

Financial planning is simple mathematics. There are 3 major components:

1. Financial Resources (FR)

2. Financial Tools (FT)

3. Financial Goals (FG)

Financial Planning: FR + FT = FG

In general usage, a financial plan is a series of steps or goals used by an

individual or business, the progressive and cumulative attainment of which are

designed to accomplish a final financial goal or set of circumstances, e.g.

elimination of debt, retirement preparedness, etc. This often includes a budget

which organizes an individual's finances and sometimes includes a series of steps

or specific goals for spending and saving future income. This plan allocates future

income to various types of expenses, such as rent or utilities, and also reserves

some income for short-term and long-term savings. A financial plan sometimes

refers to an investment plan, which allocates savings to various assets or projects

expected to produce future income, such as a new business or product line, shares

in an existing business, or real estate.

1.14 Sources of Finance

There are following two types of sources of funds for entrepreneurs:

1.14.1 Internal Sources of Finance

These are sources of finance that come from the business' assets or activities.

1.14.1.1 Retained Profit

If the business had a successful trading year and made a profit after paying

all its costs, it could use some of that profit to finance future activities. This can be

64 | P a g e

a very useful source of long term finance, provided the business is generating

profit.

1.14.1.2 Sale of Assets

The business can finance new activities or pay -off debts by selling its assets

such as property, fixtures & fittings, machinery, vehicles etc. It is often used as a

short term source of finance (e.g. selling a vehicle to pay debts) but could provide

more longer term finance if the assets being sold are very valuable (e.g. land or

buildings). If a business wants to use its assets, it may consider sale and lease-

back where it may sell its assets and then rent or hire it from the business that now

owns the assets. It may mean paying more money in the long run but it can

provide cash in the short term to avoid a crisis.

1.14.1.3 Reducing Stocks

Stock is a type of asset (see balance sheet work for more on assets) and can

be sold to raise finance. Stock includes the business' holdings of raw materials

(inputs), semi -finished products and also finished products that it has not yet sold.

Businesses will usually hold some stock. It can be useful if there is an unexpected

increase in demand from customers. Stock levels tend to rise during economic

slowdowns or recessions as goods are not sold and 'pile -up' instead. It is not

usually a source of large amounts of finance - if a business has very large stock

piles, it might mean that nobody wants to buy the product and reducing stocks will

therefore be hard. It is often considered to be a short term source.

1.14.1.4 Trade Credit

A business does not normally pay for things before it takes possession of

them. Instead, it will usually place an order for supplies / inputs and will pay after

receiving the items. It is good practice to pay quickly (often within one month) as

this will help the business develop a good relationship with its suppliers. This

source of finance appears on the balance sheet as trade credit. This method of

deferring (delaying) payment to a future date is a form of very short term

borrowing and helps with the problems of the cash cycle identified in the work on

liquidity.

1.14.2 External Sources of Finance

65 | P a g e

This is finance that comes from outside the business. It involves the business

owing money to outside individuals or institutions.

1.14.2.1 Personal Savings

This mainly applies to sole traders and partnerships. Owners may use some

of their own money as capital to invest in the business. For instance, a person may

be made redundant by a company that needs to reduce in size. They would receive

redundancy payment that they might use to start their own business.

This is considered an external source as it is assumed that the money lent to

the business will be paid back to the private individual in the future, possibly with

an extra amount to compensate the individual for the help they gave. It can be a

short or long term source of finance, depending upon the amount invested and the

decision of the person using their savings.

1.14.2.2 Commercial Banks

We tend to consider two types of finance that banks offer to businesses,

overdrafts and loans. If a business spends more money than it has in its bank

account, we say that it has become overdrawn. Businesses will often have an

arrangement with the bank whereby the bank will pay the extra money provided

the business will pay them back in a fairly short period of time, with interest. This

is a short term source of finance and is useful for small amounts. It is often used

for buying supplies / inputs. A bank loan is a long term source of finance and will

often be for much larger sums of money.

A loan is useful for a business that is starting up or looking to grow. Loans

are often used to buy fixed assets (see balance sheets) such as machinery and

vehicles. A business will pay the bank back each month in instalments and will

also pay an interest charge.

Interest - Banks are providing a service by lending money in the form of

overdrafts and loans and banks will charge for this service (they want to make a

profit too). When a business takes a loan, it will agree to pay it back over a period

of years but it will also pay an extra charge. This charge, called interest, is a

percentage of the value of the loan.

1.14.2.3 Building Societies

66 | P a g e

A building society is a form of financial that is similar to a bank. It also

provides loans but specialises in providing mortgages. A mortgage is a special

type of loan used to buy property (factories, shops, etc). Loans and mortgages tend

to be paid back over a long period of time, usually several years, at an interest

rate. In recent years, the differences between banks and building societies have

reduced and both are now very similar. Both can offer mortgages and loans

1.14.2.4 Factoring Services

Businesses are often owed money. If you supplied car parts to local garages,

you would often deliver the products to the garages and receive payment within a

few weeks. The garages would be paying by trade credit (see internal sources) and

are in debt to you (they are your debtors - see balance sheet).

A business may have difficulty in collecting its debts from its customers but

may need to get its hands on money very quickly. A special factoring company

may offer to handle the debt collection process for a charge. The factoring

company pays the business most of the value of the debt first and would then

collect the money from the debtor. This is a short term source of finance.

1.14.2.5 Share Issue

This is an important source of finance for limited companies. A share issue

involves a business selling new shares that entitle the shareholders to share in the

control of the business. Each share gives the shareholder a vote on the direction of

the company. This usually means that the shareholder can elect the board of

directors of the company each year. If the shareholder doesn't like the way the

directors are running the business, they can elect new directors. This is a good

incentive to the directors to run the business well and make a profit which will be

paid to the shareholders in the form of dividends.

The more shares a person holds, the more control they have over a company.

If one company wanted to take another company over, it could arrange to buy

over 50% of that company's shares. This would give it a majority of control and,

therefore, ownership.

Issuing new shares can raise a lot of capital that can be used for expansion

(buying more fixed assets, etc). It is a long term source of finance. If the total

number of s hares rises, the votes of existing shareholders will have slightly less

67 | P a g e

significance and they will have less control. The business will also have to pay

dividends on a larger number of shares.

1.14.2.6 Debentures

This is a form of long term loan that can be taken out by a public limited

company for a large sum and it will be paid back over several years. It is usually

borrowed from specialist financial institutions.

1.14.2.7 Venture Capital

Some individuals join together to provide finance for new businesses that

are just starting-up. They look for promising businesses and invest in them,

hoping that the businesses will grow and that they will make a profit. This is

similar to issuing shares.

1.14.2.8 Leasing and Hire Purchase

Leasing involves a business renting equipment that it m ay use for several

years or months but never own. It will have a contract with a company who may

come in to repair and service the product. The deal may also involve the product

being replaced with a new model every so often. Businesses often lease equipment

such as photocopiers.

Hire purchase involves paying for equipment in instalments. The business

will not own the item until all the payments have been made. It usually works out

more expensive to buy an item on hire purchase than paying all at once but it does

mean that the business doesn't have to spend a large amount of money at once.

1.15 Capital Structure and its Determinants

Capital structure means the permanent financing of the enterprise represented

primarily by long-term sources of funds, i.e., debt and equity. In simple words, capital

structure is the ratio between debt and equity capital. An optimum capital structure

can be defined as a financing mix incurring the least cost but yielding the maximum

returns. And it is obtained by making the market value of equity share maximum.

Major determinants of capital structure:

1. Nature of business

2. Size of the enterprise

3. Trading on equity

68 | P a g e

4. Cash flows

5. Purpose of financing

6. Provision of future

1.16 Institutional Support to MSMEs in India

MSMEs constitute a vibrant and dynamic sector of the industrial economy

of India. This sector has shown consistently good growth in terms of production,

creation of additional employment and spectacular performance in exports, year

after year. Its contribution to industrial growth and economic development of the

country has been very significant. It encompasses both traditional industries

(includes some of the prominent export intensive segments such as handicrafts,

handlooms, carpets and gems and jewellery) and the modern small industries

which uses latest appliances, machinery and technologies, and includes

electronics, computer software, cotton/leather garments and accessories, auto

components, food processing and machine tools and scientific instrumentation.

Small in India is more than beautiful - it is efficient, adaptable and adds value in

economic and social spheres.

The post-liberalisation era in the Indian economy has enhanced the

opportunities and challenges for the MSMEs sector. Moving away from the era of

protection, the MSMEs have been steadily reorienting themselves to face the

challenges posed by an increasingly competitive environment. In order to stabilise

healthy development and to hasten the process of invigoration, the MSMEs,

especially the modern ones, have been provided with the stimuli to improve

productivity and competitive strength through enhanced flow of financial

assistance and initiatives for technological up gradation, quality improvement and

overseas collaboration.

The problems faced by the MSMEs particularly in accessing technology and

maintaining competitiveness have been formidable. Lack of familiarity with new

options, inability in accessing them, and lack of necessary finance for growth need

to be addressed through institutional support.

1.16.1 Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO)

SIDO is created for development of various small scale units in different

areas. SIDO is a subordinate office of department of SSIs and ARI. It is a nodal

69 | P a g e

agency for identifying the needs of SSI units coordinating and monitoring the

policies and programmes for promotion of the small industries. It undertakes

various programmes of training, consultancy, evaluation for needs of SSIs and

development of industrial estates. All these functions are taken care with 27

offices, 31 SISI (Small Industries Service Institute) 31 extension centres of SISI

and 7 centres related to production and process development.

1.16.1.1 Activities of SIDO

The activities of SIDO are divided into three categories as follows:

1.16.1.1.1 Coordination Activities of SIDO

Coordination activities of SIDO are as follows:

1. To coordinate various programmes and policies of various state

governments pertaining to small industries.

2. To maintain relation with central industry ministry, planning

commission, state level industries ministry and financial institutions.

3. Implement and coordinate in the development of industrial estates.

1.16.1.1.2 Industrial Development Activities of SIDO

Industrial development activities of SIDO are as follows:

1. Develop import substitutions for components and products based on

the data available for various volumes-wise and value-wise imports.

2. To give essential support and guidance for the development of

ancillary units.

3. To provide guidance to SSI units in terms of costing market

competition and to encourage them to participate in the government

stores and purchase tenders.

4. To recommend the central government for reserving certain items to

produce at SSIs level only.

1.16.1.1.3 Management Activities of SIDO

Management activities of SIDO are as follows:

1. To provide training, development and consultancy services to SSIs to

develop their competitive strength.

2. To provide marketing assistance to various SSI units.

70 | P a g e

3. To assist SSI units in selection of plant and machinery, location,

layout design and appropriate process.

4. To help them in getting updated with various information related to

the small scale industries activities.

1.16.2 State Small Industries Development Corporation (SSIDC)

The State Small Industries Development Corporations (SSIDC) were sets up

in various states under the companies’ act 1956, as state government undertakings

to cater to t he primary developmental needs of the small tiny and village

industries in the state/union territories under their jurisdiction. Incorporation under

the companies act has provided SSIDCs with greater operational flexibility and

wider scope for undertaking a variety of activities for the benefit of the small

sector.

1.16.2.1 Functions of SSIDC

The important functions performed by the SSIDCs include:

To procure and distribute scarce raw materials.

To supply machinery on hire purchase system.

To provide assistance for marketing of the products of small -scale

industries.

To construct industrial estates/sheds, providing allied infrastructure

facilities and their maintenance.

To extend seed capital assistance on behalf of the state government

concerned provide management assistance to production units.

1.16.3 District Industries Centres (DICs)

The District Industries Centres (DICs) programme was started in 1978 with

a view to provide integrated administrative framework at the district level for

promotion of small scale industries in rural areas. The DICs are envisaged as a

single window interacting agency at the district level providing service and

support to small entrepreneurs under a single roof. DICs are the implementing arm

of the central and state governments of the various schemes and programmes.

Registration of small industries is done at the district industries centre and PMRY

(Pradhaan Mantree Rojgaar Yojanaa) is also implemented by DICs. The

organizational structure of DICs consists of General Manager, Functional

71 | P a g e

Managers and Project Managers to provide technical services in the areas relevant

to the needs of the district concerned. Management of DICs is done by the state

government.

1.16.3.1 Functions of DICs

The main functions of DICs are:

1. To prepare and keep model project profiles for reference of the

entrepreneurs.

2. To prepare action plan to implement the schemes effectively already

identified.

3. To undertake industrial potential survey and to identify the types of

feasible ventures which can be taken up in MSMEs sector, i.e.,

industrial sector, service sector and business sector.

4. To guide entrepreneurs in matters relating to selecting the most

appropriate machinery and equipment, sources of it supply and

procedure for importing machineries.

5. To provide guidance for appropriate loan amount and documentation.

6. To assist entrepreneurs for availing land and shed equipment and

tools, furniture and fixtures.

7. To appraise the worthiness of the project-proposals received from

entrepreneurs.

8. To help the entrepreneurs in obtaining required

licenses/permits/clearance.

9. To assist the entrepreneurs in marketing their products and assess the

possibilities of ancillarization.

10. To conduct product development work appropriate to small industry.

11. To help the entrepreneurs in clarifying their doubts about the matters

of operation of bank accounts, submission of monthly, quarterly and

annual returns to government departments.

12. To conduct artisan training programme.

13. To act as the nodal agency for the district for implementing PMRY

(Pradhaan Mantree Rojgaar Yojanaa).

14. To function as the technical consultant of DRDA in administering

IRDP and TRYSEM programme.

72 | P a g e

15. To help the specialized training organizations to conduct Entrepreneur

development programmes.

In fine DICs function as the torch -bearer to the beneficiaries/entrepreneurs

in setting up and running the business enterprise right from the concept to

commissioning. So the role of DIC’s in enterprise building and developing small

scale sector is of much significance.

1.16.4 Industrial Estates

Industrial estates are specific areas zoned for industrial activity in which

infrastructure such as roads, power, and other utility services is provided to

facilitate the growth of industries and to minimize impacts on the environment.

The infrastructure may include effluent treatment; solid and toxic waste

collection, treatment, and disposal; air pollution and effluent monitoring; technical

services on pollution prevention; quality management (quality assurance and

control); and laboratory services. There should be appropriate emergency

preparedness and prevention plans and liaison with local fire and emergency

services. Selection of sites for industrial estates should take into account social

and environmental issues, as well as economic considerations.

The key document would normally be an industrial estate development plan

covering issues such as:

Details of the location

Mix of industries on the site (to ensure that the industries are compatible—

for example, that neighbours of food processing plants do not pose a risk

of contaminating food products)

Layout and design

Transport services

Fuel storage

Air quality management

Water quality management, including the provision of common effluent

treatment facilities, as required

Solid waste management, including recycling

Management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes

Noise control

73 | P a g e

Occupational health and safety

Hazard and emergency planning and response.

Industrial estates should maintain safe distances from residential areas (for

example, 100 meters for small industries with minimal environmental hazard and

at least 1 kilo-meter for very polluting industries). Definition of institutional

responsibilities is an essential component of a development plan. The first

industrial estate in India was set up at Rajkot in Gujarat in September 1955.

1.17 Growth Strategies in MSMEs

Most MSMEs have plans to grow their business and increase sales and

profits. However, there are certain methods companies must use for implementing

a growth strategy. The method a company uses to expand its business is largely

contingent upon its financial situation, the competition and even government

regulation. Some common growth strategies in business include market

penetration, market expansion, product expansion, diversification and acquisition.

1.17.1 Market Penetration

One growth strategy in business is market penetration. A small company

uses a market penetration strategy when it decides to market existing products

within the same market it has been using. The only way to grow using existing

products and markets is to increase market share, according to the article "Growth

Strategies" at gaebler.com. Market share is the percent of unit and dollar sales a

company holds within a certain market vs. all other competitors. One way to

increase market share is by lowering prices. For example, in markets where there

is little differentiation among products, a lower price may help a company

increase its share of the market.

1.17.2 Market Expansion

A market expansion growth strategy, often called market development,

entails selling current products in a new market. There several reasons why a

company may consider a market expansion strategy. First, the competition may be

such that there is no room for growth within the current market. If a business does

not find new markets for its products, it cannot increase sales or profits. A small

company may also use a market expansion strategy if it finds new uses for its

74 | P a g e

product. For example, a small soap distributor that sells to re tail stores may

discover that factory workers also use its product.

1.17.3 Product Expansion

A small company may also expand its product line or add new features to

increase its sales and profits. When small companies employ a product expansion

strategy, also known as product development, they continue selling within the

existing market. A product expansion growth strategy often works well when

technology starts to change. A small company may also be forced to add new

products as older ones become outmoded.

1.17.4 Acquisition

Growth strategies in business can also includes an acquisition. In

acquisition, a company purchases another company to expand its operations. A

small company may use this type of strategy to expand its product line and enter

new markets. An acquisition growth strategy can be risky, but not as risky as a

diversification strategy. One reason is that the products and market are already

established. A company must know exactly what it wants to achieve when using

an acquisition strategy, mainly because of the significant investment required to

implement it.

1.17.5 Expansion and Diversification

1.17.5.1 Expansion

All successful small business start ups eventually face the issue of handling

business expansion or growth. Business expansion is a stage of a company's life

that is fraught with both opportunities and perils. On the one hand, business

growth often carries with it a corresponding increase in financial fortunes for

owners and employees alike. In addition, expansion is usually seen as a validation

of the entrepreneur's initial business start up idea, and of his or her subsequent

efforts to bring that vision to fruition.

But as Andrew J. Sherman observed, “business expansion also presents the

small business owner with myriad issues that have to be addressed. Growth

causes a variety of changes, all of which present different managerial, legal, and

financial challenges: Growth means that new employees will be hired who will be

looking to the top management of the company for leadership. Growth means that

75 | P a g e

the company's management will become less and less centralized, and this may

raise the levels of internal politics, protectionism, and dissension over what goals

and projects the company should pursue. Growth means that market share will

expand, calling for new strategies for dealing with larger competitors. Growth

also means that additional capital will be required, creating new responsibilities

to shareholders, investors, and institutional lenders. Thus, growth brings with it a

variety of changes in the company's structure, needs, and objectives."12 Given

these realities, Sherman stated that "the need of the organization to grow must be

tempered by the need to understand that meaningful, long-term, profitable growth

is a by-product of effective management and planning."

Small businesses can expand their operations by pursuing any number of

avenues. The most common place methods by which small companies increase

their business are incremental in character, i.e., increasing product inventory or

services rendered without making wholesale changes to facilities or other

operational components. But usually, after some period of time, businesses that

have the capacity and desire to grow will find that other options should be studied.

Common routes of small business expansion include:

Growth through acquisition of another existing business (almost always

smaller in size)

Offering franchise ownership to other entrepreneurs

Licensing of intellectual property to third parties

Establishment of business agreements with distributorships and/or

dealerships

Pursuing new marketing routes (such as catalogues)

Joining industry cooperatives to achieve savings in certain common

areas of operation, including advertising and purchasing

public stock offerings

Employee stock ownership plans

1.17.5.2 Diversification

12 Andrew J. Sherman, The Complete Guide to Running and Growing Your Business

76 | P a g e

Diversification is a form of corporate strategy for a company. It seeks to

increase profitability through greater sales volume obtained from new products

and new markets.

Diversification can occur either at the business unit level or at the corporate

level. At the business unit level, it is most likely to expand into a new segment of

an industry that the business is already in. At the corporate level, it is generally

very interesting entering a promising business outside of the scope of the existing

business unit.

Diversification is part of the four main growth strategies defined by the

Ansoff matrix of Product/Market given in Figure: 1.17.5.2.

Ansoff pointed out that a diversification strategy stands apart from the other

three strategies.

The first three strategies are usually pursued with the same technical,

financial, and merchandising resources used for the original product line, whereas

diversification usually requires a company to acquire new skills, new techniques

and new facilities.

Figure: 1.17.5.2; Ansoff matrix of Product/Market

76 | P a g e



and new markets.





business unit.




three strategies.




and new facilities.


76 | P a g e



and new markets.





business unit.




three strategies.




and new facilities.


77 | P a g e

The notion of diversification depends on the subjective interpretation of

“new” market and “new” product, which should reflect the perceptions of

customers rather than managers.

Indeed, products tend to create or stimulate new markets; new markets

promote product innovation.

1.17.5.2.1 Types of Diversification

There are three types of diversification: concentric, horizontal, and conglomerate.

1.17.5.2.1.1 Concentric Diversification

This means that there is a technological similarity between the industries,

which means that the firm is able to leverage its technical know -how to gain

some advantage. For example, a company that manufactures industrial adhesives

might decide to diversify into adhesives to be sold via retailers. The technology

would be the same but the marketing effort would need to change.

It also seems to increase its market share to launch a new product that helps

the particular company to earn profit. For instance, the addition of tomato ketchup

and sauce to the existing "Maggi" brand processed items of Food Specialities Ltd.

is an example of technological –related concentric diversification. The company

could seek new products that have technological or marketing synergies with

existing product lines appealing to a new group of customers. This also helps the

company to tap that part of the market which remains untapped, and which

presents an opportunity to earn profits.

1.17.5.2.1.2 Horizontal Diversification

The company adds new products or services that are often technologically or

commercially unrelated to current products but that may appeal to current

customers. In a competitive environment, this form of diversification is desirable

if the present customers are loyal to the current products and if the new products

have a good quality and are well promoted and priced.

Moreover, the new products are marketed to the same economic

environment as the existing products, which may lead to rigidity and instability. In

other words, this strategy tends to increase the firm's dependence on certain

78 | P a g e

market segments. For example, a company that was making notebooks earlier may

also enter the pen market with its new product.

1.17.5.2.1.3 Conglomerate Diversification (or Lateral Diversification)

The company markets new products or services that have no technological

or commercial synergies with current products but that may appeal to new groups

of customers. The conglomerate diversification has very little relationship with the

firm's current business.

Therefore, the main reasons of adopting such a strategy are first to improve

the profitability and the flexibility of the company, and second to get a better

reception in capital markets as the company gets bigger. Even if this strategy is

very risky, it could also, if successful, provide increased growth and profitability.

1.17.6 Joint Venture

A joint venture is a strategic alliance where two or more parties, usually

businesses, form a partnership to share markets, intellectual property, assets,

knowledge, and, of course, profits. It is a legal organization that takes the form of

a short term partnership in which the persons jointly undertake a transaction for

mutual profit. Generally each person contributes assets and share risks. Like a

partnership, joint ventures can involve any type of business transaction and the

"persons" involved can be individuals, groups of individuals, companies, or

corporations.

Joint ventures are also widely used by companies to gain entrance into

foreign markets. Foreign companies form joint ventures with domestic companies

already present in markets the foreign companies would like to enter. The foreign

companies generally bring new technologies and business practices into the joint

venture, while the domestic companies already have the relationships and

requisite governmental documents within the country along with being entrenched

in the domestic industry.

A joint venture differs from a merger in the sense that there is no transfer of

ownership in the deal. Companies with identical products and services can also

join forces to penetrate markets they wouldn't or couldn't consider without

investing tremendous resources. Furthermore, due to local regulations, some

markets can only be penetrated via joint venturing with a local business.

79 | P a g e

In some cases, a large company can decide to form a joint venture with a

smaller business in order to quickly acquire critical intellectual property,

technology, or resources otherwise hard to obtain, even with plenty of cash at their

disposal.

1.17.7 Merger

The legal concept of a merger (with the resulting corporate mechanics,

statutory merger or statutory consolidation, which have nothing to do with t he

resulting power grab as between the management of the target and the acquirer) is

different from the business point of view of a "merger", which can be achieved

independently of the corporate mechanics through various means such as

"triangular merger", statutory merger, acquisition, etc. When one company takes

over another and clearly establishes itself as the new owner, the purchase is called

an acquisition.

From a legal point of view, the target company ceases to exist, the buyer

"swallows" the business and the buyer's stock continues to be traded.

In the pure sense of the term, a merger happens when two firms agree to go

forward as a single new company rather than remain separately owned and

operated. This kind of action is more precisely referred to as a "merger of equals".

The firms are often of about the same size.

Both companies' stocks are surrendered and new company stock is issued in

its place. For example, in the 1999 merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline

Beecham, both firms cease d to exist when they merged, and a new company,

GlaxoSmithKline, was created. In practice, however, actual mergers of equals

don't happen very often. Usually, one company will buy another and, as part of the

deal's terms, simply allow the acquired firm to proclaim that the action is a merger

of equals, even if it is technically an acquisition. Being bought out often carries

negative connotations; therefore, by describing the deal euphemistically as a

merger, deal makers and top managers try to make the takeover more palatable.

An example of this would be the takeover of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz in 1999

which was widely referred to as a merger at the time.

"Acquisition" usually refers to a purchase of a smaller firm by a larger one.

Sometimes, however, a smaller firm will acquire management control of a larger

80 | P a g e

and/or longer –established company and retain the name of the latter for the post -

acquisition combined entity. This is known as a reverse takeover. Another type of

acquisition is the reverse merger, a form of transaction that enables a private

company to be publicly listed in a relatively short time frame.

A reverse merger occurs when a privately held company (often one that has

strong prospects and is eager to raise financing) buys a publicly listed shell

company, usually one with no business and limited assets.

1.17.8 Subcontracting

Subcontracting refers to the process of entering a contractual agreement

with an outside person or company to perform a certain amount of work. The out -

side person or company in this arrangement is known as a subcontractor, but may

also be called a free -lance employee, independent contractor, or vendor. Many

small businesses hire subcontractors to assist with a wide variety of functions. For

example, a small business might use an outside firm to prepare its payroll, an

accountant to help with its record keeping and tax compliance, or a free-lance

worker to handle a special project. Subcontracting is probably most prevalent in

the construction industry, where builders often subcontract plumbing, electrical

work, drywall, painting, and other tasks.

Hiring subcontractors offers a number of advantages for small businesses.

For example, subcontracting mundane but necessary tasks can free up time and

resources to enable the small business owner to concentrate on making money and

growing the business. In addition, hiring a subcontractor is usually less expensive

than hiring a full -time employee, because the small business is not required to

pay Social Security taxes, workers' compensation benefits, or health insurance for

independent contractors. Subcontracting does pose some potential pitfalls,

however, such as a loss of control over the quality and timeliness of work. But

small business owners can take several steps to help ensure that their relationships

with subcontractors are productive and beneficial for all concerned.

1.17.8.1 Working with Subcontractors

Small business owners can take a series of steps to help ensure that the

subcontracting process provides the desired benefits. First, it is important to assess

the needs of the small business to make sure that outside help is needed, decide

81 | P a g e

which specific tasks or projects to subcontract, and determine what sort of

subcontractor could best perform the work. The small business owner should also

give some thought to the type of relationship he or she wants to have with the

subcontractor. Some businesses choose to share control of the project or process

with a trusted subcontractor, even including the vendor in strategic decision -

making. Indeed, subcontractors in many industries are often sources of valuable

information and insight on ways in which small business owners can save time

and money or improve quality. Other companies choose to maintain a high degree

of control internally and subcontract only minor projects on a limited, as-needed

basis.

The next step in the subcontracting process involves preparing in -house

staff and obtaining the support of key personnel for the decision. Many companies

encounter resistance from employees who feel that their jobs are threatened by

subcontracting. Other companies may even find that turnover increases when the

most interesting or fulfilling jobs are outsourced, leaving employees to perform

less attractive tasks. To avoid these problems, in -house employees should be

informed of the plans to subcontract work and told the rationale behind the

decision.

The small business owner may also wish to get employee input about what

work is appropriate for subcontracting, and take steps to make sure that employees

continue to receive rewarding, interesting, career-building responsibilities.

The next step is to begin contacting potential subcontractors, either formally

or informally, and asking specific questions about the services provided and the

terms of the contract. The questions should also seek to assess the subcontractor's

intentions, or what they hope to gain from the relationship. Some subcontractors

may be seeking a long -term business relationship, while others may simply wish

to gather information in order to complete their work in a timely, professional

fashion. Overall, th e questions should establish whether the subcontractor will

provide a good fit with the small business client. Ideally, the subcontractor will

have experience in handling similar business and will be able to give the small

business's needs the priority they deserve.

Once a subcontractor has been selected, the small business owner should then

negotiate a contract in order to help ensure a mutually beneficial relationship. The

82 | P a g e

contract should also clearly define responsibilities and performance criteria, so

that no questions arise later about whether the subcontractor or the client was

supposed to handle a certain task or pay any extra charges incurred. The contract

should also outline the procedures for changing the subcontractor relationship,

including the means for renewal, cancellation, or termination. Finally, the contract

should set strict confidentiality rules if needed and specify who owns the rights to

any new ideas, inventions, or materials that are created from the business

arrangement.

1.18 Women Entrepreneurship

“Women Entrepreneurs may be defined as the

women or a group of women who initiate, organize and

operate a business enterprise. The Government of India

has defined women entrepreneurs as an enterprise owned

and controlled by women having a minimum financial

interest of 51 per¯ cent of the capital and giving at least

51 per cent of the employment generated in the enterprise

to women. Technically, a "women entrepreneur" is any

women who organizes and manages any enterprise, esp. a

business, usually with considerable initiative and risk.”13

“The women form almost half of the Indian

population. Expansion of women employment is essential

for acceleration economic growth. But the employment

outlook unemployment in India is 40% which is higher

than their share in the labour. To contribute to economic

development women must engage them-self in what is

called economic or gainful activity as distinct from

household or non-market activity. In other words, for a

full integration of economy in economic development

women must enter the labour force on equal footing with

13Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Environment For Women Entrepreneurs In India”, International Journal of

Research In Commerce & Management (ISSN: 0976-2183), volume No. 4 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July), p. 108

83 | P a g e

man. Women as a part of human resource must come out

with an attitude of readiness.”14

1.18.1 Traits of Women Entrepreneurs

“Characteristics of women entrepreneurs in India are as follows:

Women entrepreneurs have strong desire for autonomy, to be their own

boss, and live life on their own terms.

They are an independent self-starter, not needing or wanting others to tell

them what to do.

They are calculated risk taker, with a higher-than-normal tolerance for

failure and consider failure a non-issue.

They like to be in control.

They are highly self-motivated and are indefatigably fearless when it

comes to getting the job done.

They have a high level of energy that is sustainable over a long period of

time.

They are creative and innovative, a strong decision maker, and able to

think quickly on their feet, and set things in motion.

They are a big-picture thinker capable of seeing how everything relates to

each other.” 15

“In present scenario due to modernization,

urbanization, globalization and development of education,

with increasing awareness, women are now seeking

gainful participation in several fields. The

entrepreneurship among women will help them in earning

money and becoming economically independent. Due to

social networking women will develop self-confidence,

awareness and ability to marshal environmental support.

This will lead to an improvement is not only the women,

14 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Women Entrepreneurs’ Development through Training and Education in India”International Journal of Research In Commerce & Management,Volume No. 4 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 0976-2183, p. 16415 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Women Entrepreneurship: An Emerging Workforce in 21st Century”International Journal of Research In Commerce, Economics & Management,Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-4245, p. 127

84 | P a g e

from the point of view of better health, education and skill

but an improvement in her living condition also by being

able to use cleaner fuel, better house, better sanitation,

facilities and. infrastructural facilities. This will lead to

saving of resources like time, energy, transforming women

into stronger personality and an overall improvement in

her quality of life.”16

1.19 Industrial Sickness

“In spite of the incentives and facilities offered

under Industrial policy and intensive efforts to promote

large number of MSME over the years large numbers of

units have been confronted with a number of problems

which turn them into sick or closure. As we examined the

investment in sick units have been increasing because of

increase in investment in MSMEs. There was increase in

the total investment among MSME has wider implications

including locking of funds of the lending institutions, loss

of scarce material sources and loss of employment. When

the problems arise, the diagnosis and treatment would be

easier. However, when sickness reaches an advanced

stage, it becomes difficult and takes longer time to

diagnose the reason and makes it more costly and

expensive to bring the units back to normal, so there is a

need to identify sickness in initial stages and initiate

remedial measures before the sickness takes place.”17

1.20 Impact of Government Policies on Entrepreneurship Development in India

“The government of India has been planning various

schemes and policies to develop the favourable

16 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Problems & Prospects of Women Entrepreneurs In India”, International Journalof Research In Commerce, IT & Management,Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-5756, p. 10417

Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Sickness In Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises In India: An Overview”,International Journal of Research In Computer Application & Management,Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-1009, pp. 165-66

85 | P a g e

environment for the new entrepreneurs in India from time

to time. The result of these economic policy interventions

is very favourable. Liberalization in Indian industry has

given a big boost to new entrepreneurship by various

rules. By globalization of business, there are better

prospects for Indian entrepreneurs to expend their

business in the international market.

Multinational companies will require a large

number of units for their operation which will provide the

opportunities to the new entrepreneurs. Government of

India has initiated many programmes for this purpose and

major focus has been in the field of small and medium

level industries where entrepreneurship is being mainly

emphasized. ‘World over, Micro and Small Enterprises

(MSEs) are recognized as an important constituent of the

national economies, contributing significantly to

employment expansion and poverty alleviation.

Recognizing the importance of micro and small

enterprises, which constitute an important segment of

Indian economy in terms of their contribution to country’s

industrial production, exports, employment and creation

of entrepreneurial base, the Central and state

Governments have been implementing several schemes

and programmes for promotion and development of these

enterprises. Among the six basic principles of governance

underlying the National Common Minimum Programme

(NCMP) of the Government, “sustained economic growth

in a manner that generates employment” has a pride

place. The NCMP also describes the MSEs as “the most

employment-intensive segment”18

18 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “A Study of Selected Entrepreneurial Dimensions in India: An ExploratoryStudy”, International Journal of Research In Commerce, IT & ManagementVolume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-5756, p. 158

86 | P a g e

2. Literature Review

Review of selected quality literature related to entrepreneurship and small

business has been given below. Superscript number suffixing scholars name gives

serial number in the Bibliography for reference.

Adelman, Philip J.; and Alan M. Marks1 (2001) gave a practical-oriented

text that focuses specifically on the needs of individuals starting their own

business. Their emphasis is on financial issues for proprietorships, partnerships

and S Corporations.

Africa, Matthew2 (2000) argues that courts overly influenced by the market

failure theory of fair use and misled by licensing evidence, have failed to

distinguish between uses that should be paid for uses that merely can be paid for.

He suggest several method of reforming fair use analysis of the market effect

factor and concludes that, ultimately, Congress may be better suited to preserving

copyright’s constitutional balance than are the courts.

Aldrich, Howard E.; and Martha Argelia Martinez3 (Summer 2001)

argue that more than a decade ago, three elements indispensable to an

understanding of entrepreneurial success were identified: process, context and

outcomes. Although the knowledge of entrepreneurial activities has increased

dramatically, we still have much to learn about how process and context interact

to shape the outcome of entrepreneurial efforts.

Amabile, Teresa M.4 (September – October 1998) argues that kinds of

management practices foster creativity and which practices inhibit creativity in

organizations. Creativity needs to be understood in light of its three individual-

level components: creative thinking skills, expertise and motivation. Managerial

practices that affect creativity fall into six general categories: challenge, freedom,

resources, work-group features, supervisory encouragement and organizational

support.

Anestopoulou, Maria5 (2001) gave an understanding of the contrast

between the fundamental notion surrounding the Internet that global society

should benefit from access to free flow of information, while unauthorized

copying of material normally protected by copyright can be facilitated. She

87 | P a g e

focuses on the legal implications compression of the emergence and widespread

use of MP3 technology for the digital compression and distribution of audio music

files over the Internet.

Ang, James S.; and James C. Brau6 (2002) argue that firms that are more

transparent pay less, in all components of issuance costs, to go public. A sample

of 334 previous leveraged buyouts and a characteristics-matched control sample

are employed to test the hypothesis that greater firm transparency before the issue

decreases the flotation costs of the IPO.

Antoncic, Bostjan; and Robert D. Hisrich7 (1999) concluded that two

mainstreams in international entrepreneurship research (SME internationalization

and international start-ups) are integrated into a conceptual model. Central to this

model is the concept of internationalization that consists of internationalization

properties (time and mode) and internationalization performance. Other elements

of the model are internationalization antecedents (environmental conditions and

organizational characteristics) and internationalization consequences

(organizational performance).

Ardichvili, Alexander; and Richard N. Cardozo8 (2000) argue that

entrepreneurial opportunities are discovered through recognition rather than

purposeful search and that opportunity recognition does not require an exceptional

level of creativity and is not likely to involve a prior knowledge of the ways to

serve markets.

Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard Cardozo; and Sourav Ray9 (2003)

theorize opportunity identification process. They identify entrepreneur’s

personality traits, social networks and prior knowledge as antecedents of

entrepreneurial alertness to business opportunities. Entrepreneurial alertness, in its

turn, is a necessary condition for the success of the opportunity identification

triad: recognition, development and evaluation. A theoretical model, laws of

interaction, a set of propositions and suggestions for further research are provided.

Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard N. Cardozo; Kathleen Tune; and Judy

Reinach10 (2002) investigate the types of non-financial resources that private

investors contribute to fledging businesses and reasons for providing these

resources. They demonstrate that angels manage risk through a combination of

88 | P a g e

techniques, which has as much to do with managing returns for the business as

with managing agency risk.

Armstrong, Peter11 (2001) argues that despite ideological pressure to

demonstrate a link between entrepreneurship and risk, none of the relevant

research has succeeded in doing so. Nor has risk been a prevalent feature of new

venture creation in either general or science based start-ups.

Avila, Stephen M; Ramon A. Avila; and Douglas W. Naffziger12 (May

2003) compares family-owned businesses that had business succession plans with

those that did not have plans. Survey results indicate that a succession plan have a

beneficial effect on business transition, tax planning and the ownership structure.

Barney, Jay B.13 (2001) discusses resource-based view in terms of its

positioning relative to three theoretical traditions: SCP-based theories of industry

determinants of firm performance, neoclassical microeconomics and evolutionary

economics. He also discusses some of the empirical implications of each of these

different resource-based theories.

Baron, Robert A.; and Gideon D. Markman14 (2000) suggest that

entrepreneurs’ social skills-specific competencies that help them interact

effectively with others - may play a role in their success. A high level of social

capital, built on a favourable reputation, relevant previous experience and direct

personal contacts, often assists entrepreneurs in gaining access to venture

capitalists, potential customers and others.

Barth, Mary E.; Donald P. Cram; and Karen K. Nelson15 (2001) discuss

the role of accruals in predicting future cash flows. The model shows that each

accrual component reflects different information relating to future cash flows;

aggregate earnings mask this information. The cash flow and accrual components

of current earnings have substantially more predictive ability for future cash flows

than several lags of aggregate earnings.

Bartlett, Christopher A; and Sumantra Goshal16 (1996) argue that

companies that succeed in developing an effective entrepreneurial process at the

core of their operations share three key organizational characteristics: (1)

disaggregated performance units, (2) performance-driven systems and (3) clear

mission and standards. To build managerial entrepreneurship, it is necessary to

89 | P a g e

reinforce the changes in the roles and responsibilities not only of front- line

managers but also of those in middle-and top-level positions.

Basu, Anuradha; and Simon C. Parker17 (2001) recognize that a key

determinant of successful start-ups is adequate financing. Since in most countries

the largest source of funds is self-finance, provided by the entrepreneur’s own

savings or assets, they present a theoretical model of family finance and conducts

an empirical analysis to identify its determinants.

Baum, J. Robert; Edwin A, Locke; and Ken G. Smith18 (2001) formed an

integrated model of venture growth. CEOs’ specific competencies and motivations

and firm competitive strategies were found to be direct predictors of venture

growth. CEOs’ traits and general competencies and the environment had

significant indirect effects.

Bazerman, Max H.; and Jared R. Curhan19 (2000) focus on the

psychological study of negotiation, including the history of the negotiation game;

the development of mental models on negotiation; the definition of negotiation

rules based on concerns of ethics, fairness and values; the impact of the selection

of communication medium on the negotiation game; and the impact of cross-

cultural issues on perception and of behaviour on negotiation.

Becattini, Giacomo20 (2002) shows that the traditional concept of industrial

sector has been radically criticized on both theoretical and empirical grounds and

raises the reasons for the concept’s inadequacy. Given the diverse importance for

different productions of technology and a social context of tacit and codified

knowledge, some practical rules for empirical research have advocated.

Bergmann Lichtenstein, Benyamin M.; and Candida G. Brush21 (Spring

2001) conclude that according to recent studies applying resource based theory to

entrepreneurial firms in the early stages of new venture development it is the

identification and the acquisition of resources that is crucial for the firm’s long-

term success. They explores the relationship longitudinally, tracking salient

resources in three rapidly growing new ventures and analyzing how these

resources change over time.

Berkovitch, Elzar; Ronen Israel; and Yossef Spiegel22 (2000) investigate

the interaction between financial structure and managerial compensation and

90 | P a g e

shows that risky debt affects both the probability of managerial replacement and

the manager’s wage if he or she is retained by the firm.

Boden, Richard J.; and Brian Headd23 (October 2002) describes a study

that uses a novel longitudinal Bureau of the Census employer data series to

examine the survival prospects of new employer business for four different,

mutually exclusive classification of ownership: white non-Hispanics; white

Hispanics; blacks; and Asians and other minorities.

Bodie, Zvi; Robert S. Kaplan; and Robert C. Merton24 (2003) believe

that the case for expensing options is overwhelming. They examine and dismiss

the principal claims put forward by those who continue to oppose it. They

demonstrate that stock option grants have real cash flow implications, that the way

to quantify these implications is available, that footnote disclosure is not an

acceptable substitute for reporting and that full recognition of option costs need

not emasculate the incentives of entrepreneurial ventures.

Borins, Sandford25 (2000) focuses on Characteristics of public manager,

such as the level in the organization where organization is originated the nature of

the innovations, the factors leading to the innovations, where the innovation

received support and the obstacles faced by innovation and how it is overcome.

This evidence allows to draw a portrait of actual public –management innovations

and innovators.

Bradley, Daniel J.; and Bradford D. Jordan26 (2002) study the extent to

which offer prices reflect public information for 3,325 IPOs over the period 1990-

99, focusing primarily on four variables: share overhang, file range amendments,

venture capital backing and previous issue under-pricing. They conclude that 35-

50 percent of the variation in IPO under-pricing can be predicted using public

information.

Brau, James C.; and Jerome S. Osteryoung27 (2001) extend the existing

IPO literature to the case of micro-IPOs and identifies variables that should impact

the probability of success or failure in a Small Corporate Registration (SCOR)

offering and then empirically tests them.

Braunschwig, Carolina28 (January 2003) describes the venture capitalists’

search for investment opportunities in nanotechnology. She argues that despite the

91 | P a g e

burst of the Internet bubble, VCs did not start investing less in areas such as

nanotechnology. She also argues that despite a high buy-in, the payoff will be

disappointing because in this industry it will take much longer than expected to

create commercial products that could guarantee returns to investors.

Brouwer, Maria T.29 (2002) interprets the discussion on entrepreneurship

and economic development that was started by Weber, Schumpeter and Knight.

She demonstrates how these three authors influenced each other on the topics of

importance of innovation and entrepreneurship, uncertainty and perceptiveness

and hidden qualities of people.

Brush, Candida G.; Patricia G. Greene; and Myra M. Hart30 (2001)

devise case studies that illustrate the challenges entrepreneurs confronts in

identifying, attracting, combining and transforming personal resources into

organizational resources. They prescribe two analytical tools for assessing initial

resource needs and developing a resource strategy that can enhance possibilities

for wealth creation.

Bruton, Garry D.; Vance H. Fried; and Robert D. Hisrich31 (Summer

2000) uses agency theory to examine CEO dismissal in venture-capital-backed

firms. They conclude that the primary reason for CEO dismissal is lack of agent

ability, followed by good-faith disagreements between principal and agent, with

managerial opportunism ranking last.

Bruton, Gary D.; and Yuri Rubanik32 (2002) investigate the extent to

which founding factors in Russia help high-technology firms to prosper. It was

found that the team establishing the business mitigated the liability of newness.

However, in contrast to the culture of the United States, the culture of Russia does

not produce negative results if the founding team grows very large. Additionally,

they found that firms that pursued more technological products and entered the

market later performed best.

Bucar, Branko; and Robert Hisrich33 (2001) describe the study of ethical

attitudes and standards in relation to stake holder theory and the theory of

property. They found substantive differences between entrepreneurs and managers

in the United States with respect to their ethical attitudes. The higher ethical

92 | P a g e

attitudes of entrepreneurs were anticipated due to their higher equity stake and the

higher risks assumed.

Buckley, William M.34 (July 2, 2003) reports on the dot-com companies

that survived the technology bubble and are actually beginning to thrive as going

concerns. He focuses on the history of Akamai Technologies Inc, WebMD

Corporation and Monster Worldwide Inc.

Bunderson, J. Stuart; and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe35 (2002) describe the

process and performance effects of dominant function diversity (the diversity of

functional experts on a team) and intrapersonal functional diversity (the aggregate

functional breadth of team members). In a sample of business unit management

teams, dominant functional diversity had a negative and intrapersonal functional

diversity a positive, effect on information sharing and unit performance.

Burmeister, Paul36 (March 2003) describes some of the key aspects of each

section of the business plan that should be presented to venture capitalists. He also

emphasizes the importance of the format and the presentation of the business plan.

Burpitt, William J.; and Dennis A. Rondinelli37 (2000) describe a study of

138 small firms with exporting experience. They conclude that although financial

success is a crucial factor, financial gains alone do not fully explain the propensity

of small companies to continue exporting. Firms, that strongly value learning from

international experience, are more likely to continue exporting even when initial

financial returns are disappointing.

Bushrod, Lisa38 (June 2001) argues that although most think that seed

capital is in short supply, in fact the different types of seed capital have increased

in both depth and number of players in recent years. She also describes the overall

current venture capital environment in Europe and highlights the role of angle

investors in seed stage financing.

Callison, William J.39 (Fall 2000) argues that conventional wisdom holds

that venture capital firms generally do not invest in limited liability companies

(LLCs). Therefore, firms that are likely to seek outside equity financing are

predominantly organized as corporations. However, LLCs combine favourable

partnership tax treatment with limited liability protection for owners. He proposes

93 | P a g e

statutory and contract based remedies for LLC governance problems that make the

LLC more attractive for outside investment.

Calori, Roland; Leif Melin; Tugrul Atamer; and Peter Gustavsson40

(2000) describe four industry case studies that suggest an empirical classification

of innovative international strategies based on four main dimensions: nature of the

firm’s competitive advantage, process of internationalization, segment scope and

level of coordination across borders. From these dimensions derive six types of

innovative international strategies that change the rules of competition.

Campbell, Steven V.41 (1997) examines the direct administrative costs of

bankruptcy reorganization by analyzing 36 closely held corporations that

successfully reorganized under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Act.

Findings indicate that direct bankruptcy costs are associated with firm size and the

time spent in bankruptcy and provide strong evidence that direct administrative

costs are not trivial for small business and that there are substantial scale

economies in these costs.

Carpenter, Robert E.; and Bruce C. Petersen42 (2002) examine an

unbalanced panel of over 2,400 publicly traded U.S. high-tech companies over the

period of 1981-98. The findings indicate that most high-tech firms obtain little

debt financing. After going public, comparatively few firms make heavy use of

external financing.

Carrier, Camille43 (1994) argues that whereas in large businesses the

structures and system often constitute important barriers to intrapreneurship, in

small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) the owner-manager themselves may

become the main inhibitors or, conversely, the best catalysts in the process. The

more personalized internal environment in SMEs creates better partnership

between the intrapreneurial actors involved, but also makes it more difficult for

intrapreneurs to maintain their anonymity.

Certo, S. Trevis; Catherine M. Daily; and Dan R. Dalton44 (Winter 2001)

investigate the relationship between board structure and IPO under-pricing, a

performance indicator unique to the IPO context, among a sample of IPOs during

the 1990s. They conclude that the board size and board reputation are negatively

94 | P a g e

associated with IPO under-pricing, but board composition and board leadership

structure are not negatively associated with IPO under-pricing.

Champion, David45 (February 2001) in his case study demonstrated a

decision facing a company in the high-tech area concerning whether to go public

now or wait until the situation is more favorable. The issues discussed involve

company valuation over the long term, real cash that the IPO can bring and the

feasibility of the market and technology.

Chandler, Gaylen N.; and Douglas W. Lyon46 (2001) discuss a two-stage

study that addressed how teams are formed, demographic and functional area

composition and how these factors are related to the development of emerging

firms. This research has demonstrated that teams and their composition make a

difference in firm performance and that founders do not tend to consider

demographic diversity and functional heterogeneity as they establish start-up

teams; yet diverse teams tend to perform better.

Chrisman, James J.; and W. Ed McMullan47 (Spring 2000) use resource-

based theory to explain why outside assistance might influence new venture

performance, they track the longer-term performance of two samples of

entrepreneurs who received new venture counselling and subsequently started

businesses. They found that the ventures had higher than expected rates of

survival, growth and innovation, suggesting that outsider assistance during the

early stages can influence its subsequent development.

Colarelli O’ Connor, Gina; and Mark Rice48 (2001) describe a study that

followed the evolution of 12 radical innovation projects in ten large, established

firms. They investigated how these firms undertook the recognition of

opportunities associated with breakthrough innovations, which from their

perspective had the potential to “change the game”.

Coleman, Susan49 (2002) explores some of the possible constraints faced by

women business owners. Although results did not demonstrate evidence of

noneconomic discrimination against women – owned firms, they do reveal that

certain characteristics typical of many women –owned firms, including small size,

limited prospects for growth and profitability and failure to provide collateral or

guarantee, reduce the likelihood of obtaining debt capital.

95 | P a g e

Coleman, Susan50 (July 2000) compares access to capital for men and

women owned small businesses. Women-owned firms are less likely to use

external financing as a source of capital. It does not appear, however, that lenders

discriminate against women on the basis of gender. A second part of the study

reveals that women owned firms paid higher interest for their most recent loans

and women owned service firms were more likely to put up collateral.

Collingwood, Harris51 (March 2003) argues that even with both the

economy and the stock market sputtering, private capital deals are more appealing

than ever because many private investors still have financing resources for which

they cannot get fair return in the stock or the bond market. This guide gives advice

on how to find and attract private investors and how to structure a fair deal and

maintain the relationship with investors using them as a valuable resource.

Comiskey, Eugene E.; and Charles W. Mulford52 (1998) found that the

following aspects of small-company financial statements are identified as the most

significant for lenders: inventories, income taxes and tax returns, depreciation and

missing fixed assets, interest capitalization, rent expense and off-balance-sheet

commitments, revenue recognition and matching policies and other income and

expense.

Corwin, Shane A.; and Jeffrey H. Harris53 (Spring 2001) analyzes the

initial listing decisions of IPOs that qualify for NYSE listing and describes

findings that IPOs are more likely to list on the exchange where their industry

peers are listed. Although direct issue costs are higher on the NYSE than on

Nasdaq, total issue costs do not differ across exchanges are higher unlikely to

affect the listing decision.

Cowley, Louise54 (December-January 2002) investigates which of the

innovative business clusters that were considered to be venture capital hotspots

are still generating venture capitalists’ interest even after high-tech investing has

diminished in some areas. He argues that Europe is still behind the United States

when it comes to commercializing technology, particularly from academic

sources, with relations among industry academia and VCs in need of

improvement.

96 | P a g e

Cowling, Marc55 (2000) describes the result of the study conducted in the

EU showing that there are significant differences across countries in terms of who

becomes an entrepreneur. In particular, age, gender and education were found to

be key variables, although the nature and the strength of the relationship vary

considerably across countries.

Cyr, Linda A.; Diane E. Johnson; and Theresa M. Welbourne56 (2000)

test whether or not venture capitalist backing affects the likelihood that initial

public offering firms will report having a vice president of human resources. They

also examine the combined effect on performance of being venture-backed and

having a vice president of human resources.

Dahl, Darren W.; and Page Moreau57 (2002) describes research that

analyzes three empirical studies that examine how analogical thinking influences

the idea–generation stage of the new product development process. They found

that the originality of the resulting product design is influenced by the extent of

analogical transfer, the types of analogies used and the presence of external

primes.

Danaher, Peter J.; Bruce G. S. Hardie; and William P. Putsis Jr.58

(November 2001) developed a model of first-time sales and subscriptions for

successive generations of the technological innovation, which explicitly captures

the effects of marketing mix variables through a proportional hazards framework.

The empirical analysis estimates the impact of price for two generations of

cellular phones in a European country.

Danis, Wade M.; and Andrew V. Shipilov59 (2002) describe the influence

of systemic, historical, cultural, economic and societal factors and government

policies on the development of entrepreneurial ventures in Hungary and Ukraine.

An attempt is made to better understand the reasons underlying difficulties in

developing local entrepreneurial ventures.

Danneels, Erwin60 (2002) examines how product innovation contributes to

the renewal of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the firm’s

competences.

David, Byron L.61 (1994) conducted a study based on a survey of 139

fortune 500 companies identifies three modes of internal corporate venturing

97 | P a g e

(ICV), which are differentiated by (1) the origin of the product concepts; (2) the

roles of research and development intrapreneurs and venture managers; and (3) the

degree of their products’ commercial success, technical performance, radicalness

and marketing and technological diversification.

Davidson, Steve62 (September 2000) summarizes highlights from the SBA

research conference on small business lending and the emerging banking industry

structure. The issues covered include small business lending trends, provisions of

small business credit in relation to bank consolidations, small business lending in

rural America and credit scoring, among other topics.

Davidsson, Per; Bruce Kirchhoff; Abdulnasser Hatemi; and Halena

Gustavsson63 (2002) found that although business growth differs among industrial

sectors, youth, ownership independence and small size are found to be major

factors that underlie growth across all industries.

Davis, Craig R.64 (Summer 2002) found that most companies evaluate new

product development investments using accounting – based metrics that rarely

reveal inherent risks. The new product development framework creates a net

present value that considers the impacts of product portfolio, user needs and

technical marketing risks.

Davis, James65 (May 2003) provides a discussion of the factors that need to

be considered before implementing a management buyout. He discusses the role

of the board of directors, management presentations and due diligence.

Davis, Peter S.; and Paula D. Harveston66 (2000), using data from a U.S.

survey of entrepreneur-led family business, examines the extent to which certain

entrepreneurial characteristics, Internet usage and investments in information

technology influence internationalization and organization growth.

Delmar, Frederic; Per Davidsson; and William B. Gartner67 (2003),

using 19 different measures of firm growth (such as relative and absolute sales

growth, relative and absolute employee growth, organic growth versus acquisition

growth and the regularity and volatility of growth rates over the 10-year period),

identified seven different types of firm growth patterns. These patterns were

related to firm age and size as well as industry affiliation. Implication for research

and practice are offered.

98 | P a g e

Denis, David, J.; and Atulya Sarin68 (Fall-Winter 2002) analyze the net tax

advantages of S Corporations relative to C Corporations. The analysis indicates

that the net tax advantage is economically important; it varies directly with the

company’s payout ratio, the marginal corporate tax rate and the capital gains rate

of the marginal investor; and it varies inversely with the personal tax rate of the

marginal investor. The analysis predicts that the fair market value of an S

Corporations will exceed that of an otherwise identical C Corporation.

Dias, Sam; David Pihlens; and Lorena Ricci69 (2002) propose that

consideration of both macro and micro levels of analysis reveals deep insights into

the impact of marketing activity on customer profitability. They conclude that

brand drivers, such as pricing and advertising, have different impacts on different

customer segments and that understanding these differences will enable marketers

to optimize their marketing strategy in ways that maximize valuable customer

behavior.

Dibb, Sally70 (2002) explains the role that marketing planning plays and

shows how it is used by organizations. Each stage of the marketing planning

process is described in detail and the role and format of the marketing plan

document are explored. The marketing planning process is then illustrated using a

detailed case example from the construction equipment industry and guidance on

best marketing planning practice is offered.

Dibb, Sally; and Lyndon Simkin71 (2000) found that for close to two

decades the leading exponents of marketing planning have warned of the cultural,

operational, managerial and communications hurdles which so frequently impede

the effective implementation of marketing planning programs. They first reviewed

these core impediments, offering a summary of these issues, before suggesting

various measures for overcoming these difficulties.

Dietmeyer, Brian J.; and Max J. Bazerman72 (2001) advises executives on

value negotiation, including developing wise trades in value creation; building

trust and sharing information in an open and truthful manner; asking questions;

making multiple offers simultaneously; and searching for post-settlement

settlements.

99 | P a g e

Douglas, Evan J.; and Dean A. Shepherd73 (Spring 2002) investigates the

relationship between career choices and people’s attitude towards income,

independence, rick and work effort and the effect these attitudes have on the intent

to start one’s own business. They found significant relationships between the

utility expected from a job and the independence, risk and income it offered.

Similarly, intention to become self-employed was related to tolerance for risk and

independence.

Drayton, William74 (2002) explores the aspect that drive entrepreneurial

transformation of the social half of society that took place over the 1st two and a

half decades, identifies three management challenges made urgent by this shift

and describes its impact on the rest of the society.

Duffy, John F.75 (2002) while acknowledging the value of harmonization of

patent laws across nation- states, explores the possible cost of the harmonization

movement. He concludes that the patent law in the 21st century would be enriched

if national and international policymakers learned to value variety.

Dyer, Linda M: and Christopher A. Ross76 (April 2000) examine the

relationship between ethnic- minority businesses and their co-ethnic customers.

They derived a theoretical framework, which highlights three dimensions: (1) the

coincident roles of business owner/manager and co-ethnic individual, (2) the easy

flow of communication among co-ethics and (3) the symbolic aspects of ethnicity.

These dimensions are causes of the ambivalent relation that exist between many

businesses and their co-ethnic clients.

Ehrhardt, Michael C.; and Phillip R. Daves77 (Fall-Winter 2000) found

that many projects have cash flows that are caused by the projects but are not part

of the project’s normal operating cash flows. They describe an appropriate

technique for valuing such cash flows and reconciles the conflicting

recommendations currently found in the literature. Although managers must still

use their judgment when valuing such projects, they provided guidelines and a

framework within which managers can systematically articulate and quantify their

judgment.

Ensley, Michael D.; James W. Carland; and Joann C. Carland78

(October 2000) made an attempt to verify the existence of lead entrepreneurs and

100 | P a g e

to examine their impact on venture performance, if they do exist. The results

confirm the existence of lead entrepreneurs among micro-entrepreneurial firms

and suggest that the strength of their strategic vision and their self-confidence set

them apart from other entrepreneurial team members.

Erikson, Truls79 (2002) presents a parsimonious model of entrepreneurial

capital, defined as a multiplicative function of entrepreneurial competence and

entrepreneurial commitment. The presence of both entrepreneurial competence

and commitment lays the foundation for enterprise generation and performance.

Inherent in this view on competence is the capacity to identify opportunities.

Ernst & Young LLP80 (1997) gave a generalized outline for a business plan

is simple to follow and provides additional understanding of the information that

should be included in a quality business plan.

Ernzer, Marc; and Wolfgang Wimmer81 (2002) evaluate quantitative and

qualitative methods for working out a reduction of the environmental burden of

products. The evaluation of the analyzed methods is carried out along criteria

indicating the ability to supports designers in decision making in the product

development process.

Feldman, Daniel: and Mark C. Bolino82 (July 2000) present a study that

utilize “Career anchor” typology to determine which “constellations” of career

goals, interests and values attract individuals into and keep them attached to, self-

employment.

Fillis, Ian83 (2002) discusses the origins of the study of creativity, from

social psychology to the business discipline. Creativity is then viewed as a key

competency at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, linked with related

issues such as innovation, leadership, vision and motivation. A model of creativity

as competitive advantage is developed and recommendations are made, focusing

on the need to challenge convention in order to move ideas, products and services

into the new century.

Fiol, C. Marlene; and Edward J. O’Connor84 (2003) model the interaction

between mindfulness as a decision-maker characteristic and the decision-making

context and shows the impact of those interactions on managers’ ability to

discriminate in the face of bandwagons. The authors illustrate the framework by

101 | P a g e

applying it to recent integration and disintegration bandwagon behaviours in the

U.S. health care market.

Formaini, Robert L.85 (Fourth Quarter 2001) questions about the existence

of profits, causes of economic growth and coordination of resource used by

market economy have introduced a concept of the entrepreneur. The concept

became relevant with the internet’s evolution and small-business growth and

remains relevant because how entrepreneurs are treated depend on overall national

economic performance and direction of economic activity.

France, M.; and S. Siwolop86 (1996) argued that small businesses are

particularly vulnerable to knockoffs because of their limited resources. They

presented a number of examples with effective strategies that can be used to fight

knockoffs.

George, Gerard; and Ganesh N. Prabhu87 (2000) found that with ongoing

privatization efforts in emerging economies, governments have supported

developmental financial institutions to spur entrepreneurial activity.

George, Gerard; Shaker A. Zahra; and Robley D. Wood88 (2002) shown

through analysis of 2,457 alliances undertaken by 147 biotechnology firms that

companies with university linkages have lower R&D expenses and higher levels

of innovative output. However, the results do not support the proposition that

companies with university linkages achieve higher financial performance than

similar firms without such linkages.

Ghauri, Pervez; and Tony Fang89 (2001) analyze the process of

negotiation with China from a socio-cultural perspective. Based on real cases and

literature, a model is developed and some conclusions are drawn. Managerial

implications are presented as four P’s: Priority, Patience, Price and People sum up

the essence of the Chinese business negotiation process.

Gifford, Sharon90 (1998) found that economic development depends on the

allocation of entrepreneurial resources to efforts to discover new profit

opportunities. Limited entrepreneurial attention is allocated between maintaining

current activities and starting new activities. He addressed the problem of

allocating limited entrepreneurial attention in a verity of contexts.

102 | P a g e

Girard, Bryan91 (May 2002) focuses on the employee stock ownership

plans (ESOPs) of various companies in the United States besides the description

of the ESOP and the procedures involved in setting one up.

Goldenberg, Jacob; Roni Horowitz; Amnon Levav; and David

Mazursky92 (March 2003) found that most ideas for new products are either

uninspired or impractical. They introduced a systematic process based on five

innovation patterns that can generate ideas that are both ingenious and viable.

Gongming Qian93 (2002) examines empirically individual and joint effects

of multi-nationality and product diversification on profit performance for a sample

of emerging small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). He suggests a

curvilinear relationship between them: that is, they are positively related up to a

point, after which a further increase in multi-nationality and product

diversification was associated with declining performance.

Goodden, Randall94 (2001) focuses on product liability prevention as a

revolutionary new dimension in product quality. He argues that manufacturers

need to see the connection between product liability and quality by discussing

issues of safety, quality and reliability of products.

Goold, Michael; and Andrew Campbell95 (March 2002) found that

creating a new organizational structure is one of the toughest—and most

politically explosive---challenges that an executive faces. This article provides

nine tests of organizational design, which can be used either to evaluate an

existing structure or to create a new one. Using this framework will help make the

process rational, shifting it away from issues of personality and toward strategy

and effectiveness.

Gramlich, Jeffrey D.; Mary Lea McNally; and Jacob Thomas96 (2001)

investigate potential management of balance sheet ratios by a sample of firms that

reclassify short-term obligations to long-term debt and subsequently declassify

that debt (return it to the current liability section) The results suggest that firms

reclassify and declassify to smooth reported liquidity and leverage, relative to

their prior year and to industry benchmarks.

Grote, Jim97 (July 2002) discusses the issues that financial planners face

when they work with small businesses. He provides information on the types of

103 | P a g e

clients in the market for start-up advice, on how advisors should define their role

with a start-up and on the issues that they are likely to face.

Gulati, Ranjay; and Monica C. Higgins98 (2003) investigate the contingent

value of inter-organizational relationship at the time of a young firm’s initial

public offering (IPO). They conclude that ties to prominent venture capital firms

are particularly beneficial to IPO success during cold markets, while ties to

prominent investment banks are particularly beneficial to IPO success during hot

markets; a firm’s strategic alliances with major pharmaceutical and health care

firms did not have such contingent effects.

Gutner, T.99 (August 12, 1996) found that well over 1 million people are

expected to file for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is not just for deadbeats but includes

people in a wide range of incomes. He gave insight into what procedure to follow

and what to expect should you need to file for bankruptcy.

Hansen, Morten T.; Henry W. Chesbrough; Nitin Nohria; and Donald

N. Sull100 (September-October 2000) argue that organizational models that exploit

entrepreneurial drive and network access while preserving the benefits of scale

and scope will be the most potent models for long-term success in the new

economy. Networked incubators are one such emerging forms that, in addition to

office space, funding and basic services, offers powerful business connections,

enabling starts-ups to beat their competitors to market.

Hayton, James C.; Gerard George; and Shaker A. Zahra101 (Summer

2002) review and synthesize the findings of 21 empirical studies that examine the

association between national cultural characteristics and aggregate measures of

entrepreneurship, individual characteristics of entrepreneurs and aspects of

corporate entrepreneurship.

Hean Tat Keh; Maw Der Foo; and Boon Chong Lim102 (Winter 2002)

describe the study that uses a cognitive approach to examine opportunity

evaluation, as the perception of opportunity is essentially a cognitive

phenomenon. They conclude that illusion of control and belief in the law of small

numbers are related to how entrepreneurs evaluate opportunities. They also

indicate that risk perception mediates opportunity evaluation.

104 | P a g e

Hisrich, Robert D. 103 (1986) observes that findings of a nationwide survey

indicate the characteristics of woman entrepreneurs, their degree of management

and other business skills and the problem they encounter in starting and operating

a business. Prescription for success set forth include establishing a track record,

continuing education, previous experience, ability to set priorities in personal

responsibilities, development of a support system and determination.

Holmberg, Stevan R.; and Kathryn B. Morgan104 (2003) in their new

franchise failure concept, reconcile many prior, seemingly inconsistent study

results based largely on franchisors’ surveys. Overall franchisee turnover rates are

significant and appear to have increased over time.

Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser105 (February 2001) argue that traditional

budgets hold companies back, restrict staff creativity and prevent staff from

responding to customers. They describe a new method called Beyond Budgeting

that consists of 12 principles of effective organization and behaviour and effective

performance management. In essence, the new approach entails a shift from a

performance emphasis on numbers to one based on people.

Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser106 (October 2000) argue that the

traditional performance management model is too rigid to reflect today’s fast-

moving economy. Only by overcoming the constraints of the traditional budgeting

approach can managers build a business model that operates at high speed; is self-

questioning, self-renewing and self-controlling; and rewards innovation and

learning.

How, Janice C.Y.; and John S. Howe107 (2001) investigate why firms

include warrants in their IPOs. The agency-cost hypothesis is used, emphasizes

the need for sequential financing for relatively young firms, because sequential

financing reduces the opportunities for managers to squander money on

unprofitable projects.

Huang, Xueli; Geoffrey N. Soutar; and Alan Brown108 (2002) examine

the new product development process in 267 Australian small and medium-sized

innovative firms. They suggest that marketing-related activities were undertaken

less frequently and were less well executed than technical activities in developing

105 | P a g e

new products. However, the existence of the new product strategy seemed to have

a significant positive impact on the quality of new product development activities.

Johnson, Scott109 (February 2003) argues that because a trademark is an

appreciating asset with a potentially perpetual life, it is important to choose

trademarks carefully and to protect them through federal registration and

controlled licensing. He discusses issues of trademark clearance, establishing

trademark rights, federal trademark registration and application process and

domain names.

Johnston, Jarrod; and Jeff Madura110 (2002) describes findings that initial

returns for Internet IPOs were more favourable than those for non-Internet IPOs.

Since the demise of the Internet sector, the underpinning of Internet-firm IPOs is

not significantly different from that of other IPOs.

Jordan, Charles E.; and Marilyn A. Waldron111 (2001) observed that

prior studies have attempted to confirm or reject the assertion that accrual

accounting measures provide better information for predicting cash flows than do

cash basis measures. However, their results proved largely inconclusive and

contradictory. They identified research constructs that may have driven these

inconsistent findings and makes adjustment to mitigate their effects.

Kambil, Ajit; Erik, D. Eselius; and Karen A. Monteiro112 (March 2000)

argue that established companies stand a better chance of getting a jump on e-

commerce if they look outside their ranks – for both venture capital financing and

the scaling – up experience of incubators and professional service firms.

Keh, Hean T.; Maw Der Foo; and Boon C. Lim113 (2002) use a cognitive

approach to examine opportunity evaluation. They found that illusion of control

and belief in the law of small numbers are related to how entrepreneurs evaluate

opportunities. They also indicate that risk perception mediates opportunity

evaluation.

Kelley, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice114 (2002) explore the interrelationship

between efforts to build technology portfolios and to form alliances and the link

between technology-based strategic actions and product innovation rates in start-

up firms.

106 | P a g e

Kelly, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice115 (2002) examine the relationship

between technology portfolios and the rate of alliance formation in new,

technology-based firms. They use a knowledge-based perspective to build an

argument that new firms can enhance their capacity for firming alliances by

building portfolios of technologies and increasing the communicability of their

value through patents.

Kenis, Patrick; and David Knoke116 (2002) investigate the impact of

communication in field-level networks on rates of formation of inter-

organizational collaborative ties, such as strategic alliances and joint venture.

Khatoon, Akram117 (2002) argues that there is a need to create an

environment that encourages and protects woman’s role in the economic activity

in general and as an entrepreneur or business woman in particular.

Kim, W. Chan; and Renee Mauborgne118 (September-October 2000),

considering the identification of business ideas which have real commercial

potential is one of the most difficult challenges that executives face, identified

three tools for determining the utility, price and business that executives face.

They also identify three tools for determining the utility, price and business model

that can help them invest wisely.

Krueger, Norris F. Jr.119 (2000) observes that understanding what promotes

or inhibits entrepreneurial activity requires understanding how we construct

perceived opportunities. He proposes an intentions-based model of the cognitive

infrastructure that supports or inhibits how we perceive opportunities.

Kuemmerle, Walter120 (May 2002), considering starting a business is rarely

a dignified affair, discusses what really makes an entrepreneur; what

characteristics set successful entrepreneur apart, enabling them to start ventures

against all odds and keep them alive even in the worst time; and finally, whether,

if you don’t have those characteristics, they can be developed.

Laukkanen, Mauri121 (2000) argues that there is a downside related to

conceptual and efficacy nations of entrepreneurship and education, breeding

unreasonable and unpredictable expectations. He explores alternative strategies in

university-based entrepreneurial education describing the dominant pattern of

education, based on an individual-centered mind-set.

107 | P a g e

Lawrence, William F.; Barry S. White; Thomas J. Kowalski; Susan K.

Lehnhardt; and David A. Zwally122 (2001) present an overview of several issues

concerning the licensing of intellectual property in or from the United States. It

addresses (1) circumstances requiring government approval of intellectual

property license, (2) the licensing of intellectual property created with the help of

government grants and (3) the value of a patent license in litigation settlements.

Lee, Sang N.; and Suzanne J. Peterson123 (2000) present a culture model

of entrepreneurship. They propose that a society’s propensity to generate

autonomous, risk- taking, innovative, aggressive and proactive entrepreneurs and

firms will depend on its culture foundation. They also propose that only countries

with specific cultural tendencies will engender a strong entrepreneurial

orientation, hence experiencing more entrepreneurship and global

competitiveness.

Lerner, Josh124 (Fourth Quarter 2002) describes the implications of the

recent collapse in venture capital activity on innovation. He argues that the

situation may not be as grim as it initially appears. In particular, during boom

periods, the prevalence of overfunding of particular sectors can lead to a sharp

decline in venture funds’ effectiveness.

Lerner, Miri; Candida Brush; and Robert Hisrich125 (1997) analyze the

relationship between individual factors and business performance of 220 Israeli

women entrepreneurs. The applicability of five theoretical perspectives—

motivations and goals, social learning, network affiliation, human capital and

environmental factors—is examined in terms of business performance. They

conclude that network affiliations, human capital and motivation theories have

greater explanatory power than social learning or environmental perspective.

Lerouge, Cindy; and Angela Picard126 (November 2000) argue that adding

a “dot-com” alone will not allow the company to succeed. What is required is that

the company builds a solid structure by approaching its e-commerce initiative

from a blueprint to the foundation to the structure. They provide the architectural

design and building blocks for evaluating and actualizing the company’s e-

commerce potential.

108 | P a g e

Levesque, Moren; and Dean A. Shepherd127 (2004) observed that from

speculations over the differences between emerging and developed economies,

their model offers a systematic way to determine the optimal entry strategy in

terms of entry timing and level of mimicry. An implication of the model is that the

cost/benefit ratio of using a high-mimicry entry strategy is lower for companies

entering emerging economies than it is for companies entering developed

economies.

Lichtenstein, Benyamin; G. Thomas Lumpkin; and Rodney Sharder128

(2003) categorize the organizational learning literature into behavioural, cognitive

and action learning and suggests a number of ways in which new ventures could

be more successful at learning than larger and older organizations. They also

explore three entrepreneurial contexts in which learning might be particularly

important and matches them to the categories of learning.

Lieberman, Marvin B.; and David B. Montgomery129 (1998) suggest that

the resource-based view and first-mover advantage are related conceptual strategic

planning frameworks that can benefit from closer linkage. They present an

evolution of the literature based on these concepts.

Light, Ivan; and Steven Gold130 (2000) attempt to integrate, expand upon

and interpret the available Literature on ethnic entrepreneurs in the United States.

They explore ethnic economies in terms of their size, economic impact,

community impact, mobilization of resources and role of family and gender

relations.

Lim, Yee Fen131 (2002), considering issues of trademark law have

frequently been raised in Internet domain name system disputes. She observed that

the rights of the trademark holder being upheld over others. Slowly, trademark

law has been extended beyond its pre-Internet regime. She examines the issues

from an interdisciplinary and pragmatic perspective and concludes that this is in

fact an un-resolvable problem.

Lindsay, Noel J.; and Justin Craig132 (Winter 2002) conducted a study

focused on understanding how entrepreneurs recognize business opportunities and

whether there is a difference in the opportunity recognition process between

experienced entrepreneurs and private equity financiers of entrepreneurial

109 | P a g e

ventures. They indicate that opportunities are seen in similar manner by those who

have developed experience in the entrepreneurial context whether they are

entrepreneurs or private equity financiers.

Ling-yee, Li; and Gabriel O. Ogunmokun133 (2001) utilizes the resource –

based theory of the firm to conceptualize export competitive advantages as the

outcomes of how management conceptualizes the firm’s resource base and how

management leverages firm’s core competencies to grow over time.

Lodish, Leonard134 (May-June 2001) argues that building productive

marketing models that actually do improve productivity is an art that requires the

following tactics: balance model complexity versus ease of understanding and

estimation; involve managers in any subjective estimates for models they will

implement; make measures available to managers when they need them and at the

level of organization they need; use the predictive validity of a hold-out sample to

persuade managers of a model’s credibility; and recognize that subjective

estimates about the future may be necessary.

Logue, Dennis E.; Richard J. Rogalski; James K. Seward; and Lynn

Foster-Johnson135 (2002) examine the interaction between underwriter reputation

and market activities during the initial public offering process. They suggest that

simultaneous consideration of underwriter reputation and market activities is

important if proper inferences about the IPO process and investor returns are to be

drawn.

Lumpkin, G.T.; and G.G. Dess136 (1996) clarified the nature of the

entrepreneurial orientation construct by identifying five distinctive dimensions

(autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, pro-activeness and competitive

aggressiveness) of entrepreneurial processes and by proposing a contingency

framework for investigating the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation

and firm performance.

Luo, Yadong137 (2000) articulates a dynamic capability perspective on

international business. The three essential ingredients of dynamic capability –

capability possession (distinctive resources), capability deployment (resource

allocation) and capability upgrading (dynamic learning) – have become

increasingly fundamental in international expansion and global operations.

110 | P a g e

Maddy, Monique138 (2000) discusses the important lessons the failure of her

start-up.

Magretta, Joan139 (May 2002) argues that although the concept of business

model fell out of fashion during the dot-com period, when all the company needed

was a Web-based business model that promised profits, a good business model

remains essential to every successful organization, whether it is a new venture or

an established player.

Marino, Louis; Karen Strandholm; Kevin H. Steensma; and Mark K.

Weaver140 (2002) examine the moderating effect of national culture on the

relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance portfolio

extensiveness.

Mason, Colin M.; and Richard T. Harrison141 (2002) argue on the basis of

analysis of the informal capital markets in the UK, that there is no shortage of

finance available. A survey of angel investors reveals that many are willing to

allocate a higher proportion of their investment in unquoted companies. However,

there are constraints: they do not see enough deals that meet their criteria, they

found that the majority of proposals are poor quality and they are often not able to

negotiate acceptable investments terms with entrepreneurs.

Maurer, Steven D.; and Michael T. Zugelder142 (2000) review the existing

trade secret legal environment to identify important issues and principles to guide

high-tech managers in meeting their responsibility given the importance of trade

secrets to the success of high-technology employers and the concurrent

responsibility of managers for their protection.

McDougall, P. P.; and B. M. Oviatt143 (1997) found that international

entrepreneurship research is at the intersection of two growing areas of interest:

entrepreneurship and international business. Seven major topics of international

entrepreneurship research are identified: (1) cooperative alliances, (2) economic

development initiatives, (3) entrepreneur characteristics and motivations, (4)

exporting and other market entry modes, (5) new ventures and IPOs, (6)

transitioning economies and (7) venture financing.

McEvily, Susan K.; and Bala Chakravarthy144 (2002) found that the

complexity and tacitness of technological knowledge are useful for defending a

111 | P a g e

firm’s major product improvements from imitation, but not for protecting its

minor improvements. The design specificity of technological knowledge delayed

imitation of minor improvements in their study.

McMullen, Jeffery S.; and Dean A. Shepherd145 (2003) propose that the

decision to pursue opportunity requires concomitant consideration of belief

(uncertainty) and desire (motivation). When the proposed framework is applied to

the better known economic theories of the entrepreneur, it demonstrates that these

theories rely upon one construct or the other.

Melewar, T. C.; and John Sounders146 (2000) proposed that designers have

used Corporate Visual Identity System (CVIS) to widen the communication mix.

Using name, symbol and/or logo, typography, color and slogan, a CVIS helps

transmit a company’s visual identity through fixed assets. They compare

multinational companies with and without standardized CVIS, supporting a view

that firms that standardize their CVIS anticipate communication benefits beyond

the usual marketing mix.

Michael, Steven C.147 (2000) argues that the franchisor can make

investments in activities to increase its bargaining power and decrease conflict and

litigation in a franchise system. He includes tapered integration, ownership of

some units with franchise-ment of others, selections of inexperienced franchisees

and employment of a long training program.

Michael, Steven C. 148 (2003) argued franchising as a technique used by

entrepreneurs in service industries to assemble resources in order to rapidly create

large chains and gain firs-mover advantage. Whether and how such first-mover is

created is the subject matter of his study. He specified a structural equations

model and empirical results from the restaurant industry support the model’s

predictions that the first –mover advantage initially takes the form of a lead in the

number of retail outlet, followed by a market share lead and, finally, superior

profitability.

Minerm, J.; R. Norman; and J. S. Brecker.149 (1992). Defining the

Inventor-Entrepreneur in the Context of Established Typologies. Journal of

Business Venturing, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 103-13. What is really indicative of

inventor- entrepreneurship is a strong commitment to a company strategy of

112 | P a g e

product development, not a proclivity for taking out patents. These entrepreneurs

develop an organization not as an end in itself, but as a vehicle for invention and

production of various products.

Mitchel, Ronald K.; Brock Smith; Kristie W. Seawright; and Eric A.

Morse150 (2000) believe that theories of social cognition, information processing

and expertise, provides the foundation for a cross cultural model of venture

capital. They describe the findings of the research conducted in seven countries

that support and extend the cognitive model and provide preliminary evidence of

consistency of cognitive scripts across cultures.

Modigliani, Franco; and Enrico Perotti151 (2000) report supporting

evidence for a few countries showing that when minority investors’ rights are

poorly protected, the ability of firms to raise capital is impaired, leading to fewer

firms to be financed with outside equity. They argue that as a result, provision of

funding shifts from risk capital to debt and to a predominance of intermediated

over market financing.

Morris, Michael H.; John W Watling; and Minet Schindehutte152 (July

2000) explore the following issues in the context of South Africa, where a formal

venture capital community is emerging: (1) the extent to which venture capitalists

actually fulfil their other roles of management consultants, advisors, networkers

and board members; (2) the considerations that lead them to get more involved

with a given venture; and (3) the effectiveness or impact of their involvement.

Mueller, Janice M.153 (2002) found that patents are not fundamentally

incompatible with industry standards, but that the existence of patents or standards

must be transparent and the licensing of such patents must be subject to

appropriate controls so as to ensure widespread industry access.

Mueller, Stephen L.; and Srecko Goic154 (2002) analyze and compares the

potential for entrepreneurship in six transition countries on the basis of the results

of a 17- country study of business students’ attitudes and perceptions about

entrepreneurship. They suggest that differences in entrepreneurial potential are

best explained by the current level of economic development rather than by

culture and previous experience with market economy.

113 | P a g e

Muller, Holger M.; and Karl Warberyd155 (2001) believe if the

contracting within the firm is incomplete, managers will expend resources on

trying to appropriate a share of the surplus that is generated. They attempt to show

that outside ownership may alleviate the deadweight losses associated with such

costly distribution conflict, even if all it does is add another level of conflict.

Newiss, Hilary; and Audrey Horton156 (2001) look at the basic law of

intellectual property as it applies to a small biotechnology company or start-up.

They focus on the systems and the attention to paperwork required so that the

company can maximize its intellectual property protection.

Nicholls-Nixon, Charlene L.; and Arnold C. Cooper157 (2000) discuss the

concept of strategic experimentation as the organizing framework for the study of

change in joint ventures, covering the relationship between perceived

environmental hostility and experimentation efforts, reasons for engaging in

strategic experimentation and the importance of perceived environmental hostility

in strategic experimentation.

Nodoushani, Omid; and Patricia A. Nodoushani158 (2002) define various

forms of industrial espionage in the light of the ongoing information technology

revolution. Amid the enthusiasm regarding the rise of the “digital age,” industrial

espionage remains the dark side of the post-industrial revolution. The Federal

Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 aimed at leveling the field regarding widespread

cheating and stealing of intellectual properties by competitors in the marketplace.

Nour, Mohamad A.; and Adam Fadlalla159 (Spring 2000) admits that

although the web has the potential to level the playing field for all competitors,

companies that effectively market themselves on the web have a distinct

advantage. They present strategies for gaining that advantage.

Oetzel, Jennifer M.; Richard A. Bettis; and Marc Zenner160 (2001)

propose that global competition drives corporations into distant unfamiliar

markets, managers are searching for ways to minimize their uncertainty,

frequently relying on country-risk analysis. They investigate the extent to which

country risk measures can predict periods of intense instability. They conclude

that commercial risk measures are very poor at predicting actual realized risk.

114 | P a g e

Osborne, Stephen W.; Thomas W. Falcone; and Prashanth B.

Nagendra161 (2000) gave a summary of the entrepreneurial potential, training and

success of a group of recently unemployed workers from a wide spectrum of

previous occupations and industries.

Park, Choelsoon162 (2003) focuses on a single event of a large acquisition to

better identify the sequential relationships between prior firm profitability, prior

industry profitability and subsequent acquisition strategies. By doing so, the

causal relationships between firm profitability, industry profitability and

acquisition strategies become clearer.

Park, Seung H.; Roger R. Chen; and Scott Gallagher163 (2002) found that

in volatile markets, resource-rich firms access external resources through alliances

whereas resource-poor firms are less likely to do so. However, in relatively stable

markets, this relationship reverses and resource-poor firms become more active in

alliance formation.

Pearce II, John A.; and Louise Hatfield164 (2002) examine the relationship

between the acquirers of joint venture’s (JV’s) resources and the JV’s

performance in achieving its partners’ goals in the United States. They also

examined the impact of alternative resource responsibility structures on JV

performance, variation in resources received by JV and implications for business

theory development and practicing managers.

Pelham, Alfred M.165 (2000) argues that, compared to strategy selection,

firm size, or industry characteristics, market orientation have the strongest positive

relationship with measures of performance.

Perry, Stephen C.166 (2001) describes a study that investigates the influence

of planning on U.S. small business failures and conclude that very little formal

planning goes on in U.S. small businesses; however, non-failed firms do more

planning than similar failed firms did prior to failure.

Perry, Stephen C.167 (2002) describes a study that investigates the influence

of gender in U.S. small business failures and concludes that gender does not

appear to be related to the failure of small businesses in the United States. Gender

differences of both failed and non-failed firms were also investigated for

115 | P a g e

contextual variables and for variables having to do with planning and problems

with strategy.

Pettus, Michael L.168 (2001) develops a resource-based perspective for

predicting the sequencing of a firm’s resources that best provides for firm growth.

The sequencing that generated the highest firm growth combines a Penrosian

(1959) perspective with the more recent resource-based literature.

Phillips, Paul A.; Fiona M. Davies.; and Luiz Moutinho169 (2001)

examines the relationships between strategic marketing planning and performance

by focusing on service industry, and provides controls for market-level influences

by being restricted to the hotel sector. They suggest that the issue is not whether

strategic marketing planning affects performance, but rather what marketing

capabilities are required to enhance performance.

Pope, Ralph A.170 (2002) examines what factors motivate small firms to

export. He suggest that firms with 25 or fewer employees export for two main

reasons: The firm has a unique product and it has a technological advantage over

competitors. Firms with more than 25 employees export for the above two

reasons, plus to achieve economies of scale and to avoid losing out on foreign

opportunities.

Prasad, Dev; Garry D. Bruton; and George Vozikis171 (2000) demonstrate

that since many entrepreneurs have limited personal capital, a more appropriate

signal is the proportion of the entrepreneur’s initial wealth invested in the project,

since it indicates both the project’s value and the entrepreneur’s commitment to

the project.

Prince, C. J.172 (January 2000) provides a simplified approach to business

plan preparation. There is also a review of three business plan software products.

Ranft, Annette L.; and Hugh M. O’ Neil173 (2001) argue that business

success creates personal and organizational forces that lead to a form of cautious

conservatism and perhaps arrogant disdain, in the face of competitive pressures

for high flying firms. One protection against this inertia-inducing conservatism is

a strong board that can help founders to avoid the traps of success and maintain

the entrepreneurial zest that builds their companies and their reputation.

116 | P a g e

Rebecca Reuber, A.; and Eileen Fischer174 (2002) argue that the

management team of a small firm plays a key role in internationalization

outcomes. They conclude that the behavioural integration of the management

team moderates the relationship between foreign sales growth and overall firm

growth.

Renzulli, Linda A; Howard Aldrich; and Junes Moody175 (2000) explore

several factors that may have an effect on business start–ups, focusing on possible

gender differences. They conceptualize social capital as inherent in people’s

relations with others and examines the association between men’s and women’s

social capital and their likelihood of starting a business.

Rezaee, Zabihollah176 (February 2003) argues that quality financial reports

can be achieved when there is a well- balanced, functioning system of corporate

governance. For good corporate governance, companies should develop a “six-

legged stool” model that supports responsible and reliable report. The model on

the active participation of all parties, which are: board of directors, audit

committee, top management team, internal auditors, external auditors and

governing bodies.

Robb, Alicia M.177 (2002) compares how business survival varies between

men-owned and women-owned business start–ups and between minority-owned

and non-minority-owned business start–ups. She found that some of the

differences in observed survival rates for new firms are driven by factors other

than owner race and gender. However, preliminary evidence indicates that some

groups may face greater obstacles in starting successful business ventures.

Robins, Fred178 (2000) examines some of the changes that are occurring in

marketing practice as a result of the rapid development of electronic commerce.

An examination of contemporary online business reveals the emergence of a

subtle new e-marketing mix. He concludes with some observations about how

managers might best respond.

Robinson, William T.; and Sungwook Min179 (2002) conclude that the

pioneer’s temporary monopoly over the early followers plus its first-mover

advantages typically offset the survival risks associated with market and

technological uncertainties. These results are consistent with previous research in

117 | P a g e

the sense that first-mover advantages that increase a pioneer’s market share also

help protect the pioneer from outright failure.

Ronde, Thomas180 (2001) found that it is more profitable to reduce the

information sharing by giving the employees different information than by giving

some employees more information than others. If trade secrets are weakly

protected by law, then firms risk losing their valuable information, when

employees are hired by competitors. It may therefore be optimal to limit the

number of employees who share the trade secrets even if it reduces the firm’s

productive efficiency.

Ruback, Richard S. 181 (Summer 2002) presents the capital cash flow (CCF)

method of valuing risky cash flows and shows that CCF method is equivalent to

discounting free cash flows (FCF) by the weighted average cost of capital. The

CCF approach is easier to apply whenever debt is forecasted in levels instead of as

a percent of total enterprise value.

Rugman, Alan M.; and Alan Verbeke182 (2002), considering that the

theory of the Growth of the Firm, is considered by many scholars in the strategy

field to be the seminal work that provided the intellectual foundations for the

modern resource-based theory of the firm, suggest that Penrose’s direct or

intended contribution to resource-based thinking has been misinterpreted.

Ryan, Kenneth E.183 (2003) discusses some of the risks and liabilities that

these parties face and some of the product quality guidelines that they can follow

in order to limit their liability. In the current legal climate, parties injured by the

defective product can easily sue not only the manufacturer of the product, but also

any commercial supplier in the distribution channel including wholesaler and

retailer.

Sahlman, William A.184 (1997) proposes that a great business plan is one

that focuses on a series of questions relating to four factors critical to the success

of every new venture. These factors are the people, the opportunity, the context

and the possibilities for both risk and reward. He discussed questions about these

three factors are.

Sarkar, M. B.; R. A. J. Echambadi; and Jeffrey S. Harrison185 (2001)

extends entrepreneurship in domain of alliances and examines the effect of

118 | P a g e

alliance pro-activeness on market-based firm performance, including the higher

performance of firms that are proactive in forming alliance and the moderating

influence of firms size and environmental uncertainty on the relationship between

alliance pro-activeness and performance.

Schmid Klein, Linda; Thomas J. O’Brien; and Stephen R. Peters186

(2002) review the basic concepts and empirical evidence on information

asymmetry and the choice of debt versus equity. They suggest that additional

theoretical contributions are needed to help understand and explain findings in the

empirical literature.

Schulze, William S.; Michael H. Lubatkin; and Richard N. Dino187

(2003) use social capital theory to explain how human and social capital affect a

venture’s ability to accumulate financial capital during its growth stages and its

performance during the two-year period after going public. They found

indications that social capital leverages the productivity of a venture’s resource

base and provides the venture with a durable source of competitive advantage.

Shane, Scott188 (2000) argues that opportunity discovery is a function of the

distribution of information in society. Through in-depth study of eight sets of

entrepreneurs who exploit a single MIT invention, he shows that entrepreneurs

discover opportunities related to the information that they already possess.

Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable189 (2002) examine the effects of direct and

indirect ties between entrepreneurs in 50 high technology ventures and 202 seed-

stage investors on venture finance decisions. They show that these ties influence

the selection of ventures to fund through a process of information transfer.

Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable190 (2002) draws on the organizational

theory literature and in-depth fieldwork with 50 high-tech ventures to examine the

effects of direct and indirect ties between entrepreneurs and 202 seed-stage

investors on venture finance decisions. They clarify that these ties influence the

selection of ventures to fund through a process of information transfer.

Shapiro, Carl191 (2001) argues that cross-licenses and patent pools are two

natural and effective methods used by market participants to cut through the

patent thicket, but each involves some transaction costs. In several key industries,

including semiconductors, biotechnology, computer software and the Internet, our

119 | P a g e

patent system is creating a patent thicket: an overlapping set of patent rights

requiring that those seeking to commercialize new technology obtain licenses

from multiple patentees.

Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zacharakis192 (Spring 2001) use an

ecosystem perspective to investigate speed to initial public offering. They

conclude that geography of the portfolio company matters, that non-high-tech

portfolio companies go public faster than do those in the computer-related sector

and that speed is increased during favourable IPO market but not at the same rate

in all regions.

Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zackarakis193 (2000) examine the

perception of potential family business leaders from a behavioural economics

theory perspective. They argue that founders should structure succession so that

the future leader incurs both financial and behavioural sunk costs and should also

hold the future leader to stringent performance requirements prior to the

succession.

Shepherd, Dean A.; Evan J. Douglas; and Mark Shanley194 (2000)

developed a model to explain new venture failure. They argued that the liability of

new business is largely dependent upon the degree of novelty (ignorance)

associated with a new venture—novelty to the market, to the technology of

production and to management.

Shepherd, Dean A.; Richard Etenson; and Andrew Croch195 (2000) used

theoretically justified criteria from industrial organization strategy research and

applied it to a new domain, namely venture capitalists’ decision making in the

assessment of new venture profitability.

Skripsky, Harold196 (2001) argues that a business is an absolute necessity in

today’s business climate and proposes a frame work for writing a business plan

that discusses various ingredients necessary to prepare the business plan that suits

the person’s style the best.

Sonfield, Matthew; Robert Lussier; Joel Corman; and Mary

McKinney197 (2001) conducted a gender comparison testing of the Entrepreneurial

Strategy Matrix, a situational model that suggests strategies for new and ongoing

ventures in response to the identification of different levels of venture innovation

120 | P a g e

and risk. They conclude that there are no significant gender differences in venture

innovation/risk situations or in strategies chosen by business owners.

Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A.198 (September 2002) argues that it is time for

fundamentally new thinking about how corporate boards should operate and

should be evaluated and that it is important to consider not only how the work of

the board is structured but also how the board is managed. In light of the recent

meltdowns of many once-great companies, enormous attention has been focused

on the companies’ boards. Yet a close examination of those boards reveals no

broad pattern of incompetence or corruption. They passed the tests that would

normally be applied to ascertain whether a board of directors was likely to do a

good job.

Sorenson, Olav; and Toby E. Stuart198 (2001) explores how inter-firm

networks in the U.S. venture capital market affect spatial patterns of exchange.

Evidence suggests that information about potential investments opportunities

generally circulates within geographic and industry spaces. In turn, the flow of

information within these spaces contributes to geographic- and industry spaces. In

turn, the flow of information within these spaces contributes to geographic-and

industry-localization of VC investments.

Spears, Nancy200 (2001) investigates differences in time pressure and

information between two broad classes of promotional offers: (1) “Advanced

receipts” in which consumer are encouraged to expedite the purchase of a good or

service to take advantage of coupons, rebates, etc; (2) “Delayed Payment”, in

which consumers are urged to “buy now and pay later”.

Steier, Lloyd; and Royston Greenwood201 (2000) conducted a longitudinal

study of the development and evolution of an angel financial network within a

newly created firm and refines how theories of social capital and structural holes

might be applied. The success of a new venture often depends on an

entrepreneur’s ability to establish a network of supportive relationships, especially

with informal or “angel” investors who represent a significant source of venture

capital.

Steinglod, F. S.202 (1998) devised a practitioner-oriented guidebook that

covers various legal issues important for small business formation and operation.

121 | P a g e

Stopford, John M.; and Charles W. F. Baden-Fuller203 (1994) argue that

various types of corporate entrepreneurship---individual managers; business

renewal; and Schumpeterian, or industry, leadership---share five bundles of

attributes. Each type can exist in one firm, though at different times, as the

common attributes change their role and relative importance.

Strischek, Dev204 (October 2001) argues that when bankers look at giving a

loan, they look at working capital and cash flow management skills, which impact

the cost of capital. Lenders have a vested interest in three key areas: sound

collection practices, inventory controls and trade credit discipline.

Takala, Tuomo; and Paul Pallab205 (2000) focus on the moral

responsibility of the firm and its employees by arguing that as economic activities

of firms have contributed to the depletion of the environment, they should have a

moral responsibility to restore the health of our natural environment. They also

state that for the firm to make collective moral action feasible, it also needs the

compliance of all the individuals who participate in its collective identity.

Tarantino, David206 (September-October 2001) describes the critical

“financials” that can make or break the business. He explains each financial

statement, how they each differ and what useful information about the business

can be obtained from each.

Teplensky Jill D.; John R. Kimberly; Alan L. Hillman; and J. Stanford

Schwartz207 (1993) examine the realized strategies of domestic manufacturer in a

growing, high-technological industrial market in the United States. They propose

a typology of entry strategies focusing of issues of timing and scope and on the

impact that these entry strategies have on a firm’s performance.

Tidd, Joe; and Kirsten Bodley208 (2002) review the range of formal tools

and techniques available to support the new product development process, and

examines the use and usefulness of these by means of a survey of 50 projects in 25

firms. Cross-functional development teams are commonplace for all types of

projects, but are significantly more effective for the high-novelty cases.

Ucbasaran, Deniz; Mike Wright; Paul Westhead; and Lowell W.

Busenitz209 (2003) synthesize human capital and cognitive perspectives to

highlight behavioural differences between habitual and novice entrepreneurs.

122 | P a g e

They discuss issues related to opportunity identification and information search as

well as opportunity exploitation and learning.

Ucbasaran, Deniz; Paul Westhead; and Mike Wright210 (Summer 2001)

discuss recent studies focusing on entrepreneurial behaviour and differences

between “types” of entrepreneurs. The review concludes that additional research is

needed to gain a greater understanding of the behaviour of different types of

entrepreneurs and the different organizational forms selected by entrepreneurs.

Van Auken, Howard E.211 (2001) examines the financing of small

technology-based firms, specifically the familiarity of owners with alternative

forms of capital by stage of development. He conclude that owners are most

familiar with traditional sources of capital, somewhat less familiar with capital

commonly used to fund growth and least familiar with government funding

initiatives.

Van Osnabrugge, Mark; and Robert J. Robinson212 (2000) provide a

comprehensive framework of the equity investment process, ranging from how

investors source deals through harvest and return realization. They synthesize the

literature on equity investing (with particular emphasis on the angel role in the

process) and differentiates between the various types of investors, offering

insights into their mindsets and motivations.

Wang, Shouhong213 (2000) argues that electronic commerce should be

viewed less as a phenomenon of business online and more as a challenge of

organization redesign. Five general leading approaches to organization design are

examined from the perspective of electronic commerce. A quasi-general

organization design approach is proposed specifically for electronic commerce

projects.

Wansink, Brian214 (Summer 2000) argues that the use of laddering and

prototyping allows marketing professionals to accurately determine what

customers to target and how to target them. He proposes a four-step process of

analyzing consumers that combines these two methods. He also provides detail on

how laddering interview can be conducted to develop insights in to what is

important to consumers and how a product or service can be meaning fully

differentiated from others.

123 | P a g e

Watson, Warren; Wayne Stewart Jr.; and Anat, BarNir215 (2003)

examine the effects of human capital, organizational demography and

interpersonal processes on partner evaluations of venture performance, defined as

the presence of profit and growth. The results support this approach in analyzing

venture teams and it is proposed that this perspective be included in future venture

viability assessment and used for intervention to enhance venture success.

Wennekers, Sander; and Roy, Thurik216 (1999) examine the relationship

between entrepreneurship and economic growth by considering three levels on

which entrepreneurship can be analyzed (individual, firm and aggregate level).

They discuss the concept of entrepreneurship with the aim of explaining the

entrepreneurship role in the process of the economic growth.

Wetzel, William217 (September-October 2002) discusses characteristics of

angel investors, their role in the new venture financing and their values and ethical

beliefs. He also gives advice on how to look for angel investors and how to

succeed in obtaining their financing.

Wiklund, Johan; and Dean A. Shephard218 (2003) found that small

business managers’ aspirations to expand their business activities are positively

related to actual growth. However, the relationship between aspirations and

growth appears more complex than stated. Education, experience and

environmental dynamism magnify the effect of growth aspirations on the

realization of growth.

Wiklund, Johan; Per Davidsson; and Frederic Delmar219 (2003) focus on

small business managers’ motivation to expand their firms. The results suggest

that concern for employee well-being comes out strongly in determining the

overall attitude toward growth. They interpret this as reflecting a concern that the

positive atmosphere of the small organization may be lost in growth, which might

cause recurrent conflict for small business managers when deciding about the

future route for their firms.

Williams, Devid220 (2001) looks at the process of constructing a basic

marketing report – an area where there has hitherto been very little written

guidance, something taken for granted but often forming a substantial element of

the work in a marketing role.

124 | P a g e

Williams, Steve221 (2000) used the environmental uncertainty component of

transaction-costs theory to predict the organizational structural characteristics of

size (number of employees) and horizontal differentiation (number of vice

presidents). He found that high-uncertainty companies had significantly horizontal

differentiation than low- uncertainty firms, but low- uncertainty firms were found

to have significantly more employees than higher-uncertainty organizations,

which is the opposite of transaction-based theory.

Xiao, Jing J.; M. J. Alhabeeb; Gong-Soog Hon; and George W.

Haynes222 (2001), using data from the 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances, found

that family business owners are more risk tolerant than non-owners. Among

family business owners, age race, net worth and the number of employees in the

business affect risk-taking attitudes and behaviour. In addition, the following

factors are associated with risk-taking behaviours: number of years of ownership,

gross sales, who started the business and sole proprietorship. Education also

influences risk-taking attitudes.

Yates, Don; and Davis, Mark223 (January–February 2001) argue that

creating an extraordinary organization requires a willingness to share ownership

among all members and an abandonment of some of the most deep-seated beliefs

about leadership, hierarchy and the very purpose of an organization.

Zahra, Shaker A.; Donald O. Neubaum; and Galal M. El-Hagrassey224

(2002), using survey data form 228 new ventures, conclude that the formality,

comprehensiveness and user orientation of competitor analysis activities are

positively associated with new venture performance. Strategic uncertainty and

venture origin also significantly moderate the relationship between competitive

analysis and new venture performance.

Zimmerman, Monica A.; and Gerald Z. Zeitz225 (2002) argue that (1)

legitimacy is an important resource for gaining other resources (2) such resources

are crucial for new ventures growth and (3) legitimacy can be enhanced by the

strategic actions of new ventures. They review the impact of legitimacy on new

ventures as well as source of legitimacy for new ventures, present strategies for

new ventures to acquire legitimacy, explore the process of building legitimacy in

the new venture and examine the concept of the legitimacy threshold.

125 | P a g e

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Need of the Study

Based on review of literature, it is possible to identify that though various

studies have been completed in entrepreneurship but most of them addressed only

one or few dimensions of entrepreneurship in MSMEs, none of them adopted

integrated approach to study the entrepreneurship in MSMEs. One or few

dimensions will, definitely, not give fair and complete picture of their operations,

problems & prospects and environment. Moreover considering Uttar Pradesh state

of India, it is difficult to find studies based on the primary data to get integrated

picture of entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

Therefore, the need to study various dimensions of entrepreneurship in

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh arises. This study is an attempt to bridge the gap by

studying the relationship between various dimensions/variables/attributes of

entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh with integrated framework. This is

an empirical study to study and seek evidence the relationships between two or

more variables/attributes. The major dimensions of this study are causes of

entrepreneurship, funding for MSMEs, satisfaction level of entrepreneurs in

MSMEs, personal entrepreneurial attitude & tendencies, entrepreneurs’

psychology, entrepreneurs’ perception and opinion about their enterprises, factors

of competitive advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enterprises’ organisation

and planning, enterprises and their relationship with their industry, problems of

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, entrepreneurs’ perception and opinion about external

environment, skills and ability at the time of starting the enterprise and at present, sales

growth etc.

3.2 Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study is to test empirically the proposed relationship

between variables/attributes related to the entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh. Specifically, the study focuses on following objectives:

1. To study the level of technology in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

2. To study the causes of entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

126 | P a g e

3. To study the entrepreneur’s sources of funding in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh.

4. To study the entrepreneurs’ satisfaction with their enterprise in MSMEs in

Uttar Pradesh.

5. To study the personal entrepreneurial attitude & tendencies in MSMEs in

Uttar Pradesh.

6. To study the entrepreneurs’ psychology in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

7. To study the entrepreneurs’ perception and opinion about their enterprises

in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

8. To study the factors of competitive advantage for MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh.

9. To study the enterprises’ organisation and planning in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh.

10. To study the relationship of MSMEs with their industry in MSMEs in

Uttar Pradesh.

11. To study the problems of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

12. To study the entrepreneurs’ perception & Opinion, in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh, about external environment.

13. To study the skills and ability of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh at

the time of starting the enterprise and at present.

14. To study the income level/sales growth of entrepreneurs/MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh.

3.3 Hypotheses to be tested

The specific hypotheses (in Null Hypothesis form, i.e. H0) to be tested, inorder to attain abovementioned objectives, are shown below:

1. There is no significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and

the starting the business by self

2. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs

and sex of entrepreneurs


and entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture

4. There is no significant relationship between the any supplemental,

continuing education or training and category of Entrepreneurs

127 | P a g e

5. There is no significant relationship between sex of entrepreneurs and

starting enterprise by self

6. There is no significant relationship between starting enterprise by self and

any supplemental, continuing education or training


and starting enterprise by self



9. There is no significant relationship between being entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture and any supplemental, continuing education or

training

10. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have previous relevant

experience and/or educational background within the field of their

enterprise

11. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh personal achievement is not

an important cause of their entrepreneurship

12. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh status and prestige is not an

important cause of their entrepreneurship

13. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh economic necessity is not an


14. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Flexibility in work / family

is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship

15. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh independence is not an


16. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh learning and personal

growth is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship

17. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh test their own ideas is not an


18. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh money and wealth is not an


19. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh opportunity is not an


20. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh recognition is not an


128 | P a g e

21. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh satisfying work

relationships is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship

22. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh career security is not an


23. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t

start business themselves, the level of importance of personal achievement

is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of status and prestige is

same


start business themselves, the level of importance of economic necessity is

same


start business themselves, the level of importance of flexibility in

work/family is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of independence is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of learning and personal

growth is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of testing entrepreneurs’

own ideas is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of money and wealth is

same


start business themselves, the level of importance of opportunity is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of recognition is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of satisfying work

relationship is same

129 | P a g e


start business themselves, the level of importance of career security is

same



is same

36. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar

Pradesh, the level of importance of status and prestige is same


Pradesh, the level of importance of economic necessity is same


Pradesh, the level of importance of flexibility in work/family is same


Pradesh, the level of importance of independence is same

40. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level

of importance of learning and personal growth is same


of importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same


Pradesh, the level of importance of money and wealth is same

43. for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar

Pradesh, the level of importance of opportunity is same


Pradesh, the level of importance of recognition is same


Pradesh, the level of importance of satisfying work relationships is same


Pradesh, the level of importance of career security is same

47. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh outside funding / financing

is not available when they start the enterprise

48. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of

number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of

personal achievement is same

130 | P a g e






economic necessity is same



flexibility in work/family is same



independence is same



learning and professional growth is same



testing of entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same



money and wealth is same



opportunity is same



recognition is same



satisfying work relationships is same



career security is same

131 | P a g e

60. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most

available source of funding, the level of importance of personal

achievement is same

61. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most

available source of funding, the level of importance of status and prestige

is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of economic necessity

is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of flexibility in

work/family is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of independence is

same


available source of funding, the level of importance of learning and

personal growth is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of testing

entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of money and wealth

is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of opportunity is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of recognition is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of satisfying work

relationships is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of career security is

same

132 | P a g e

72. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not satisfied with their

enterprises’ sales, profit and overall satisfaction

73. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t wish to continue with

same enterprises

74. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a strong

attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return

75. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh typically adopt a bold,

aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting

potential opportunities

76. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t participate in professional

/ trade associations

77. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have business

applications of personal contacts

78. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t push themselves and

don’t feel real satisfaction when their work is among the best

79. Happenings in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not affected more by

entrepreneurs’ abilities, control and guidance than by external influences

80. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know that it’s

already been done before they are willing to try it

81. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t respect rules and

established procedures as they guide them

82. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel self-conscious when

they are with very successful entrepreneur(s)

83. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not ultimately responsible

for their own enterprises’ success

84. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not quite independent of the

opinions of others

85. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy intimidating other

in pursuing business opportunities

86. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh generally don’t have modest

and easily achievable goals and ambitions

87. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not particularly inventive or

creative

133 | P a g e

88. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy the uncertainty and

risks of business and they don’t energize them more than circumstances

with predictable outcomes

89. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that nothing that

life can offer is a substitute for great achievement

90. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend more time thinking

about their future goals than their past accomplishments

91. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are comfortable when they have

complete responsibility for deciding how and when to do their work

92. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t get a sense of pride and

accomplishment from their work

93. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t get excited creating their

own business opportunities

94. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enter in entrepreneurship

by choice but by obligation to ensure livelihood

95. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not willing to risk their

personal and family’s material well being for the sake of their enterprise

96. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not confident of their

abilities and they don’t feel good about themselves

97. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh an opportunity to beat a

competitor in a business deal is not a personal thrill

98. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy being able to use

old business concepts in new ways

99. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that success

comes from conforming to accepted business practices more so than

constantly doing new things

100. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh can’t control most situations

they find themselves in

101. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that it’s important to

continually look for new way to do things in the enterprise

102. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t like a job in which they

don’t have to answer to any one

134 | P a g e

103. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t frequently find

themselves in situations where they are powerless to control the

outcome(s)

104. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t often approach business

tasks in unique ways

105. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t buy insurance every time

they travel

106. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy being the catalyst for

change in business affairs

107. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that business

circumstances happen because of luck, whether good or bad

108. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that their knack for

dealing with people has enabled them to create many of their business

opportunities

109. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t find that they can think

better when they have guidance and advice from others

110. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have doubts frequently

about themselves or their abilities when making business proposals

111. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not in total control of their

destiny

112. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t worry about what their

business associates think about them

113. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy turning

circumstances to their advantage in business

114. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not driven to ever greater

efforts by an unquenched ambition

115. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that successful

entrepreneurs pursue any opportunity, and do what they have to do in order

to survive

116. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t thrive in situations which

encourage and reward their creativity

117. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know the answer

before they ask a question

135 | P a g e

118. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t judge their work by

considering whether that meets the minimum requirements for the task

119. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their enterprises for

doing the kind of work they want to do

120. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their enterprise to

make more money than otherwise

121. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh never lack working

capital/liquid assets/funds (which contributes in industrial sickness) to

sustain

122. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think women

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in U.P. have problems beyond men

entrepreneurs’ problems

123. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have not become competent

entrepreneur to achieve long term objectives of their enterprises in

effective and efficient manner

124. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend a lot of time

looking for someone who can tell them how to solve all their

entrepreneurial problems because they are unsure of themselves

125. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in dealing with their

competitors, typically responds to actions which competitors initiate

126. MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are seldom the first business to introduce new

products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.

127. Top management in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, favour a strong emphasis on

the marketing of tried and true products and services

128. In the past five years, no new lines of products or services have been

introduced by entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

129. Changes in the product or service lines of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are

mostly of a minor nature

130. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, the level of technology, in terms of the work

that they do and how they do, is low

131. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive

advantage in serving a distinct and unique market niche


advantage in access to the market (e.g. Location)

136 | P a g e


advantage in unique technology of product


advantage in unique technology process or production


advantage in offering lower price than the competition


advantage in providing significantly higher quality than the competition


advantage in offering broad product / service lines providing customer

convenience


advantage in significantly higher levels of customer service and support

139. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have current,

comprehensive and detailed business plan

140. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have detailed job

descriptions for any position

141. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have operating procedures

in place for most processes within the enterprise

142. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh rarely change marketing

practices to keep up with the market and competitors

143. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that the rate of at which

products / services are getting obsolete in their industry is very slow

144. Actions of competitors of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are

quite easy to predict

145. Virtually there is no research and development (R & D) within the industry

of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

146. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands and consumer tastes are fairly easy

to forecast

147. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and / or service technology is not

subject to very much change and is well established

148. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in

registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

137 | P a g e


establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

150. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties for their

enterprises due to uncertainty about the economy

151. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in choosing

a direction for enterprise for their enterprises

152. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties for their

enterprises due to regulations and paperwork

153. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in time

management

154. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding

general management skills

155. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties due to

change in customer needs

156. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in obtaining

finances

157. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties due to

uncertainty about the political situation


taxes & tax laws


maintaining quality of products / services


change in economic conditions


intense competition

162. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in cost

control

163. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in educating

the workforce

164. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in attracting

quality workers


maintaining productivity

138 | P a g e

166. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties due lack of

suppliers / health of suppliers


competing globally


motivating employees


incorporating new / emerging technologies


marketing problems


Pradesh, the level of problem in registration of MSMEs is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in establishment of MSMEs is same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the economy is

same


Pradesh, the level of problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to regulations and paperwork is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in time management is same


Pradesh, the level of problem related to general management skills is same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in customer needs is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in obtaining finances is same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the political

situation is same

139 | P a g e


Pradesh, the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including

mandated benefits) is same


Pradesh, the level of problem regarding quality of products / services is

same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in economic condition is same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to intense competition is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in cost control is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in educating the workforce is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in attracting quality workers is same


Pradesh, the level of problem related to productivity is same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers

is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in competing globally is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in motivating employees is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging

technologies is same


Pradesh, the level of marketing problems is same

194. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is very safe

with little threat to the survival and well-being of their enterprises

195. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is very rich in

investment and marketing opportunities

140 | P a g e

196. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh demands little

in the way of technological sophistication

197. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have an environment that their

enterprises can control and manipulate to their own advantage

198. There are Minimal requirements for registration or licensing, present few

rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial activity, and provides a

favourable environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

199. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face

environmental problems external to their enterprises

200. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have a large quantity of

small enterprises and a diversity of economic activity within their

geographic area

201. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel that there is a

supportive public attitude towards entrepreneurship

202. Educational and training programs as well as necessary information to

improve technical, vocational and business skills are not available for

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

203. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh non-financial assistance

through modern transportation and communication facilities, counselling

support services and other programs is not available

204. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial institutions are not

willing to finance small entrepreneurs

205. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial assistance is not

available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative

sources of financing

206. MSMEs related policies of both central as well as state govt. have not been

achieved their objectives

207. There is not adequate support available for MSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in

terms of grants, subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased and impartial

allocation/selection and effective and efficient and/or corruption-free

distribution

208. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face managerial problems

209. In Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to the governments don’t overweigh the

costs of MSMEs to governments

141 | P a g e

210. Infrastructure facilities for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are inadequate

211. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and

ability/availability and affordability of skills in the developing of a

business plan after establishment of enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the strategic planning after

establishment of their enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the start-up operations after

establishment of enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the personnel after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the finance after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the inventory control /

purchasing after establishment of enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the feasibility analysis after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the pro-forma financial

analysis after establishment of enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the accounting after



ability/availability and affordability of the general management skills after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the production after


142 | P a g e


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the marketing after


223. There is no significant relationship between the enterprises started by self

and having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives


having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives

225. There is no significant relationship between enterprise being

entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture and having sales growth as one

of enterprises’ objectives

226. There is no significant relationship between any supplemental, continuing

education or training and having sales growth as one of enterprises’

objectives

227. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who

are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of

problem in registration of MSMEs is same



problem in establishment of MSMEs is same



problem due to uncertainty about the economy is same



problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is same



problem due to regulations and paperwork is same



problem in time management is same



problem related to general management skills is same

143 | P a g e



problem due to change in customer needs is same



problem in obtaining finances is same



problem due to uncertainty about the political situation is same



problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits) is same



problem regarding quality of products / services is same



problem due to change in economic condition is same



problem due to intense competition is same



problem in cost control is same



problem in educating the workforce is same



problem in attracting quality workers is same



problem related to productivity is same

144 | P a g e



problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same



problem in competing globally is same



problem in motivating employees is same



problem in incorporating new / emerging technologies is same



marketing problems is same

All hypotheses will be tested at the .01 level of significance (i.e. 99 %confidence level).

3.4 Research Methodology

In the previous section, hypotheses to be tested are presented. Fourteen

research objectives, two hundred fourty nine hypotheses that served to direct the

data analysis, and an identification of several terms key to the study. In addition, a

review of relevant literature related to the study established a background of

support for the study. Most of these variables/attributes have been studied

extensively, but not together from same respondents. This research effort is an

attempt to examine the relationship between these variables in a manner that has

not been done to date.

The intent of this section is to describe the methodology used in this

research effort. Included in the section is a description of the study setting,

research design, study sample, and data collection methods, procedures, and

analysis efforts.

3.4.1 Study Setting

145 | P a g e

In its broadest conceptualization, this study addresses the population of

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh. However, the vast diversity of this

population in terms of socioeconomic status and other related variables/attributes

might be a monumental undertaking. Therefore, the setting was delimited for

sampling for this study.

The setting for this study, thus, consists of all MSMEs within ten settings.

These ten settings are the types of industry in which enterprise is operating. The

ten types of industries assumed in this study are; Professional services, Consumer

services, Guest service, Manufacturing, Transportation and public utilities, Retail,

Wholesale, Agricultural and agricultural related, Construction related and Mining,

extraction oil.

These ten settings was chosen to provide for a sample of all types of

industries in MSMEs within a confined geographic area thereby facilitating the

collection of data, while at the same time meeting the requirements of grouping

differences of types of industry of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

3.4.2 Research Design

The proposed study employs an ex post facto research design as described

by Kerlinger (1973):

“Ex post facto research is systematic empirical

inquiry in which the scientist does not have

direct control of variables. Inferences about

relationships among variables are made from

any determined variations between the studied

variables. (p. 344)”

Therefore, the study plan involved the gathering of information about

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in two different study setting. No

manipulation of the variables/attributes by the researcher has been made; instead

any determined differences are ex post facto in nature in that they stem from

differences in results in the measurement efforts according to age, study setting,

entrepreneurial stage, and other variables/attributes.

3.4.3 Population and Sampling Plan

146 | P a g e

All the enterprises of Uttar Pradesh which falls in any of Micro, Small and

Medium Enterprises’ definition as defined in the ‘Official Operating Definition of

MSMEs’ section constitute population for this study.

A stratified-random-purposive sample was taken for all settings because the

list of non-registered MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh was not available. Enterprises were

representative of whole State in dimensions of official divisions. There were 18

official divisions at the time of sampling and these divisions were considered as

strata in first stage of sampling for this study. For second stage of sampling it was

proposed to select randomly one district from each division. But as one the

divisions was very large and one was very small therefore smallest division was

excluded from sampling and largest was considered for selecting two districts

randomly. For all other divisions one district was selected randomly. So in total 18

districts was initially selected in second stage of sampling. In last stage of

sampling 25 entrepreneurs (20 male and 5 female) were selected purposively from

each district selected in second stage of sampling. In total 450 entrepreneurs in

MSMEs from 18 districts representing whole State were selected for data

collection.

Obtaining data from 450 entrepreneurs as described in the previous

paragraph resulted in a good cross section of subjects in terms of gender and type

of enterprise, category of entrepreneur etc. In addition, the normal variations in

variables/attributes among at least 450 entrepreneurs enabled

statistical/mathematical comparisons for the study’s hypotheses that provided new

information about different dimensions of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

3.4.4 Data Collection Procedures

In this study, one questionnaire was used to measure various independent

variables/attributes and dependent variables/attributes.

3.4.4.1 Data Gathering Plans

Field survey was done to collect the data. A questionnaire that also asks

subjects like their location of enterprise, gender, type of enterprise etc. was

delivered to respondent in each setting who had agreed to respond. Prior to their

distribution conversation with entrepreneurs was made asking for their

147 | P a g e

cooperation. Those agreed to cooperate and filling questionnaire were given the

questionnaire for filling. The questionnaire also described the research and its

importance and the support of the researcher. In case of difficulty or doubt in

interpreting the meaning of questionnaire they were assisted by the researcher in

order to minimise response error.

3.4.4.2 Pilot Testing

This procedure was pilot-tested with 10 volunteers from the MSMEs as per

convenience. After the pilot-testing required changes in the data collection plan

was carried out.

3.4.4.3 Secondary Data

Besides that secondary data from authentic sources has been used in this

study also. Reference books, reports and survey publications of Governments and

its agencies have been used to supplement primary data.

3.5 Data Analysis

Different analyses have been made to achieve different objectives in order to

solve the purpose of the study. First, in order to provide a description of the

sample from which data will be collected, descriptive information on year of

starting of enterprise gender, type of enterprise category of entrepreneur etc. have

been described. Mean, range, and standard deviations for the variables have also

been made. Second, to determine, any differences in responses according to the

moderating effects of gender, type of enterprise category of entrepreneur etc., Chi-

square tests have been used. To test hypothesis for interval scale data T-tests have

been used. Lastly, F-tests & analysis of variance (ANOVA) have also been used

to examine for any significant differences among the responses of various groups

regarding dimension under study.

3.6 Limitations of the Study

There are following two major limitations to the study:

First, the study is limited in terms of its generalizability to the total MSMEs

in Uttar Pradesh because the sample under study may not represent whole

148 | P a g e

population. While the proposed study sample is quite diverse, the fact remains that

certain segments of the MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have not been included.

A second limitation of the study is that the independent and dependent

variables/attributes are measured as subjects’ perceptions, not actual behaviours.

So the data may be biased to the extent of subjects’ perceptual error. Moreover

even if respondents’ perception is free of errors they might hide the truth fully or

partially. In such a case the result will not show the reality.

3.7 Significance of the Study

It is expected that the study will make contributions to the area of

entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh. The study will contribute to the

entrepreneurship and its status in Uttar Pradesh. As we know that small business is

backbone of the economy of Uttar Pradesh therefore entrepreneurship is inevitable

for most of the people of the state.

This research being an empirical study for various dimensions of

entrepreneurship would fill the gaps between theory and practice of

entrepreneurship. The study is by and large hypothesis based. And since the

analysis is ordinary, realistic and meaningful, it will contribute in the defining the

true relationship between variables/attributes related to entrepreneurship in the

context of Uttar Pradesh

The research may be beneficial to all concerns especially researcher,

academicians and policy makers to understand relationships between

variables/attributes related to entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.

149 | P a g e

4. Analysis of the Data, Results, andDiscussion

4.1 Year of Establishment

From the Table: 4.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, mean

year of establishment is 1999 A.D. (i.e. enterprises on average are 14 years

old in 2013 A.D.) with Std. Deviation of 8.81 years and the range of year of

establishment of the enterprise is 44 years (i.e. from 1968 to 2012 A.D.).

Table: 4.1; Year of Establishment

Descriptive Statistics

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

Year of Establishment 450 44 1968 2012 1998.70 ~1999 8.816

4.2 Self-started Enterprises

From the Table: 4.2 & Figure: 4.2 it may be seen that for 450 observed

enterprises, 372 (82.7%) enterprises was started by entrepreneur and 78

(17.3%) by others.

Table: 4.2; Self-started Enterprises

Did enterprise start by self?

Frequency Percent

Yes 372 82.7

No 78 17.3

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.2; Self-started Enterprises

150 | P a g e

4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age

From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,

entrepreneurs’ mean age is 37.38 years and the range of their age is 53 years

(i.e. 19 to 72 years).

Table: 4.3; Entrepreneurs’ Age


N Range Minimum Maximum Mean

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error

Age 450 53 19 72 37.38 .466

From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, Std.

Deviation for entrepreneurs’ age is 9.892 years and the Variance of their age is

97.853 years.

4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex


entrepreneurs, 360 (80.0%) entrepreneurs was male and 90 (20.0%) female.

Table: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex

Entrepreneurs’ Sex

Frequency Percent

Male 360 80.0

78

150 | P a g e









Age 450 53 19 72 37.38 .466



97.853 years.






Frequency Percent

Male 360 80.0

372

78

Enterprise started byentrepreneur

Enterprise did not started byentrepreneur

150 | P a g e









Age 450 53 19 72 37.38 .466



97.853 years.






Frequency Percent

Male 360 80.0

Enterprise started byentrepreneur

Enterprise did not started byentrepreneur

151 | P a g e

Female 90 20.0

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex

4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by

Self

From Table: 4.5 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in relation

to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self, none of cell of

counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is

suitable for the data.

Table: 4.5; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting

Enterprise by Self

Sex * Did enterprise start by self?

Did enterprise start by self? Total

Yes No

Sex

MaleCount 308 52 360

Expected Count 297.6 62.4 360.0

FemaleCount 64 26 90


TotalCount 372 78 450


4.5.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

From Table: 4.5.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,

Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting151 | P a g e

Female 90 20.0

Total 450 100.0



Self






Enterprise by Self



Yes No

Sex









Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting

360

90


151 | P a g e

Female 90 20.0

Total 450 100.0



Self






Enterprise by Self



Yes No

Sex









Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting

Male

Female

152 | P a g e

Enterprise by self, is 10.484 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99%

Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.001) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship

between the sex of entrepreneurs and the starting the business by self’ is

‘Rejected’

Table: 4.5.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence forSex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 10.484a 1 .001

Continuity Correctionb 9.500 1 .002

Likelihood Ratio 9.487 1 .002

Linear-by-Linear Association 10.461 1 .001

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.60.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

4.5.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

From Table: 4.5.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Sex of

entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self measures of strength of association

Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.153), Cramer’s V and Contingency Coefficient

(=.151) all are very low it implies that despite of statistically significant

relationship between Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self their

strength of association is very poor.

Table: 4.5.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .153 .001

Cramer's V .153 .001

153 | P a g e

Contingency Coefficient .151 .001

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

4.6 Districts of Data collection

Table: 4.6 & Figure: 4.6 shows the districts of Uttar Pradesh randomly selectedfor collecting the data from the respondent (entrepreneurs) of MSMEs. 25entrepreneurs have been selected for data collection from 18 randomly selecteddistricts of Uttar Pradesh.

Table: 4.6; Districts of Data collection

Districts

Sl. No. Districts Frequency of Respondents (Entrepreneurs) Percent

1 Agra 25 5.6

2 Allahabad 25 5.6

3 Bareilly 25 5.6

4 Chitrakoot 25 5.6

5 Deoria 25 5.6

6 Faizabad 25 5.6

7 Gautam Budh Nagar 25 5.6

8 Gorakhpur 25 5.6

9 Hardoi 25 5.6

10 Jhansi 25 5.6

11 Kanpur 25 5.6

12 Lucknow 25 5.6

13 Mirzapur 25 5.6

14 Moradabad 25 5.6

15 Raebareli 25 5.6

154 | P a g e

16 Sravasti 25 5.6

17 Sultanpur 25 5.6

18 Varanasi 25 5.6

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.6; Districts

Districts

4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self

Table: 4.7 shows the enterprises started/not started by self in each selected

district. Bareilly (25/25) & Hardoi (25/25) districts have strong likelihood of

enterprises self started by entrepreneurs whereas Lucknow (15/25), Faizabad

(16/25), Varanasi (16/25) districts shows less likelihood of enterprises self started

by entrepreneurs.

Table: 4.7; Districts & Enterprises Started by Self

2525

25

25

2525

25

154 | P a g e

16 Sravasti 25 5.6

17 Sultanpur 25 5.6

18 Varanasi 25 5.6

Total 450 100.0


Districts






by entrepreneurs.


25 2525

25

25

25

2525

252525

25 25

Agra

Allahabad

Bareilly

Chitrakoot

Deoria

Faizabad

Gautam Budh Nagar

Gorakhpur

Hardoi

Jhansi

Kanpur

Lucknow

Mirzapur

Moradabad

Raebareli

Sravasti

Sultanpur

Varanasi

154 | P a g e

16 Sravasti 25 5.6

17 Sultanpur 25 5.6

18 Varanasi 25 5.6

Total 450 100.0


Districts






by entrepreneurs.


Agra

Allahabad

Bareilly

Chitrakoot

Deoria

Faizabad

Gautam Budh Nagar

Gorakhpur

Hardoi

Jhansi

Kanpur

Lucknow

Mirzapur

Moradabad

Raebareli

Sravasti

Sultanpur

Varanasi

155 | P a g e

District * Did enterprise start by self?


Yes No

District

Agra 21 4 25

Allahabad 22 3 25

Bareilly 25 0 25

Chitrakoot 19 6 25

Deoria 23 2 25

Faizabad 16 9 25

Gautam Budh Nagar 23 2 25

Gorakhpur 23 2 25

Hardoi 25 0 25

Jhansi 19 6 25

Kanpur 21 4 25

Lucknow 15 10 25

Mirzapur 16 9 25

Moradabad 18 7 25

Raebareli 22 3 25

Sravasti 24 1 25

Sultanpur 24 1 25

Varanasi 16 9 25

Total 372 78 450

4.8 Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture

Table: 4.8 shows the enterprises being/not being entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture in each selected district. Varanasi (25/25) district has

strongest likelihood of enterprises being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial

156 | P a g e

venture whereas Jhansi (13/25) district shows least likelihood of enterprises being

entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture.

Table: 4.8; Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture

District * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?

Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Total

Yes No

District

Agra 24 1 25

Allahabad 19 6 25

Bareilly 22 3 25

Chitrakoot 20 5 25

Deoria 22 3 25

Faizabad 22 3 25


Gorakhpur 23 2 25

Hardoi 23 2 25

Jhansi 13 12 25

Kanpur 19 6 25

Lucknow 20 5 25

Mirzapur 21 4 25

Moradabad 21 4 25

Raebareli 21 4 25

Sravasti 21 4 25

Sultanpur 22 3 25

Varanasi 25 0 25

Total 379 71 450

4.9 Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training

157 | P a g e

Table: 4.9 shows the entrepreneurs with/without any supplemental,

continuing education or training in each selected district. Chitrakoot (17/25)

district has strongest likelihood of entrepreneurs with any supplemental,

continuing education or training whereas Raebareli (1/25) district shows least

likelihood of entrepreneurs with any supplemental, continuing education or

training.

Table: 4.9; Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training

District * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or

functional business skills)

Any supplemental, continuing education or training

(technical, professional or functional business skills)

Total

Yes No

District

Agra 12 13 25

Allahabad 8 17 25

Bareilly 6 19 25

Chitrakoot 17 8 25

Deoria 5 20 25

Faizabad 7 18 25


Gorakhpur 3 22 25

Hardoi 2 23 25

Jhansi 2 23 25

Kanpur 9 16 25

Lucknow 11 14 25

Mirzapur 3 22 25

Moradabad 6 19 25

Raebareli 1 24 25

Sravasti 2 23 25

158 | P a g e

Sultanpur 4 21 25

Varanasi 13 12 25

Total 118 332 450

4.10 Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs

Table: 4.10 shows the Types of industry of MSMEs in each selected district.

Table: 4.10; Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs

District * Type of Industry/Business

Type of Industry/Business Total

P.S. C.S

.

G.S

.

Mfg. T.U

.

Rtl. W.S. A.R. C.R

.

Meo

District

Agra 6 2 2 3 1 5 1 0 4 1 25

Allahabad 4 3 3 0 9 1 0 5 0 0 25

Bareilly 2 2 1 3 0 12 3 1 1 0 25

Chitrakoot 7 7 5 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 25

Deoria 2 3 3 0 2 6 2 6 0 1 25

Faizabad 1 4 3 3 2 4 1 4 2 1 25

Gautam Budh Nagar 2 6 2 6 1 4 3 0 1 0 25

Gorakhpur 7 2 2 2 0 9 0 1 2 0 25

Hardoi 3 9 1 0 0 4 6 0 2 0 25

Jhansi 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 2 1 0 25

Kanpur 1 5 4 6 1 3 2 0 3 0 25

Lucknow 2 3 6 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 25

Mirzapur 3 2 3 1 0 6 3 3 3 1 25

Moradabad 1 1 1 6 4 9 1 1 1 0 25

Raebareli 2 1 3 8 0 7 2 0 2 0 25

Sravasti 2 0 5 5 2 3 3 1 4 0 25

159 | P a g e

Sultanpur 3 5 1 3 2 6 1 2 2 0 25

Varanasi 6 5 8 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 25

Total 56 63 57 59 31 85 33 29 32 5 450

P.S. = Professional services (e.g. accounting, consulting)

C.S. = Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto service)

G.S. = Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant)

Mfg. = Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods)

T.U. = Transportation or public utilities

Rtl. = Retail (including import/export)

W.S. = Wholesale (including import/ export)

A.R. = Agricultural or agricultural related

C.R. = Construction related (Including all trades)

Meo = Mining, extraction, oil

4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs

Table: 4.11 & Figure: 4.11 show the category of entrepreneurs selected for

the purpose of data collection. Out of 450 entrepreneurs 61 (=13.6%) are

Scheduled Caste (S.C.), 23 (=5.1%) are Scheduled Tribes (S.T.), 183 (=40.7%)

are Other Backward Classes and 183 (=40.7%) are General.

Table: 4.11; Category of Entrepreneurs

Category of Entrepreneurs

Frequency Percent

Scheduled Caste (S.C.) 61 13.6

Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) 23 5.1

Other Backward Classes 183 40.7

General 183 40.7

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.11; Category of Entrepreneurs

160 | P a g e

4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex of

Entrepreneurs

From Table: 4.12 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in

relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs, none of cell

of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of

Independence is suitable for the data.

Table: 4.12; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex

of Entrepreneurs

Category of Entrepreneur * Sex

Sex Total

Male Female

Category of Entrepreneur

Scheduled Caste (S.C.)Count 43 18 61


Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 16 7 23


Other Backward ClassesCount 153 30 183


GeneralCount 148 35 183




4.12.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs

183

160 | P a g e


Entrepreneurs






of Entrepreneurs


Sex Total

Male Female













61 23

183

Scheduled Caste (S.C.)

Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)

Other Backward Classes

General

160 | P a g e


Entrepreneurs






of Entrepreneurs


Sex Total

Male Female













Scheduled Caste (S.C.)

Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)

Other Backward Classes

General

161 | P a g e


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of

entrepreneurs, is 6.587 with df (degree of freedom) of 3 and 99% Confidence

Level. Since the p-Value (.086) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level,

therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between

the category of entrepreneurs and sex of entrepreneurs’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.12.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence forCategory of Entrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs

Chi-Square Tests





a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count

is 4.60.

4.12.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs

From Table: 4.12.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Category of

entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs measures of strength of association Phi

Correlation Coefficient (=.121), Cramer’s V (=.121) and Contingency

Coefficient (=.120) all are very low it implies that besides no statistically

significant relationship between Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs

their strength of association is also very poor.

Table: 4.12.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .121 .086



162 | P a g e



4.13 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’First Entrepreneurial Venture


relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts

therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.

Table: 4.13; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &

Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture

Category of Entrepreneur * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?

Is this your first

entrepreneurial venture?

Total

Yes No

Category of

Entrepreneur











4.13.1 Hypothesis testing for Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Category of entrepreneurs &

Entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture, is 10.629 with df (degree of

freedom) of 3 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.014) is more than

.01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no

significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs and

entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

163 | P a g e

Table: 4.13.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence forSex of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture

Chi-Square Tests




Linear-by-Linear Association .000 1 1.000

N of Valid Cases 450


is 3.63.

4.13.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture


entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs measures of strength of association Phi



significant relationship between Category of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture their strength of association is also very poor.

Table: 4.13.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .154 .014





164 | P a g e

4.14 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category of Entrepreneurs

Table: 4.14 shows the entrepreneurs’ highest educational level in each

category of entrepreneurs. We can observe that most Scheduled Caste (16/61)

entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least Scheduled Caste

(0/61) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate and Ph.D., most Scheduled Tribes (10/23)

entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least Scheduled Tribes

(0/23) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate, up to primary and Ph.D., most Other

Backward Classes (45/183) entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and

least Other Backward Classes (0/183) entrepreneur tend to be Ph.D. and most

General (61/183) entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least

General (2/183) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate or Ph.D.

Table: 4.14; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category ofEntrepreneurs

Your highest educational level * Category of Entrepreneur

Category of Entrepreneur Total

Scheduled

Caste (S.C.)

Scheduled

Tribes (S.T.)

Other Backward

Classes

General

Your highest

educational

level

Illiterate 0 0 1 1 2

(Up to) Primary (5th) 2 0 3 5 10

Secondary (8th) 6 2 15 5 28

High School (10th) 8 2 35 16 61

Intermediate (12th) 15 4 44 35 98

Bachelor’s degree 16 10 45 61 132

Post Graduate 11 2 32 50 95

Master’s degree 3 3 8 9 23

Ph. D. 0 0 0 1 1

Total 61 23 183 183 450

4.15 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or

Training & Category of Entrepreneurs

165 | P a g e


relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education or training &

Category of entrepreneurs, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts


Table: 4.15; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing

Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs

Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business

skills) * Category of Entrepreneur


Scheduled

Caste (S.C.)

Scheduled

Tribes (S.T.)

Other Backward

Classes

General

Any supplemental,

continuing

education or

training (technical,

professional or

functional business

skills)

Yes

Count 15 7 43 53 118

Expected

Count16.0 6.0 48.0 48.0 118.0

No

Count 46 16 140 130 332

Expected

Count45.0 17.0 135.0 135.0 332.0

Total

Count 61 23 183 183 450

Expected

Count61.0 23.0 183.0 183.0 450.0

4.15.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education

or training & Category of Entrepreneurs, is 1.707 with df (degree of freedom)

of 3 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.635) is more than .01 at

99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no

significant relationship between the any supplemental, continuing education or

training and category of Entrepreneurs’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.15.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs

Chi-Square Tests



166 | P a g e


Linear-by-Linear Association .421 1 .517


is 6.03.

4.15.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs

From Table: 4.15.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Any

supplemental, continuing education or training & Category of

Entrepreneurs’ measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient

(=..062), Cramer’s V (=.062) and Contingency Coefficient (=.061) all are very

low it implies that besides no statistically significant relationship between

Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs their strength of association is

also very poor.

Table: 4.15.2; Strength of Association between Independence for AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training & Category of

Entrepreneurs

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .062 .635



N of Valid Cases 450



4.16 Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs

Table: 4.16 shows the type of industry/business in each category of

entrepreneurs. We can observe that most Scheduled Caste (13/61) entrepreneurs

tend to be in Retail (including import/export) and least Scheduled Caste (1/61)

167 | P a g e

entrepreneur tend to be in Mining, extraction, oil, most Scheduled Tribes (10/23)

entrepreneurs tend to be in Retail ( including import/export) or Consumer services

(e.g. hairdressing, auto service) and least Scheduled Tribes (0/23) entrepreneur

tend to be in Wholesale (including import/ export) and Mining, extraction, oil,

most Other Backward Classes (34/183) entrepreneurs tend to be in Retail (

including import/export) and least Other Backward Classes (2/183) entrepreneurs

tend to be in Mining, extraction, oil and most General (33/183) entrepreneurs tend

to be in Retail ( including import/export) and least General (2/183) entrepreneurs

tend to be in Mining, extraction, oil.

Table: 4.16; Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs

Type of Industry/Business * Category of Entrepreneur


Scheduled

Caste

(S.C.)

Scheduled

Tribes

(S.T.)

Other

Backward

Classes

General

Type of

Industry/

Business

Professional services (e.g.

accounting, consulting)10 1 23 22 56

Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing,

auto service)9 5 28 21 63

Guest services (e.g. hotel,

restaurant)6 3 22 26 57

Manufacturing (consumer or durable

goods)5 2 25 27 59

Transportation or public utilities 5 3 11 12 31

Retail ( including import/export) 13 5 34 33 85

Wholesale (including import/ export) 5 0 10 18 33

Agricultural or agricultural related 5 2 15 7 29

Construction related (Including all

trades)2 2 13 15 32

Mining, extraction, oil 1 0 2 2 5

Total 61 23 183 183 450

168 | P a g e

4.17 Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs

Table: 4.17; shows the category of entrepreneurs in each selected district.

Table: 4.17; Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs

District * Category of Entrepreneur


Scheduled

Caste (S.C.)

Scheduled

Tribes (S.T.)

Other Backward

Classes

General

District

Agra 5 0 11 9 25

Allahabad 3 2 7 13 25

Bareilly 3 0 9 13 25

Chitrakoot 4 2 11 8 25

Deoria 2 1 11 11 25

Faizabad 4 1 9 11 25

Gautam Budh Nagar 2 0 18 5 25

Gorakhpur 5 1 11 8 25

Hardoi 6 0 10 9 25

Jhansi 5 4 8 8 25

Kanpur 1 1 13 10 25

Lucknow 3 3 8 11 25

Mirzapur 7 0 8 10 25

Moradabad 0 1 10 14 25

Raebareli 2 1 10 12 25

Sravasti 4 2 8 11 25

Sultanpur 4 2 10 9 25

Varanasi 1 2 11 11 25

Total 61 23 183 183 450

169 | P a g e

4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture


entrepreneurs, 379 (84.2%) has their enterprise as first enterprise and 71

(15.8%) has their enterprise as other than first one.

Table: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture

Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?

Frequency Percent

Yes 379 84.2

No 71 15.8

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture


Self


relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise by self, none of cell




Enterprise by Self

Sex * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?


Yes No

Sex Male Count 309 51 360

71

169 | P a g e







Frequency Percent

Yes 379 84.2

No 71 15.8

Total 450 100.0



Self






Enterprise by Self



Yes No


379

71

Enterprises asentrepreneur's firstentrepreneurial venture

Enterprises asentrepreneur's other thanfirst entrepreneurial venture

169 | P a g e







Frequency Percent

Yes 379 84.2

No 71 15.8

Total 450 100.0



Self






Enterprise by Self



Yes No


Enterprises asentrepreneur's firstentrepreneurial venture

Enterprises asentrepreneur's other thanfirst entrepreneurial venture

170 | P a g e






4.19.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & StartingEnterprise by Self


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise

by self, is 3.516 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level.

Since the p-Value (.061) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore

the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between sex of

entrepreneurs and starting enterprise by self’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.19.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

Chi-Square Tests





Fisher's Exact Test




4.19.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterpriseby Self


entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise by self’ measures of strength of association

Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.088), Cramer’s V (=.088) and Contingency


171 | P a g e

significant relationship between Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by

Self their strength of association is also very poor.

Table: 4.19.2; Strength of association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .088 .061





4.20 Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs


entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the entrepreneurs’ ownership is 86.09 and

the range of their percentage of the ownership is 80 (i.e. from 20 to 100).

Table: 4.20; Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs




Percentage of the enterprise

you own450 80 20 100 86.09 15.407

4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level

From the Table: 4.21 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, 2

(.4%) entrepreneurs are Illiterate, 10 (2.2%) entrepreneurs are educated up to

Primary (5th), 28 (6.2%) entrepreneurs are educated up to Secondary (8th), 61

(13.6%) entrepreneurs are educated up to High School (10th), 98 (21.8%)

entrepreneurs are educated up to Intermediate (12th), 132 (29.3%) entrepreneurs

are educated up to Bachelor’s degree, 95 (21.1%) entrepreneurs are educated up

172 | P a g e

to Post Graduate, 23 (5.1%) entrepreneurs are educated up to Master’s degree

and 1 (.2%) entrepreneur is educated up to Ph. D.

Table: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level

Entrepreneurs’ highest educational level

Frequency Percent

Illiterate 2 .4

(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 2.2

Secondary (8th) 28 6.2

High School (10th) 61 13.6

Intermediate (12th) 98 21.8

Bachelor’s degree 132 29.3

Post Graduate 95 21.1

Master’s degree 23 5.1

Ph. D. 1 .2

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level

Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level

4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self & Any Supplemental,

Continuing Education or Training

132

95

172 | P a g e





Frequency Percent

Illiterate 2 .4








Ph. D. 1 .2

Total 450 100.0





2

10 2861

98

132

23

1

Illiterate

(Up to) Primary (5th)

Secondary (8th)

High School (10th)

Intermediate (12th)

Bachelor’s degree

Post Graduate

Master’s degree

Ph. D.

172 | P a g e





Frequency Percent

Illiterate 2 .4








Ph. D. 1 .2

Total 450 100.0





Illiterate

(Up to) Primary (5th)

Secondary (8th)

High School (10th)

Intermediate (12th)

Bachelor’s degree

Post Graduate

Master’s degree

Ph. D.

173 | P a g e





Table: 4.22; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self & Any


Did enterprise start by self? * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical,

professional or functional business skills)

Any supplemental, continuing education or

training (technical, professional or functional

business skills)

Total

Yes No


YesCount 93 279 372


NoCount 25 53 78




4.22.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Starting Enterprise by Self &Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Starting Enterprise by Self & Any

Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training, is 1.657 with df (degree of

freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.198) is more than

.01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no

significant relationship between starting enterprise by self and any

supplemental, continuing education or training’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.22.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

Chi-Square Tests





Fisher's Exact Test

174 | P a g e

Linear-by-Linear

Association1.653 1 .198



4.22.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Starting Enterprise bySelf & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

From Table: 4.22.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Starting

Enterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training’s

measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (= -.061),

Cramer’s V (=.061) and Contingency Coefficient (=.061) all are very low it

implies that besides no statistically significant relationship between starting

enterprise by self & any supplemental, continuing education or training their

strength of association is also very poor.

Table: 4.22.2; Strength of association between Independence for StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi -.061 .198





4.23 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Starting

Enterprise by Self


relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self, none

of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of


Table: 4.23; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &

Starting Enterprise by Self

Category of Entrepreneur * Did enterprise start by self?

175 | P a g e


Yes No

Category of

Entrepreneur











4.23.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Starting

Enterprise by Self, is 1.592 with df (degree of freedom) of 3 and 99%

Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.661) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship

between the category of entrepreneurs and starting enterprise by self’ is ‘Failedto Reject’.

Table: 4.23.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self

Chi-Square Tests






4.23.2 Strength of Association between Category of Entrepreneurs & StartingEnterprise by Self


entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self’s measures of strength of

association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.059), Cramer’s V (=.059) and

Contingency Coefficient (=.059) all are very low it implies that besides no

176 | P a g e

statistically significant relationship between Category of entrepreneurs & Starting

Enterprise by Self their strength of association is also very poor.

Table: 4.23.2; Strength of Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .059 .661





4.24 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Any Supplemental,



relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Any supplemental, continuing

education or training, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts


Table: 4.24; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Any


Sex * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional

business skills)



Total

Yes No

Sex







4.24.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training

177 | P a g e


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Any supplemental,

continuing education or training, is .930 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and

99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.335) is more than .01 at 99%

Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant

relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and any supplemental, continuing

education or training’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.24.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

Chi-Square Tests


Pearson Chi-Square .930a 1 .335

Continuity Correctionb .690 1 .406

Likelihood Ratio .956 1 .328

Linear-by-Linear Association .928 1 .335



4.24.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training


entrepreneurs & Any supplemental, continuing education or training’s

measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.045),

Cramer’s V (=.045) and Contingency Coefficient (=.045) all are very low it

implies that besides no statistically significant relationship between Sex of

entrepreneurs & Any supplemental, continuing education or training their

strength of association is also very poor.

Table: 4.24.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi .045 .335

178 | P a g e





4.25 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Enterprise Started by Self

Table: 4.25 shows the enterprise started/not started by self for each highest

educational level of entrepreneurs. We can observe that most entrepreneurs who

self started enterprise tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder (107/372) and least

entrepreneurs who self started enterprise tend to be illiterate & Ph.D. (1/372)

whereas most entrepreneurs who did not self started enterprise tend to be

Bachelor’s degree holder (25/78) and least entrepreneurs who did not self started

enterprise tend to be Primary educated & Ph.D. (0/78).

Table: 4.25; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Enterprise Startedby Self

Your highest educational level * Did enterprise start by self?


Yes No

Your highest educational level

Illiterate 1 1 2

(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 0 10

Secondary (8th) 26 2 28

High School (10th) 58 3 61

Intermediate (12th) 78 20 98

Bachelor’s degree 107 25 132

Post Graduate 79 16 95

Master’s degree 12 11 23

Ph. D. 1 0 1

Total 372 78 450

4.26 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Sex of Entrepreneurs

179 | P a g e

Table: 4.26 shows the sex of entrepreneurs for each highest educational

level of entrepreneurs. We can observe that most entrepreneurs who are male tend

to be Bachelor’s degree holder (106/360) and least entrepreneurs who are male

tend to be Ph.D. (0/360) whereas most entrepreneurs who are female tend to be

Intermediate (12th) and Bachelor’s degree holder (26/90) and least entrepreneurs

who are female started enterprise tend to be Illiterate (0/90).


Your highest educational level * Sex

Sex Total

Male Female

Your highest educational level

Illiterate 2 0 2








Ph. D. 0 1 1

Total 360 90 450

4.27 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture

Table: 4.27 shows the whether or not enterprise being entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture for each highest educational level of entrepreneurs. We

can observe that most entrepreneurs whose enterprise is their first enterprise tend

to be Bachelor’s degree holder (108/379) and least entrepreneurs whose enterprise

is their first enterprise tend to be illiterate & Ph.D. (1/379) whereas most

entrepreneurs whose enterprise is not their first enterprise tend to be Bachelor’s

180 | P a g e

degree holder (24/71) and least entrepreneurs whose enterprise is not their first

enterprise tend to be Primary educated (0/71).


Your highest educational level * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?


Yes No

Your highest

educational

level

Illiterate 1 1 2








Ph. D. 1 0 1

Total 379 71 450

4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ First EntrepreneurialVenture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training


relation to the Being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture & Any

supplemental, continuing education or training, none of cell of counts are

showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable

for the data.

Table: 4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or

Training

Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Any supplemental, continuing education or training


181 | P a g e

Any supplemental, continuing education

or training (technical, professional or


Total

Yes No

Is this your first


YesCount 104 275 379


NoCount 14 57 71




4.28.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurialventure & Any supplemental, continuing education or training, is 1.843 with

df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.175)

is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that

‘there is no significant relationship between being entrepreneurs’ firstentrepreneurial venture and any supplemental, continuing education or

training’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.28.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental,


Chi-Square Tests








4.28.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’First Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training

182 | P a g e

From Table: 4.28.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Being

entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture & Any supplemental, continuing

education or training’s measures of strength of association Phi Correlation

Coefficient (=.064), Cramer’s V (=.064) and Contingency Coefficient (=.064)

all are very low it implies that besides no statistically significant relationship

between Being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture & Any supplemental,

continuing education or training their strength of association is also very poor.

Table: 4.28.2; Strength of Association between Independence for BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental,


Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .064 .175





4.29 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training to Entrepreneurs

Table: 4.29 shows whether or not entrepreneurs received any supplemental,

continuing education or training for all highest educational level of entrepreneurs.

We can observe that most entrepreneurs who received any supplemental,

continuing education or training tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder (43/118) and

least entrepreneurs who received any supplemental, continuing education or

training tend to be illiterate & Ph.D. (0/118) whereas most entrepreneurs who

didn’t received any supplemental, continuing education or training tend to be

Bachelor’s degree holder (89/332) and least entrepreneurs who didn’t received

any supplemental, continuing education or training tend to be Ph.D. (1/332).

Table: 4.29; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training to Entrepreneurs

Your highest educational level * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical,

professional or functional business skills)

183 | P a g e



Total

Yes No

Your highest

educational level

Illiterate 0 2 2








Ph. D. 0 1 1

Total 118 332 450

4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training (Technical, Professional orFunctional Business Skills)

From the Table: 4.30 & Figure: 4.30 it may be observed that for 450

observed entrepreneurs, only 118 (26.2%) got supplemental, continuing

education or training (technical, professional or functional business skills)

and 332 (73.8%) did not get such education or training.

Table: 4.30; Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training (Technical,

Professional or Functional Business Skills)

Frequency Percent

Yes 118 26.2

No 332 73.8

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.30; Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training

184 | P a g e


4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for extent of relevant experience and educational

background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) is 3.45 with

Std. Deviation of .941.

Table: 4.31; Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Extent of relevant experience and educational background 450 3.45 .941

4.31.1 T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background

From the Table: 4.31.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,

entrepreneurs’ t value, for extent of relevant experience and educational

background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) against the

mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.172 with df (degree of freedom) of

449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that

‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have previous Relevant

Experience and/or Educational Background within the field of their enterprise’

is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.45 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%

Confidence Level.

332

184 | P a g e




















Confidence Level.

118

184 | P a g e




















Confidence Level.

Yes

No

185 | P a g e

Table: 4.31.1; T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference

99% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Extent of relevant experience and

educational background10.172 449 .000 .451 .34 .57

4.32 Type of Industry/Business

From the Table: 4.32 & Figure: 4.32 it may be observed that for 450

observed entrepreneurs, 56 (12.4%) are engaged in professional services (e.g.

accounting, consulting), 63 (14.0%) are engaged in Consumer services (e.g.

hairdressing, auto service), 57 (12.7%) are engaged in Guest services (e.g. hotel,

restaurant), 59 (13.1%) are engaged in Manufacturing (consumer or durable

goods), 31 (6.9%) are engaged in Transportation or public utilities, 85 (18.9%)

are engaged in Retail (including import/export), 33 (7.3%) are engaged in

Wholesale (including import/ export), 29 (6.4%) are engaged in Agricultural or

agricultural related, 32 (7.1%) are engaged in Construction related (Including

all trades), 5 (1.1%) are engaged in Mining, extraction, oil.

Table: 4.32; Type of Industry/Business

Type of Industry/Business

Frequency Percent

Professional services (e.g. accounting, consulting) 56 12.4

Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto service) 63 14.0

Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 57 12.7

Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods) 59 13.1

Transportation or public utilities 31 6.9

Retail ( including import/export) 85 18.9

186 | P a g e

Wholesale (including import/ export) 33 7.3

Agricultural or agricultural related 29 6.4

Construction related (Including all trades) 32 7.1

Mining, extraction, oil 5 1.1

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.32; Type of Industry/Business


4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service


enterprises, entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the Contribution to overall

success by products is 86.09 and the range of their Contribution to overall

success by products is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100) whereas mean percentage of the

Contribution to overall success by service is 39.11 and the range of their

Contribution to overall success by service is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100).

Table: 4.33; Contribution to Success by Product and Service



31

85

3329

186 | P a g e





Total 450 100.0













56

63

57

5931

32 5

Professional services (e.g.accounting, consulting)

Consumer services (e.g.hairdressing, auto service)

Guest services (e.g.hotel, restaurant )

Manufacturing (consumer ordurable goods)

Transportation or publicutilities

Retail ( includingimport/export)

Wholesale (includingimport/ export)

Agricultural or agriculturalrelated

186 | P a g e





Total 450 100.0













Professional services (e.g.accounting, consulting)

Consumer services (e.g.hairdressing, auto service)

Guest services (e.g.hotel, restaurant )

Manufacturing (consumer ordurable goods)

Transportation or publicutilities

Retail ( includingimport/export)

Wholesale (includingimport/ export)

Agricultural or agriculturalrelated

187 | P a g e


Contribution to overall

success by products450 100 0 100 60.89 30.643

Contribution to overall

success by service450 100 0 100 39.11 30.643

Figure: 4.33; Contribution to Success by Product and Service

4.34 Investment in Enterprises


enterprises, entrepreneurs’ mean of investment in plant & machinery is `

427833.33 and the range of the investment in plant & machinery is ` 3490000

(i.e. from ` 10000 to 3500000) and mean of investment in equipments is `

238486.67 and the range of the investment in equipments is ` 2495000 (i.e.

from ` 5000 to 2500000).

Table: 4.34; Investment in Enterprises (In Rs.)




Investment in plant &

machinery450 3490000 10000 3500000 427833.33 451292.972

Investment in equipments 450 2495000 5000 2500000 238486.67 295992.838

60.89

39.11

010203040506070

Contribution to overallsuccess by products

Contribution to overallsuccess by service

Contribution to success by Product andService

Contribution to success byProduct and Service

188 | P a g e

Figure: 4.34; Investment in Enterprises (In Rs.)

4.35 Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology


entrepreneurs, 232 (51.6%) has started their enterprise to take advantage of new

technology and 218 (48.4%) has started their enterprise without any plan to take

advantage of new technology.

Table: 4.35; Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology

Was this enterprise started because of, or to take advantage of New Technology?

Frequency Percent

Yes 232 51.6

No 218 48.4

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.35; Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology

427833.33

238486.67

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000

Investment in plant &machinery

Investment inequipments

Investment in Enterprises (In Rs.)

Investment in Enterprises (InRs.)

189 | P a g e

Enterprise Started to Take Advantage of New Technology

4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs



technology and 218 (48.4%) has started their enterprise without any plan to

take advantage of new technology.

Further out of those 232 (51.6%) enterprises which was started to take

advantage of new technology, 110 (24.4% of 450) enterprises used technology

which was existing elsewhere, but new to their area, 36 (8.0% of 450)

enterprises used technology which was existing in the area, but new to their

industry, 48 (10.7% of 450) enterprises used technology which was existing in

the industry, but new to their enterprise and 38 (8.4% of 450) enterprises used

technology which was a totally new technology, not previously existing.

Table: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs

Not Using

New

Technology

in MSMEs

Technology was

existing

elsewhere, but

new to your area

Technology was

existing in the

area, but new to

your industry

Technology was

existing in the

industry, but new

to your enterprise

Technology was a

totally new

technology, not

previously existing

Total

340 110 36 48 38 450

Figure: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs

218

189 | P a g e















Not Using

New

Technology

in MSMEs

Technology was

existing

elsewhere, but

new to your area

Technology was

existing in the

area, but new to

your industry

Technology was

existing in the

industry, but new

to your enterprise

Technology was a

totally new

technology, not

previously existing

Total

340 110 36 48 38 450


232

189 | P a g e















Not Using

New

Technology

in MSMEs

Technology was

existing

elsewhere, but

new to your area

Technology was

existing in the

area, but new to

your industry

Technology was

existing in the

industry, but new

to your enterprise

Technology was a

totally new

technology, not

previously existing

Total

340 110 36 48 38 450


232Yes

No

190 | P a g e



enterprises, average number of full time/equivalent employees (including

entrepreneur) in last 1 year is 2.16 (~2) and the range is 9 (i.e. from 1 to 10).


enterprises only 440 has completed 2 years from their establishment, therefore

for such 440 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees

(including entrepreneur) in last 2 years is 3.30 (~3) and the range is 19 (i.e.

from 1 to 20).





from 1 to 30).





from 1 to 32).

110

3648

Cases of using New Technology in MSMEsat the Time of Starting Enterprise

190 | P a g e









from 1 to 20).





from 1 to 30).





from 1 to 32).

340

48 38


Not Using New Technology inMSMEs

Technology was existingelsewhere, but new to your area

Technology was existing in thearea, but new to your industry

Technology was existing in theindustry, but new to your enterprise

Technology was a totally newtechnology, not previously existing

190 | P a g e









from 1 to 20).





from 1 to 30).





from 1 to 32).


Not Using New Technology inMSMEs

Technology was existingelsewhere, but new to your area

Technology was existing in thearea, but new to your industry

Technology was existing in theindustry, but new to your enterprise

Technology was a totally newtechnology, not previously existing

191 | P a g e





from 1 to 35).

Table: 4.37; Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees (IncludingEntrepreneur)


N Range Minimum Maximu

m

Mean Std.

Deviation


Average number of full

time/equivalent employees

(including yourself) in last 1 year

450 9 1 10 2.16 1.915



(including yourself) in last 2 years

440 19 1 20 3.30 3.163




432 29 1 30 4.73 4.464




401 31 1 32 6.38 5.927




301 34 1 35 8.74 7.812

Figure: 4.37; Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)

192 | P a g e

4.38 Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, or Trained (or Educated)as Engineers or Scientists


entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the employees involved in R & D work, or

trained (or educated) as engineers or scientists is 10.93 and the range of their

percentage is 75 (i.e. from 0 to 75).

Table: 4.38; Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, or Trained(or Educated) as Engineers or Scientists


N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation


Percentage of employees is

involved in R & D work, or are

trained (or educated) as

engineers or scientists

450 75.00 .00 75.00 10.9302 15.51793

4.39 Causes of Entrepreneurship


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Personal achievement on the scale of 1 (Not

important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.48 with Std. Deviation of 1.101.

2.163.3

4.73

6.38

8.74

0123456789

10

In last 1year

In last 2year

In last 3year

In last 5year

In last 10year

Average Number of Full Time/EquivalentEmployees (Including Entrepreneur)

Average Number of FullTime/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)

193 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Status and Prestige of 1 (Not important) to 5

(Very important) is 3.61 with Std. Deviation of .933.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Economic necessity on the scale of 1 (Not



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Flexibility in work / family on the scale of 1

(Not important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.80 with Std. Deviation of 1.060.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Independence on the scale of 1 (Not important)

to 5 (Very important) is 3.37 with Std. Deviation of 1.153.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Learning and Personal growth on the scale of 1

(Not important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of .999.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Test my own ideas on the scale of 1 (Not



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Money and Wealth on the scale on the scale of 1



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Opportunity on the scale of 1 (Not important)

to 5 (Very important) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.076.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Recognition on the scale of 1 (Not important) to

5 (Very important) is 3.59 with Std. Deviation of 1.030.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Satisfying work relationships on the scale of 1


194 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Career security on the scale of 1 (Not


Table: 4.39; Causes of Entrepreneurship



Deviation


Personal achievement 450 4 1 5 3.48 1.101

Status and Prestige 450 4 1 5 3.61 .933

Economic necessity 450 4 1 5 3.77 1.037

Flexibility in work / family 450 4 1 5 3.80 1.060

Independence 450 4 1 5 3.37 1.153

Learning and Personal

growth450 4 1 5 3.60 .999

Test my own ideas 450 4 1 5 3.64 1.017

Money and Wealth 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.055

Opportunity 450 4 1 5 3.60 1.076

Recognition 450 4 1 5 3.59 1.030

Satisfying work relationships 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.007

Career security 450 4 1 5 3.62 1.070

From the Figure: 4.39 it may be seen for causes of entrepreneurship mean

rating is highest (3.80) for flexibility in work/family whereas lowest (3.37) mean

rating is for independence. It means that major cause of entrepreneurship tends

to be flexibility in work/family and minor cause tends to be independence.

Figure 4.39; Causes of Entrepreneurship

195 | P a g e

4.39.1 T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Personal achievement on the scale of 1 (Not

important) to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test

Value, is 9.205 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.

Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh personal achievement is not an important cause of their

entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value (.000) is

less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Status and Prestige on the scale of 1 (Not important)

to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is

13.947 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore

the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh status

and prestige is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’

as the mean is 3.61 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Causes of Entrepreneurship

Causes of Entrepreneurship

196 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Economic necessity on the scale of 1 (Not important)



the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

economic necessity is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is

‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.77 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%

Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Flexibility in work / family on the scale of 1 (Not




Pradesh Flexibility in work / family is not an important cause of their




entrepreneurs’ t value, for Independence on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5

(Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.827 with

df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null

hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh independence is

not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is

3.37 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Learning and Personal growth on the scale of 1 (Not




Pradesh learning and personal growth is not an important cause of their




entrepreneurs’ t value, for Test their own ideas on the scale of 1 (Not important)

197 | P a g e



the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh test

their own ideas is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Money and Wealth on the scale of 1 (Not important)



the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh money

and wealth is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as

the mean is 3.63 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Opportunity on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5

(Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.781

with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null

hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh opportunity is




entrepreneurs’ t value, for Recognition on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5



hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh recognition is




entrepreneurs’ t value, for Satisfying work relationships on the scale of 1 (Not



Therefore the hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

198 | P a g e

satisfying work relationships is not an important cause of their




entrepreneurs’ t value, for Career security on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5



hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh career security

is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is


Table: 4.39.1; T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Personal achievement 9.205 449 .000 .478 .34 .61

Status and Prestige 13.947 449 .000 .613 .50 .73

Economic necessity 15.819 449 .000 .773 .65 .90

Flexibility in work / family 15.964 449 .000 .798 .67 .93

Independence 6.827 449 .000 .371 .23 .51

Learning and Personal growth 12.742 449 .000 .600 .48 .72

Test my own ideas 13.309 449 .000 .638 .51 .76

Money and Wealth 12.606 449 .000 .627 .50 .76

Opportunity 11.781 449 .000 .598 .47 .73

Recognition 12.217 449 .000 .593 .47 .72

Satisfying work relationships 13.252 449 .000 .629 .51 .75

Career security 12.339 449 .000 .622 .49 .75

199 | P a g e

4.40 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurshipbetween the Entrepreneurs who started enterprises themselves and who didnot


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between Entrepreneurs who

started and who did not started business themselves, is 21.700 with df (degree

of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding

p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null

hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and

who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of personal

achievement is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Status and Prestige between Entrepreneurs who





who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of status and

prestige is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between Entrepreneurs who





who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of economic

necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between Entrepreneurs

who started and who did not started business themselves, is 12.079 with df

(degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and

corresponding p-Value (.001) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.

Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of

200 | P a g e

entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t start business themselves, the level of

importance of flexibility in work/family is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between Entrepreneurs who started

and who did not started business themselves, is 28.452 with df (degree of

freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-

Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null


who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of independence is

same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Personal growth between

Entrepreneurs who started and who did not started business themselves, is

6.164 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within

groups and corresponding p-Value (.013) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of


importance of learning and personal growth is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Test entrepreneurs’ own ideas between



groups and corresponding p-Value (.040) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence



importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and Wealth between Entrepreneurs who



p-Value (.061) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null


201 | P a g e

who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of money and

wealth is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between Entrepreneurs who started

and who did not started business themselves, is 12.038 with df (degree of




who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of opportunity is



entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between Entrepreneurs who started and

who did not started business themselves, is 9.515 with df (degree of freedom) of

1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.002)

is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in

Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t start

business themselves, the level of importance of recognition is same’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between



groups and corresponding p-Value (.009) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence



importance of satisfying work relationship is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between Entrepreneurs who started

and who did not started business themselves, is .087 with df (degree of


Value (.768) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null


202 | P a g e

who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of career security is

same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.40; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Entrepreneurs who started enterprises

themselves and who did not

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Personal achievement

Between Groups 25.146 1 25.146 21.700 .000

Within Groups 519.132 448 1.159

Total 544.278 449

Status and Prestige

Between Groups 12.020 1 12.020 14.220 .000

Within Groups 378.700 448 .845

Total 390.720 449

Economic necessity

Between Groups 21.600 1 21.600 20.978 .000

Within Groups 461.280 448 1.030

Total 482.880 449

Flexibility in work / family

Between Groups 13.247 1 13.247 12.079 .001

Within Groups 491.350 448 1.097

Total 504.598 449

Independence

Between Groups 35.653 1 35.653 28.452 .000

Within Groups 561.372 448 1.253

Total 597.024 449


growth

Between Groups 6.080 1 6.080 6.164 .013


Total 448.000 449

Test my own ideas

Between Groups 4.349 1 4.349 4.240 .040

Within Groups 459.608 448 1.026

Total 463.958 449

Money and Wealth

Between Groups 3.911 1 3.911 3.537 .061

Within Groups 495.369 448 1.106

Total 499.280 449

Opportunity

Between Groups 13.613 1 13.613 12.038 .001

Within Groups 506.585 448 1.131

Total 520.198 449

Recognition

Between Groups 9.911 1 9.911 9.515 .002

Within Groups 466.669 448 1.042

Total 476.580 449

Satisfying work

relationships

Between Groups 6.874 1 6.874 6.872 .009

Within Groups 448.150 448 1.000

Total 455.024 449

Career security Between Groups .100 1 .100 .087 .768

203 | P a g e

Within Groups 513.678 448 1.147

Total 513.778 449

4.41 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurship inthe Districts of Uttar Pradesh


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between the districts of Uttar

Pradesh, is 9.764 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432

for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%

Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of

importance of personal achievement is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for status and prestige between the districts of Uttar





importance of status and prestige is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between the districts of Uttar





importance of economic necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between the districts of

Uttar Pradesh, is 3.736 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and

432 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%



importance of flexibility in work/family is same’ is ‘Rejected’.

204 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between the districts of Uttar





importance of independence is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Personal growth between the districts

of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.747 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups

and 432 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at

99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of

MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of importance of learning

and personal growth is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas between the

districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.006 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for

between groups and 432 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is

less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for

entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of

importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and Wealth between the districts of Uttar





importance of money and wealth is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between the districts of Uttar Pradesh,

is 2.844 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432 for within


205 | P a g e

Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of importance of

opportunity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between the districts of Uttar Pradesh,

is 2.113 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432 for within


Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of importance of

recognition is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between the districts





importance of satisfying work relationships is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between the districts of Uttar





importance of career security is same’ ‘Rejected’.

Table: 4.41; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Personal achievement

Between Groups 151.078 17 8.887 9.764 .000


Total 544.278 449

Status and Prestige Between Groups 48.080 17 2.828 3.566 .000

206 | P a g e


Total 390.720 449

Economic necessity

Between Groups 84.320 17 4.960 5.376 .000


Total 482.880 449


Between Groups 64.678 17 3.805 3.736 .000

Within Groups 439.920 432 1.018

Total 504.598 449

Independence

Between Groups 159.824 17 9.401 9.290 .000

Within Groups 437.200 432 1.012

Total 597.024 449

Learning and Personal growth

Between Groups 57.520 17 3.384 3.743 .000


Total 448.000 449

Test my own ideas

Between Groups 49.078 17 2.887 3.006 .000


Total 463.958 449

Money and Wealth

Between Groups 88.720 17 5.219 5.491 .000


Total 499.280 449

Opportunity

Between Groups 52.358 17 3.080 2.844 .000

Within Groups 467.840 432 1.083

Total 520.198 449

Recognition

Between Groups 36.580 17 2.152 2.113 .006

Within Groups 440.000 432 1.019

Total 476.580 449

Satisfying work relationships

Between Groups 63.984 17 3.764 4.158 .000


Total 455.024 449

Career security

Between Groups 45.538 17 2.679 2.471 .001

Within Groups 468.240 432 1.084

Total 513.778 449

4.42 Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time of Starting theEnterprise


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Availability of outside funding / financing

when you started the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Easy to

obtain) is 3.27 with Std. Deviation of .945.

Table: 4.42; Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise

207 | P a g e




Availability of outside

funding / financing when

you started the enterprise

450 4 1 5 3.27 .945

4.42.1 T Test for Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time of Startingthe Enterprise


entrepreneurs’ t value, for availability of outside funding / financing when you

started the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Easy to obtain)

against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.133 with df (degree of

freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that

‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh outside funding / financing is

not available when they start the enterprise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.27

and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.

Table: 4.42.1; Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Availability of outside funding /

financing when you started the enterprise6.133 449 .000 .273 .16 .39

4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding


enterprises, mean percentage of the personal fund at the time of starting the

enterprise is 68.60 and the range is 90 (i.e. from 10 to 100) with Std. Deviation

of 21.277.

208 | P a g e


enterprises, mean percentage of the friend(s) and/or family fund at the time of

starting the enterprise is 11.08 and the range is 90 (i.e. from 0 to 90) with Std.

Deviation of 12.860.

From Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed

enterprises, mean percentage of the outside investor(s)’ fund at the time of

starting the enterprise is 4.47 and the range is 40 (i.e. from 0 to 40) with Std.

Deviation of 7.215.


enterprises, mean percentage of the participating partner(s)’ fund at the time

of starting the enterprise is 3.17 and the range is 50 (i.e. from 0 to 50) with Std.

Deviation of 7.538.


enterprises, mean percentage of the government grant at the time of starting

the enterprise is 1.16 and the range is 20 (i.e. from 0 to 20) with Std. Deviation

of 2.947.


enterprises, mean percentage of the government loans at the time of starting

the enterprise is 3.52 and the range is 40 (i.e. from 0 to 40) with Std. Deviation

of 6.339.


enterprises, mean percentage of the bank (finance company) loan at the time

of starting the enterprise is 8.01 and the range is 60 (i.e. from 0 to 60) with Std.

Deviation of 10.285.

Table: 4.43; Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding



Deviation


209 | P a g e

At the time of starting the

enterprise percentage of personal

fund

450 90 10 100 68.60 21.277


enterprise percentage of friend(s)

and/or family fund

450 90 0 90 11.08 12.860


enterprise percentage of outside

investor(s)’ fund

450 40 0 40 4.47 7.215


enterprise percentage of

participating partner(s)’ fund

450 50 0 50 3.17 7.538



government grant

450 20 0 20 1.16 2.947



government loans

450 40 0 40 3.52 6.339


enterprise percentage of bank

(finance company) loan

450 60 0 60 8.01 10.285

Figure: 4.43; Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding

210 | P a g e

4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding


entrepreneurs, at present 78 (17.3%) have no source of funding, 204 (45.3%)

have 1 or 2 sources of funding, 143 (31.8%) have 3 to 5 sources of funding and

18 (4.0%) have 6 to 10 sources of funding and 7 (1.6%) have more than 10

sources of funding.

Table: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

Presently available number of sources of funding

Frequency Percent

None 78 17.3

1 or 2 204 45.3

3 to 5 143 31.8

6 to 10 18 4.0

More than 10 7 1.6

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

11.08

4.473.17

1.163.52

At the time of Starting the EnterprisePercentage of

210 | P a g e






sources of funding.



Frequency Percent

None 78 17.3

1 or 2 204 45.3

3 to 5 143 31.8

6 to 10 18 4.0

More than 10 7 1.6

Total 450 100.0


68.6

8.01


Personal fund

Friend(s) and/or family fund

Outside investor(s)’ fund

Participating partner(s)’ fund

Government grant

Government loans

Bank (finance company) loan

210 | P a g e






sources of funding.



Frequency Percent

None 78 17.3

1 or 2 204 45.3

3 to 5 143 31.8

6 to 10 18 4.0

More than 10 7 1.6

Total 450 100.0



Personal fund

Friend(s) and/or family fund

Outside investor(s)’ fund

Participating partner(s)’ fund

Government grant

Government loans

Bank (finance company) loan

211 | P a g e

Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

4.45 Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for Them

Table: 4.45 shows the enterprise being/ being not started by self in for

number of sources of funding available. Highest (=174) of the enterprises started

by self have 1 or 2 sources of funding and lowest (=7) of the enterprises started by

self have more than 10 sources of funding whereas highest (=40) of the enterprises

not started by self have 3 to 5 sources of funding and lowest (=0) of the

enterprises not started by self have 6 or more sources of funding

Table: 4.45; Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for Them

Did enterprise start by self? * Presently available number of sources of funding

Presently available number of sources of funding Total

None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10


Yes 70 174 103 18 7 372

No 8 30 40 0 0 78

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

4.46 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sources of Fundingfor Them

143

211 | P a g e














Yes 70 174 103 18 7 372

No 8 30 40 0 0 78

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450


78

204

18 7

211 | P a g e














Yes 70 174 103 18 7 372

No 8 30 40 0 0 78

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450


None

1 or 2

3 to 5

6 to 10

More than 10

212 | P a g e

Table: 4.46 shows the sex of entrepreneurs & presently available number of

sources of funding for them. It may be observed that most (=157) male

entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=7) entrepreneurs

tend to have more than 10 sources of funding whereas most (=47) male

entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=0) entrepreneurs

tend to have more than 10 sources of funding

Table: 4.46; Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sourcesof Funding for Them

Sex * Presently available number of sources of funding



Sex

Male 62 157 118 16 7 360

Female 16 47 25 2 0 90

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

4.47 Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for Them

Table: 4.47 shows being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture &

presently available number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed

that most (=164) enterprises being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture

tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=7) entrepreneurs tend to have

more than 10 sources of funding whereas most (=40) enterprises not being

entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2

sources of funding and least (=0) entrepreneurs tend to have more than 10 sources

of funding.

Table: 4.47; Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding for Them

Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Presently available number of sources of funding



Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Yes 68 164 123 17 7 379

213 | P a g e

No 10 40 20 1 0 71

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

4.48 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for Them

Table: 4.48 shows entrepreneurs’ highest educational level & presently

available number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that most

entrepreneurs (=25) among those who don’t have any source of funding tend to be

Bachelor’s degree holder and least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have Ph.D. degree.

Most entrepreneurs (=55) among those who has 1 or 2 sources of funding tend to

be Bachelor’s degree holder and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate or

Ph.D. degree holder. Most entrepreneurs (=47) among those who has 3 to 5

sources of funding tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least (=0) entrepreneur

tend to be illiterate, primary educated or Ph.D. degree holder.

Table: 4.48; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for Them

Your highest educational level * Presently available number of sources of funding



Your highest

educational level

Illiterate 1 1 0 0 0 2

(Up to) Primary (5th) 2 7 0 1 0 10

Secondary (8th) 6 17 4 1 0 28

High School (10th) 10 31 15 2 3 61

Intermediate (12th) 11 43 38 5 1 98

Bachelor’s degree 25 55 47 4 1 132

Post Graduate 21 42 27 3 2 95

Master’s degree 2 7 12 2 0 23

Ph. D. 0 1 0 0 0 1

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

214 | P a g e

4.49 Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding for Them

Table: 4.49 shows entrepreneurs with any supplemental, continuing

education or training & presently available number of sources of funding for

them. It may be observed that most entrepreneurs (=61) having any supplemental,

continuing education or training tend to have 3 to 5 sources of funding and least

(=3) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding whereas most

entrepreneurs (=173) not having any supplemental, continuing education or

training tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=4) entrepreneur tend to

have more than 10 sources of funding.

Table: 4.49; Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding for Them


skills) * Presently available number of sources of funding






Yes 16 31 61 7 3 118

No 62 173 82 11 4 332

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

4.50 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them

Table: 4.50 shows entrepreneurs’ type of industry/ business & presently

available number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that in

Professional Services most (=26) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5 sources of

funding and least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.

In Consumer Services most (=27) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of

funding and least (=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.

In Guest Services most (=28) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5 sources of funding

and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of funding. In

Manufacturing most (=29) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding

and least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. In

Transportation or Public Utilities most (=15) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2

215 | P a g e

sources of funding and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of

funding. In Retail most (=42) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding

and least (=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. In

Wholesale most (=22) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and

least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of funding. In Agricultural

& Allied most (=18) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least

(=0) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of funding. In Construction

Related most (=13) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least

(=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.

Table: 4.50; Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them

Type of Industry/Business * Presently available number of sources of funding

Presently available number of sources of

funding

Total

None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More

than 10

Type of

Industry/

Business

Professional services (e.g. accounting,

consulting)12 16 26 2 0 56

Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto

service)11 27 20 4 1 63

Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 5 20 28 2 2 57

Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods) 7 29 20 3 0 59

Transportation or public utilities 5 15 9 1 1 31

Retail ( including import/export) 21 42 18 3 1 85

Wholesale (including import/ export) 4 22 5 1 1 33

Agricultural or agricultural related 8 18 3 0 0 29

Construction related (Including all trades) 5 13 11 2 1 32

Mining, extraction, oil 0 2 3 0 0 5

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

4.51 Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sources ofFunding for them

216 | P a g e

Table: 4.51 shows category of entrepreneurs & presently available number

of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that in Scheduled Castes most

(=31) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=0)

entrepreneur tend to have more than 6 or more sources of funding. In Scheduled

Tribes most (=11) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least

(=0) entrepreneur tend to have more than 6 or more sources of funding. In Other

Backward Classes most (=83) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding

and least (=6) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. And in

General Category most (=79) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding

and least (=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.

Table: 4.51; Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them

Category of Entrepreneur * Presently available number of sources of funding



Category of

Entrepreneur

Scheduled Caste (S.C.) 17 31 13 0 0 61

Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) 2 11 10 0 0 23

Other Backward Classes 31 83 54 9 6 183

General 28 79 66 9 1 183

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

4.52 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurshipbetween the Categories of Number of Availability of Sources of Funding


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between Categories of

number of availability of sources of funding, is 12.871 with df (degree of



hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the

categories of number of availability of sources of funding, the level of

importance of personal achievement is same’ is ‘Rejected’.

217 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Status and Prestige between Categories of number

of availability of sources of funding, is 1.160 with df (degree of freedom) of 1

for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.282)

is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that

‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number

of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of personal

achievement is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between Categories of number

of availability of sources of funding, is 6.901 with df (degree of freedom) of 1


is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that

‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number

of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of economic

necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between Categories of

number of availability of sources of funding, is .013 with df (degree of





importance of flexibility in work/family is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between Categories of number of

availability of sources of funding, is 6.273 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for


more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for

entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number of

availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of independence is


218 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Professional growth between

Categories of number of availability of sources of funding, is 7.646 with df



Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh, in all the categories of number of availability of sources of funding,

the level of importance of learning and professional growth is same’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas between

Categories of number of availability of sources of funding, is 1.958 with df


corresponding p-Value (.162) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


Pradesh, in all the categories of number of availability of sources of funding,

the level of importance of testing of entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same’ is ‘Failed

to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and wealth between Categories of number of





availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of money and wealth

is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between Categories of number of





219 | P a g e

availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of opportunity is



entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between Categories of number of





availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of recognition is



entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between Categories of

number of availability of sources of funding, is 5.648 with df (degree of





importance of satisfying work relationships is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between Categories of number of





availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of career security is


Table: 4.52; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Categories of Number of Availability of

Sources of Funding

ANOVA


Personal achievementBetween Groups 15.201 1 15.201 12.871 .000

Within Groups 529.077 448 1.181

220 | P a g e

Total 544.278 449

Status and Prestige

Between Groups 1.009 1 1.009 1.160 .282


Total 390.720 449

Economic necessity

Between Groups 7.325 1 7.325 6.901 .009

Within Groups 475.555 448 1.062

Total 482.880 449


Between Groups .015 1 .015 .013 .909

Within Groups 504.583 448 1.126

Total 504.598 449

Independence

Between Groups 8.245 1 8.245 6.273 .013

Within Groups 588.780 448 1.314

Total 597.024 449


growth

Between Groups 7.646 1 7.646 7.779 .006


Total 448.000 449

Test my own ideas

Between Groups 2.019 1 2.019 1.958 .162

Within Groups 461.939 448 1.031

Total 463.958 449

Money and Wealth

Between Groups 11.001 1 11.001 10.093 .002

Within Groups 488.279 448 1.090

Total 499.280 449

Opportunity

Between Groups 10.712 1 10.712 9.419 .002

Within Groups 509.486 448 1.137

Total 520.198 449

Recognition

Between Groups 4.152 1 4.152 3.938 .048

Within Groups 472.428 448 1.055

Total 476.580 449

Satisfying work

relationships

Between Groups 5.666 1 5.666 5.648 .018

Within Groups 449.359 448 1.003

Total 455.024 449

Career security

Between Groups 1.773 1 1.773 1.551 .214

Within Groups 512.005 448 1.143

Total 513.778 449

4.53 Most Available Source of Funding


entrepreneurs, most available source of funding for 364 (80.9%) entrepreneurs

are banks, for 45 (10.0%) entrepreneurs are private investors, for 17 (3.8%)

entrepreneurs are venture capitalists and for 24 (5.3%) entrepreneurs are

government loan programs.

221 | P a g e

Table: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding

Most available source of funding

Frequency Percent

Banks 364 80.9

Private investors 45 10.0

Venture capitalists 17 3.8

Government loan programs 24 5.3

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding

Most Available Source of Funding

4.54 Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most Available Source ofFunding

Table: 454 shows enterprise being/ not being started by self & most

available source of funding. It may be observed that for enterprises started by self

most (=300) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and

least (=13) enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available source of

funding whereas for enterprises not started by self most (=64) enterprises tend to

have bank as most available source of funding and least (=4) enterprises tend to

have venture capitalist and government loan programs as most available sources

of funding.

4517

221 | P a g e



Frequency Percent

Banks 364 80.9




Total 450 100.0











of funding.

364

17 24Banks

Private investors

Venture capitalists

Government loanprograms

221 | P a g e



Frequency Percent

Banks 364 80.9




Total 450 100.0











of funding.

Banks

Private investors

Venture capitalists

Government loanprograms

222 | P a g e

Table: 454; Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most AvailableSource of Funding

Did enterprise start by self? * Most available source of funding

Most available source of funding Total

Banks Private

investors

Venture

capitalists

Government loan

programs


Yes 300 39 13 20 372

No 64 6 4 4 78

Total 364 45 17 24 450

4.55 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding

Table: 4.55 shows sex of entrepreneurs & most available source of funding.

It may be observed that for male entrepreneurs most (=290) enterprises tend to


have venture capitalist as most available source of funding whereas for female

entrepreneurs most (=74) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of

funding and least (=3) enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available

source of funding.

Table: 4.55; Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding

Sex * Most available source of funding


Banks Private investors Venture capitalists Government loan programs

Sex

Male 290 37 14 19 360

Female 74 8 3 5 90

Total 364 45 17 24 450

4.56 Enterprise being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Most Available Source of Funding

Table: 4.56 shows enterprise being/ not being entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture & most available source of funding. It may be observed

that for enterprise being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture most (=307)

223 | P a g e

enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and least (=12)

enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available source of funding

whereas for enterprise not being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture most

(=57) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and least

(=1) enterprises tend to have government loan programs as most available source

of funding

Table: 4.56; Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most AvailableSource of Funding

Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Most available source of funding


Banks Private

investors

Venture

capitalists

Government

loan programs

Is this your first


Yes 307 37 12 23 379

No 57 8 5 1 71

Total 364 45 17 24 450

4.57 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Most Available Source ofFunding

Table: 4.57 shows entrepreneurs’ highest educational level & most available

source of funding. Having total counts below 10 is excluded from analysis. It may

be observed that among Primary educated entrepreneurs most (=8) entrepreneurs

tend to have banks as most available sources of funding and least (=0) enterprise

tends to have venture capitalist and government loan programs as most available

sources of funding. Among Secondary educated entrepreneurs most (=22)

entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least

(=0) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist and government loan programs as

most available sources of funding. Among Highschool (10th) passed entrepreneurs

most (=52) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding

and least (=1) enterprise tends to have government loan programs as most

available source of funding. Among Intermediate (12th) passed entrepreneurs most

(=83) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and

least (=4) enterprise tends to have government loan programs as most available

source of funding. Among Bachelors’ degree holder entrepreneurs most (=113)

224 | P a g e


(=1) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most available source of

funding. Among Post Graduate entrepreneurs most (=70) entrepreneurs tend to

have banks as most available source of funding and least (=6) enterprise tends to

have venture capitalist as most available sources of funding. Among Masters’

degree holder entrepreneurs most (=16) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most

available source of funding and least (=4) enterprises tends to have venture

capitalist and government loan programs as most available sources of funding.

Table: 4.57; Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most AvailableSource of Funding

Your highest educational level * Most available source of funding


Banks Private

investors

Venture

capitalists

Government

loan programs

Your highest

educational

level

Illiterate 0 0 1 1 2

(Up to) Primary (5th) 8 2 0 0 10

Secondary (8th) 22 6 0 0 28

High School (10th) 52 6 2 1 61

Intermediate (12th) 83 6 5 4 98

Bachelor’s degree 113 10 1 8 132

Post Graduate 70 12 6 7 95

Master’s degree 16 3 2 2 23

Ph. D. 0 0 0 1 1

Total 364 45 17 24 450

4.58 Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Most Available Source of Funding

Table: 4.58 shows entrepreneurs with / without any supplemental,

continuing education or training & most available source of funding. It may be

observed that among entrepreneurs with any supplemental, continuing education

or training most (=100) entrepreneurs tend to have bank as most available source

225 | P a g e

of funding and least (=0) entrepreneurs tend to have venture capitalists as most

available source of funding enterprise whereas among entrepreneurs without any

supplemental, continuing education or training most (=264) entrepreneurs tend to

have bank as most available source of funding and least (=14) entrepreneurs tend

to have government loan programs as most available source of funding enterprise.

Table: 4.58; Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Most Available Source of Funding


skills) * Most available source of funding


Banks Private

investors

Venture

capitalists

Government

loan programs




Yes 100 8 0 10 118

No 264 37 17 14 332

Total 364 45 17 24 450

4.59 Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most Available Source of Funding

Table: 4.59 shows enterprises’ type of industry/business & most available

source of funding. It may be observed that for enterprises in Professional Services

most (=49) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding

and least (=0) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most available source

of funding. For enterprises in Consumer Services most (=50) entrepreneurs tend to


have venture capitalist as most available source of funding. For enterprises in

Guest Services most (=38) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available

source of funding and least (=3) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most

available source of funding. For enterprises in Manufacturing most (=49)



funding. For enterprises in Transportation or Public Utilities most (=23)


(=1) enterprise tends to have government loan programs as most available source

of funding. For enterprises in Retail most (=73) entrepreneurs tend to have banks

226 | P a g e

as most available source of funding and least (=3) enterprise tends to have

government loan programs as most available source of funding. For enterprises in

Wholesale most (=30) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source

of funding and least (=0) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most

available source of funding. For enterprises in Agricultural & Allied Sector most

(=22) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and

least (=0) enterprise tends to have private investors as most available source of

funding. For enterprises in Construction Related activities most (=27)



funding. For enterprises in Mining, Extraction, Oil most (=5) entrepreneurs tend to


have private investors as most available source of funding.

Table: 4.59; Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most Available Sourceof Funding

Type of Industry/Business * Most available source of funding


Banks Private

investor

Venture

capitalists

Govt.

loan

programs

Type of

Industry/

Business

Professional services (e.g. accounting,

consulting)49 5 0 2 56

Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto

service)50 10 0 3 63

Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 38 12 3 4 57

Manufacturing (consumer or durable

goods)49 5 0 5 59

Transportation or public utilities 23 4 3 1 31

Retail ( including import/export) 73 4 5 3 85

Wholesale (including import/ export) 30 2 0 1 33

Agricultural or agricultural related 22 0 5 2 29

227 | P a g e

Construction related (Including all trades) 27 2 1 2 32

Mining, extraction, oil 3 1 0 1 5

Total 364 45 17 24 450

4.60 Most Available Source of Funding & Presently Available Number of Sourcesof Funding for them

Table: 4.60 shows most available source of funding & presently available

number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that among

entrepreneurs having bank as most available source of funding most (=175)

entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=2) entrepreneur

tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. Among entrepreneurs having

private investors as most available source of funding most (=16) entrepreneurs

tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have

more than 10 sources of funding.

Among entrepreneurs having venture capitalists as most available source of

funding most (=12) entrepreneurs tend to have none to 2 sources of funding and

least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have 6 to 10 sources of funding. Among

entrepreneurs having government loan programs as most available source of

funding most (=12) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5 sources of funding and least

(=1) entrepreneur tend to have 6 to 10 sources of funding.

Table: 4.60; Most Available Source of Funding & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for them

Most available source of funding * Presently available number of sources of funding



Most

available

source of

funding

Banks 58 175 116 13 2 364

Private investors 12 16 11 4 2 45

Venture capitalists 6 6 4 0 1 17

Government loan programs 2 7 12 1 2 24

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

228 | P a g e

4.61 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurshipbetween the Types of Most Available Source of Funding


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between types of most

available source of funding, is 13.060 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for



entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most available

source of funding, the level of importance of personal achievement is same’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for status and prestige between types of most available

source of funding, is 3.833 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups



MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available source of funding,

the level of importance of status and prestige is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between types of most available





the level of importance of economic necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between types of most




entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available

source of funding, the level of importance of flexibility in work/family is same’

is ‘Rejected’.

229 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between types of most available





the level of importance of independence is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Personal growth between types of

most available source of funding, is 5.592 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for




source of funding, the level of importance of learning and personal growth is



entrepreneurs’ F-value for Testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas between types of

most available source of funding, is 4.694 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for




source of funding, the level of importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is



entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and Wealth between types of most available





the level of importance of money and wealth is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between types of most available source

230 | P a g e

of funding, is 4.840 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups and 445




the level of importance of opportunity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between types of most available source

of funding, is 3.128 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups and 445

for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.015) is more than .01 at 99%



the level of importance of recognition is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between types of most





source of funding, the level of importance of satisfying work relationships is



entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between types of most available


and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.248) is more than .01 at


MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most available source of funding,

the level of importance of career security is same’ ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.61; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Types of Most Available Source of Funding

ANOVA


Personal achievement Between Groups 57.182 4 14.296 13.060 .000

231 | P a g e

Within Groups 487.095 445 1.095

Total 544.278 449

Status and Prestige

Between Groups 13.015 4 3.254 3.833 .004


Total 390.720 449

Economic necessity

Between Groups 16.740 4 4.185 3.995 .003

Within Groups 466.140 445 1.048

Total 482.880 449

Flexibility in work /

family

Between Groups 22.109 4 5.527 5.098 .001

Within Groups 482.489 445 1.084

Total 504.598 449

Independence

Between Groups 40.019 4 10.005 7.993 .000

Within Groups 557.006 445 1.252

Total 597.024 449

Learning and

Personal growth

Between Groups 21.442 4 5.361 5.592 .000


Total 448.000 449

Test my own ideas

Between Groups 18.785 4 4.696 4.694 .001

Within Groups 445.173 445 1.000

Total 463.958 449

Money and Wealth

Between Groups 26.784 4 6.696 6.306 .000

Within Groups 472.496 445 1.062

Total 499.280 449

Opportunity

Between Groups 21.687 4 5.422 4.840 .001

Within Groups 498.510 445 1.120

Total 520.198 449

Recognition

Between Groups 13.031 4 3.258 3.128 .015

Within Groups 463.549 445 1.042

Total 476.580 449

Satisfying work

relationships

Between Groups 13.892 4 3.473 3.503 .008


Total 455.024 449

Career security

Between Groups 6.188 4 1.547 1.356 .248

Within Groups 507.590 445 1.141

Total 513.778 449

4.62 Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with Their Enterprise

From the Table: 4.62 it may be seen that for 450 observed entrepreneurs,

entrepreneurs’ mean rating for satisfaction with enterprise’s sales, profits and

overall satisfaction on the scale of 1 (Completely dissatisfied) to 5 (Completely

satisfied) is 3.67 with Std. Deviation of .856.

232 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for likelihood of continuing the same business on

the scale of 1 (Not any business) to 5 (Same Business, same way) is 3.67 with


Table: 4.62; Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise



Deviation


Satisfaction with enterprise’s

sales, profits and overall

satisfaction

450 4 1 5 3.67 .856

Likelihood of continuing the

same business450 4 1 5 3.67 .943

4.62.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise


entrepreneurs’ t value, for satisfaction with enterprise’s sales, profits and

overall satisfaction on the scale of 1 (Completely dissatisfied) to 5 (Completely

satisfied) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 16.687 with df

(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null

hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not satisfied

with their enterprises’ sales, profit and overall satisfaction’ is ‘Rejected’ as the

mean is 3.67 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for likelihood of continuing the same business on the

scale of 1 (Not any business) to 5 (Same business, same way) against the mid-

rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 15.040 with df (degree of freedom) of 449

and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t wish to continue with same enterprises’ is


Confidence Level.

Table: 4.62.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise

233 | P a g e

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Satisfaction with enterprise’s sales,

profits and overall satisfaction16.687 449 .000 .673 .57 .78

Likelihood of continuing the same

business15.040 449 .000 .669 .55 .78

4.63 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for risk bearing on the scale of 1 (In general, I have

a strong attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of

return) to 5 (In general, I have a strong attraction for high– risk projects with

chances of a very high return) is 3.07 with Std. Deviation of 1.178.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for decision-making on the scale of 1 (Typically

adopt a bold, aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of

exploiting potential opportunities) to 5 (Typically adopt a cautious, “wait and

see” posture in order to minimize the probability of making costly decisions)

is 3.38 with Std. Deviation of 1.187.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for participation in professional / trade

associations on the scale of 1 (No participation) to 5 (Active, involved and

high levels of participation) is 3.80 with Std. Deviation of 1.013.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for business applications of personal contacts on

the scale of 1 (No business applications) to 5 (Many, frequent and of great

benefit to enterprise) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.034.

Table: 4.63; Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies

234 | P a g e



Deviation


Rating Scale:

1 (In general, I have a strong

attraction for low–risk projects

with normal and certain rates of

return) to 5 (In general, I have a

strong attraction for high– risk

projects with chances of a very

high return)

450 4 1 5 3.07 1.178

Rating Scale:

1 (Typically adopt a bold,

aggressive posture in order to

maximize the probability of

exploiting potential

opportunities) to 5 (Typically

adopt a cautious, “wait and see”

posture in order to minimize the

probability of making costly

decisions)

450 4 1 5 3.38 1.187

Participation in professional /

trade associations450 4 1 5 3.80 1.013

Business applications of personal

contacts450 4 1 5 3.60 1.034

From the Figure: it may be seen for personal entrepreneurial attitude &

tendencies mean rating is highest (3.80) for participation in professional / trade

associations whereas lowest (3.07) mean rating is for risk bearing. It means that

major attitude & personal tendency of entrepreneurs tends to be participation in

professional / trade associations and minor attitude & personal tendency of

entrepreneurs tends to be risk bearing.

Figure: 4.63; Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies

235 | P a g e

4.63.1 T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies


entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (In general, I have a strong attraction

for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return) to 5 (In

general, I have a strong attraction for high– risk projects with chances of a

very high return) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 1.321 with


hypothesis that ‘in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a

strong attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return’

is ‘Failed to Reject’ as the mean is 3.07 and the p Value (.094) is more than .01

at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (Typically adopt a bold, aggressive

posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential

opportunities) to 5 (Typically adopt a cautious, “wait and see” posture in

order to minimize the probability of making costly decisions) against the mid-

rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.833 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and

99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh typically adopt a bold, aggressive posture in order to

maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as

3.8 3.6 3.383.07

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude &Tendencies

Personal EntrepreneurialAttitude & Tendencies

236 | P a g e

the mean is 3.38 and the p Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for participation in professional / trade associations on

the scale of on the scale of 1 (No participation) to 5 (Active, involved and high

levels of participation) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is


the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t

participate in professional / trade associations’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.80

and the p Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for business applications of personal contacts on the

scale of 1 (No business applications) to 5 (Many, frequent and of great benefit

to enterprise) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.262 with df


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have business

applications of personal contacts’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.60 and the p

Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.

Table: 4.63.1; T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df Sig. (1-

tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Rating Scale:

1 (In general, I have a strong attraction

for low–risk projects with normal and

certain rates of return) to 5 (In general, I

have a strong attraction for high– risk

projects with chances of a very high

return)

1.321 449 .094 .073 -.07 .22

237 | P a g e

Rating Scale:

1 (Typically adopt a bold, aggressive

posture in order to maximize the

probability of exploiting potential

opportunities) to 5 (Typically adopt a

cautious, “wait and see” posture in order

to minimize the probability of making

costly decisions)

6.833 449 .000 .382 .24 .53

Participation in professional / trade

associations16.845 449 .000 .804 .68 .93

Business applications of personal

contacts12.262 449 .000 .598 .47 .72

4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I push myself and feel real satisfaction when

my work is among the best on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly

agree) is 3.21 with Std. Deviation of 1.174.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for happens in my enterprise is affected more by

my abilities, control and guidance than by external influences on the scale of 1

(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.060.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I need to know that it’s already been done

before I’m willing to try it on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I respect rules and established procedures

because they guide me on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I Feel self-conscious when I am with very

successful entrepreneur(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly


238 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am ultimately responsible for my own

enterprise’s success on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am quite independent of the opinions of

others on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.64 with

Std. Deviation of 1.089.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for In pursuing business opportunities, I enjoy

intimidating other on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is

3.62 with Std. Deviation of 1.059.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My goals and ambitions are generally modest

and easily achieved on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I enjoy the uncertainty and risks of business;

they energize me more than circumstances with predictable outcomes on the

scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.50 with Std. Deviation

of 1.019.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I do not consider myself to be particularly

inventive or creative on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Nothing that life can offer is a substitute for

great achievement on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I spend more time thinking about my future

239 | P a g e

goals than my past accomplishments on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5

(Strongly agree) is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.083.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am uncomfortable when I have complete

responsibility for deciding how and when to do my work on the scale of 1



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I seldom get a sense of pride and

accomplishment from my work on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I get excited creating my own business

opportunities on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.61

with Std. Deviation of 1.063.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I entered in entrepreneurship by choice not by

obligation to ensure livelihood on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am willing to risk my personal and family’s

material well being for the sake of my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly

disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.46 with Std. Deviation of 1.064.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am confident of my abilities and feel good

about myself on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.42



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for An opportunity to beat a competitor in a

business deal is always a personal thrill on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to

5 (Strongly agree) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.083.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I enjoy being able to use old business concepts

240 | P a g e

in new ways on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.49



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for success comes from conforming to accepted

business practices more so than constantly doing new things on the scale of 1



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I can control most situations I find myself in on

the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.54 with Std.

Deviation of 1.116.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for it is important to continually look for new way

to do things in the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I like a job in which I don’t have to answer to

any one on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.48 with



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I frequently find myself in situations where I

am powerless to control the outcome(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to

5 (Strongly agree) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation of 1.135.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I often approach business tasks in unique ways

on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.51 with Std.

Deviation of 1.101.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I buy insurance every time I travel on the scale

of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.40 with Std. Deviation of

1.181.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I do not enjoy being the catalyst for change in

241 | P a g e

business affairs on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Most business circumstances happen because

of luck, whether good or bad on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My knack for dealing with people has enabled

me to create many of my business opportunities on the scale of 1 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I find that I can think better when I have

guidance and advice from others on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I frequently have doubts about myself or my

abilities when making business proposals on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree)

to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of 1.142.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am in total control of my destiny on the scale


1.097.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I worry about what my business associates

think of me on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.47



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for In business, I enjoy turning circumstances to

my advantage on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.59



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am driven to ever greater efforts by an

242 | P a g e

unquenched ambition on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Successful entrepreneur pursue any

opportunity, and do what they have to do in order to survive on the scale of 1



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I thrive in situations which encourage and

reward my creativity on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I need to know the answer before I’ll ask a

question on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.52 with



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I judge my work by considering whether it

meets the minimum requirements for the task on the scale of 1 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My goal when starting this enterprise was to

‘do the kind of work I wanted to do’on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My goal when starting this enterprise was to

‘make more money than otherwise’ on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I, sometime, lack working capital/liquid

assets/funds to sustain which contributes in industrial sickness on the scale of

1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.109.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs in

243 | P a g e

U.P. have problems beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems on the scale of 1



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I think I have become competent entrepreneur

to achieve long term objectives of the enterprise in effective and efficient

manner on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.62 with



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Because I’m unsure of myself, I spend a lot of

time looking for someone who can tell me how to solve all my entrepreneurial

problems on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.34 with


Table: 4.64; Entrepreneurs’ Psychology



Deviation


I push myself and feel real

satisfaction when my work is

among the best

450 4 1 5 3.21 1.174

Happens in my enterprise is

affected more by my abilities,

control and guidance than by

external influences

450 4 1 5 3.52 1.060

I need to know that it’s already

been done before I’m willing to

try it

450 4 1 5 3.51 1.054

I respect rules and established

procedures because they guide

me

450 4 1 5 3.57 1.074

I Feel self-conscious when I am

with very successful

entrepreneur(s)

450 4 1 5 3.55 1.061

244 | P a g e

I am ultimately responsible for

my own enterprise’s success450 4 1 5 3.60 1.032

I am quite independent of the

opinions of others450 4 1 5 3.64 1.089

In pursuing business

opportunities, I enjoy

intimidating other

450 4 1 5 3.62 1.059

My goals and ambitions are

generally modest and easily

achieved

450 4 1 5 3.53 1.070

I do not consider myself to be

particularly inventive or creative450 4 1 5 3.50 1.019

I enjoy the uncertainty and risks

of business; they energize me

more than circumstances with

predictable outcomes

450 4 1 5 3.58 1.097

Nothing that life can offer is a

substitute for great achievement450 4 1 5 3.25 1.224

I spend more time thinking about

my future goals than my past

accomplishments

450 4 1 5 3.52 1.083

I am uncomfortable when I have

complete responsibility for

deciding how and when to do my

work

450 4 1 5 3.54 1.055

I seldom get a sense of pride and

accomplishment from my work450 4 1 5 3.56 1.052

I get excited creating my own

business opportunities450 4 1 5 3.61 1.063

I entered in entrepreneurship by

choice not by obligation to

ensure livelihood

450 4 1 5 3.60 1.038

I am willing to risk my personal

and family’s material well being

for the sake of my enterprise

450 4 1 5 3.46 1.064

245 | P a g e

I am confident of my abilities

and feel good about myself450 4 1 5 3.42 1.078

An opportunity to beat a

competitor in a business deal is

always a personal thrill

450 4 1 5 3.60 1.083

I enjoy being able to use old

business concepts in new ways450 4 1 5 3.49 1.133

Success comes from conforming

to accepted business practices

more so than constantly doing

new things

450 4 1 5 3.49 1.064

I can control most situations I

find myself in450 4 1 5 3.54 1.116

It is important to continually look

for new way to do things in the

enterprise

450 4 1 5 3.52 1.095

I like a job in which I don’t have

to answer to any one450 4 1 5 3.48 1.113

I frequently find myself in

situations where I am powerless

to control the outcome(s)

450 4 1 5 3.43 1.135

I often approach business tasks in

unique ways450 4 1 5 3.51 1.101

I buy insurance every time I

travel450 4 1 5 3.40 1.181

I do not enjoy being the catalyst

for change in business affairs450 4 1 5 3.52 1.125

Most business circumstances

happen because of luck, whether

good or bad

450 4 1 5 3.53 1.131

My knack for dealing with

people has enabled me to create

many of my business

opportunities

450 4 1 5 3.58 1.098

246 | P a g e

I find that I can think better when

I have guidance and advice from

others

450 4 1 5 3.57 1.121

I frequently have doubts about

myself or my abilities when

making business proposals

450 4 1 5 3.54 1.142

I am in total control of my

destiny450 4 1 5 3.53 1.097

I worry about what my business

associates think of me450 4 1 5 3.47 1.101

In business, I enjoy turning

circumstances to my advantage450 4 1 5 3.59 1.102

I am driven to ever greater

efforts by an unquenched

ambition

450 4 1 5 3.57 1.034

Successful entrepreneur pursue

any opportunity, and do what

they have to do in order to

survive

450 4 1 5 3.60 1.062

I thrive in situations which

encourage and reward my

creativity

450 4 1 5 3.55 1.084

I need to know the answer before

I’ll ask a question450 4 1 5 3.52 1.036

I judge my work by considering

whether it meets the minimum

requirements for the task

450 4 1 5 3.52 1.074

My goal when starting this

enterprise was to ‘do the kind of

work I wanted to do’

450 4 1 5 3.56 1.075

My goal when starting this

enterprise was to ‘make more

money than otherwise’

450 4 1 5 3.51 1.075

247 | P a g e

I, sometime, lack working

capital/liquid assets/funds to

sustain which contributes in

industrial sickness

450 4 1 5 3.49 1.109

I think women entrepreneurs in

MSMEs in U.P. have problems

beyond men entrepreneurs’

problems

450 4 1 5 3.50 1.047

I think I have become competent

entrepreneur to achieve long

term objectives of the enterprise

in effective and efficient manner

450 4 1 5 3.62 1.082

Because I’m unsure of myself, I

spend a lot of time looking for

someone who can tell me how to

solve all my entrepreneurial

problems

450 4 1 5 3.34 1.127

Figure: gives mean rating in ascending order for entrepreneurs’

psychological factors. From the Figure: it may be seen among entrepreneurs’

psychological factors mean rating is highest (3.64) for I am quite independent of

the opinions of others whereas lowest (3.21) mean rating is for I push myself

and feel real satisfaction when my work is among the best. It means that major

psychological factor of entrepreneurs tends to be their independence of the

opinions from others and minor psychological factor of entrepreneurs tends to

be their drive for themselves and feeling of real satisfaction when their work is

among the best.

Figure: 4.64; Entrepreneurs’ Psychology

248 | P a g e

3.643.623.623.613.63.63.63.63.593.583.583.573.573.573.563.563.553.553.543.543.543.533.533.533.523.523.523.523.523.523.513.513.513.53.53.493.493.493.483.473.46

3.433.42

3.43.34

3.253.21

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8

I am quite independent of…In pursuing business…

I think I have become…I get excited creating my…

I am ultimately…I entered in…

An opportunity to beat a…Successful entrepreneur…

In business, I enjoy…I enjoy the uncertainty…

My knack for dealing with…I respect rules and…

I find that I can think…I am driven to ever…

I seldom get a sense of…My goal when starting…

I Feel self-conscious when…I thrive in situations which…I am uncomfortable when…

I can control most…I frequently have doubts…My goals and ambitions…

Most business…I am in total control of my…Happens in my enterprise…

I spend more time…It is important to…

I do not enjoy being the…I need to know the…I judge my work by…

I need to know that it’s…I often approach business…

My goal when starting…I do not consider myself…

I think women…I enjoy being able to use…

Success comes from…I, sometime, lack working…

I like a job in which I don’t…I worry about what my…I am willing to risk my…

I frequently find myself in…I am confident of my…

I buy insurance every time…Because I’m unsure of…

Nothing that life can offer…I push myself and feel real…

Entrepreneurs’ Psychology

Entrepreneurs’ Psychology

249 | P a g e

4.64.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I push myself and feel real satisfaction when my

work is among the best on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly

disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 3.814 with df


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t push

themselves and don’t feel real satisfaction when their work is among the best is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for happens in my enterprise is affected more by my

abilities, control and guidance than by external influences on the scale of 1

(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as

Test Value, is 10.453 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence

Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘happenings in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh are not affected more by entrepreneurs’ abilities, control and guidance

than by external influences’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value

(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I need to know that it’s already been done before

I’m willing to try it on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know that it’s already

been done before they are willing to try it’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.51 and

the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I respect rules and established procedures because

they guide me on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t respect rules and established

250 | P a g e

procedures as they guide them’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.57 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I Feel self-conscious when I am with very successful

entrepreneur(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel self-conscious when they

are with very successful entrepreneur(s)’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am ultimately responsible for my own enterprise’s

success on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not ultimately responsible for

their own enterprises’ success’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.60 and the p-Value



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am quite independent of the opinions of others on

the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating

value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.383 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%

Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs

in Uttar Pradesh are not quite independent of the opinions of others’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for In pursuing business opportunities, I enjoy

intimidating other on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy intimidating other in

251 | P a g e

pursuing business opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.62 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for My goals and ambitions are generally modest and

easily achieved on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh generally don’t have modest and

easily achievable goals and ambitions’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.53 and the

p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I do not consider myself to be particularly inventive

or creative on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against

the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.406 with df (degree of freedom)

of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that

‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not particularly inventive or

creative’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.50 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I enjoy the uncertainty and risks of business; they

energize me more than circumstances with predictable outcomes on the scale

of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e.

3) as Test Value, is 11.134 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%


in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy the uncertainty and risks of business and they

don’t energize them more than circumstances with predictable outcomes’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for nothing that life can offer is a substitute for great

achievement on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against

the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 4.389 with df (degree of freedom) of


252 | P a g e

‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that nothing that life

can offer is a substitute for great achievement’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.25



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I spend more time thinking about my future goals

than my past accomplishments on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5

(Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.276


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend more

time thinking about their future goals than their past accomplishments’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am uncomfortable when I have complete

responsibility for deciding how and when to do my work on the scale of 1



Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh are comfortable when they have complete responsibility for deciding

how and when to do their work’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.54 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I seldom get a sense of pride and accomplishment

from my work on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t get a sense of pride and

accomplishment from their work’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.56 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I get excited creating my own business opportunities

on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating


253 | P a g e


in Uttar Pradesh don’t get excited creating their own business opportunities’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I entered in entrepreneurship by choice not by

obligation to ensure livelihood on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enter in

entrepreneurship by choice but by obligation to ensure livelihood’ is ‘Rejected’


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am willing to risk my personal and family’s

material well being for the sake of my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly

agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,

is 9.263 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore

the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not

willing to risk their personal and family’s material well being for the sake of

their enterprise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.46 and the p-Value (.000) is less

than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am confident of my abilities and feel good about

myself on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the

mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.351 with df (degree of freedom) of 449


MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not confident of their abilities and they don’t feel

good about themselves’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42 and the p-Value (.000)

is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for An opportunity to beat a competitor in a business

deal is always a personal thrill on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly

254 | P a g e



hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh an opportunity

to beat a competitor in a business deal is not a personal thrill’ is ‘Rejected’ as


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I enjoy being able to use old business concepts in

new ways on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the



MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy being able to use old business concepts in

new ways’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.49 and the p-Value (.000) is less than

.01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Success comes from conforming to accepted

business practices more so than constantly doing new things on the scale of 1




Pradesh don’t believe that success comes from conforming to accepted business

practices more so than constantly doing new things’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I can control most situations I find myself in on the

scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value

(i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.302 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%


in Uttar Pradesh can’t control most situations they find themselves in’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for It is important to continually look for new way to do

255 | P a g e

things in the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that it’s

important to continually look for new way to do things in the enterprise’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I like a job in which I don’t have to answer to any

one on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-



MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t like a job in which they don’t have to answer to

any one’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I frequently find myself in situations where I am

powerless to control the outcome(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t frequently

find themselves in situations where they are powerless to control the

outcome(s)’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less than



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I often approach business tasks in unique ways on

the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating



in Uttar Pradesh don’t often approach business tasks in unique ways’ is


Confidence Level.

256 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I buy insurance every time I travel on the scale of 1




Pradesh don’t buy insurance every time they travel’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I do not enjoy being the catalyst for change in

business affairs on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy being the catalyst for change

in business affairs’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value (.000) is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Most business circumstances happen because of

luck, whether good or bad on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that

business circumstances happen because of luck, whether good or bad’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for My knack for dealing with people has enabled me to

create many of my business opportunities on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to

5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.292


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that

their knack for dealing with people has enabled them to create many of their

business opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.58 and the p-Value (.000)


257 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I find that I can think better when I have guidance

and advice from others on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t find that they

can think better when they have guidance and advice from others’ is ‘Rejected’


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I frequently have doubts about myself or my

abilities when making business proposals on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to

5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.987


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have doubts

frequently about themselves or their abilities when making business proposals’


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am in total control of my destiny on the scale of 1




Pradesh are not in total control of their destiny’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I worry about what my business associates think of

me on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-



MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t worry about what their business associates

think about them’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.47 and the p-Value (.000) is


258 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ t value, for In business, I enjoy turning circumstances to my

advantage on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy turning circumstances

to their advantage in business’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.59 and the p-Value



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am driven to ever greater efforts by an

unquenched ambition on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not driven to

ever greater efforts by an unquenched ambition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Successful entrepreneur pursue any opportunity,

and do what they have to do in order to survive on the scale of 1 (Strongly


is 11.943 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.

Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

don’t think that successful entrepreneurs pursue any opportunity, and do what

they have to do in order to survive’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.60 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I thrive in situations which encourage and reward

my creativity on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against

the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.832 with df (degree of freedom)

of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that

‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t thrive in situations which

encourage and reward their creativity’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and the


259 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I need to know the answer before I’ll ask a question

on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating



in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know the answer before they ask a question’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I judge my work by considering whether it meets the

minimum requirements for the task on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t judge their

work by considering whether that meets the minimum requirements for the task’


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for My goal when starting this enterprise was to ‘do the

kind of work I wanted to do on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their

enterprises for doing the kind of work they want to do’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean

is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for My goal when starting this enterprise was to ‘make

more money than otherwise on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly



hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their

enterprise to make more money than otherwise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is


260 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ t value, for I, sometime, lack working capital/liquid assets/funds

to sustain which contributes in industrial sickness on the scale of 1 (Strongly



the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh never lack

working capital/liquid assets/funds (which contributes in industrial sickness) to

sustain’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.49 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs in U.P.

have problems beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems on the scale of 1




Pradesh don’t think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs in U.P. have problems

beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.50 and the



entrepreneurs’ t value, for I think I have become competent entrepreneur to

achieve long term objectives of the enterprise in effective and efficient

manner on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have not become competent

entrepreneur to achieve long term objectives of their enterprises in effective and

efficient manner’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.62 and the p-Value (.000) is less



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Because I’m unsure of myself, I spend a lot of time

looking for someone who can tell me how to solve all my entrepreneurial

problems on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the


261 | P a g e


MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend a lot of time looking for someone who

can tell them how to solve all their entrepreneurial problems because they are

unsure of themselves’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.34 and the p-Value (.000) is


Table: 4.64.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

I push myself and feel real satisfaction

when my work is among the best3.814 449 .000 .211 .07 .35

Happens in my enterprise is affected

more by my abilities, control and

guidance than by external influences

10.453 449 .000 .522 .39 .65

I need to know that it’s already been

done before I’m willing to try it10.290 449 .000 .511 .38 .64

I respect rules and established

procedures because they guide me11.322 449 .000 .573 .44 .70

I Feel self-conscious when I am with

very successful entrepreneur(s)11.020 449 .000 .551 .42 .68

I am ultimately responsible for my own

enterprise’s success12.239 449 .000 .596 .47 .72

I am quite independent of the opinions

of others12.383 449 .000 .636 .50 .77

In pursuing business opportunities, I

enjoy intimidating other12.414 449 .000 .620 .49 .75

My goals and ambitions are generally

modest and easily achieved10.440 449 .000 .527 .40 .66

I do not consider myself to be

particularly inventive or creative10.406 449 .000 .500 .38 .62

262 | P a g e

I enjoy the uncertainty and risks of

business; they energize me more than

circumstances with predictable

outcomes

11.134 449 .000 .576 .44 .71

Nothing that life can offer is a

substitute for great achievement4.389 449 .000 .253 .10 .40

I spend more time thinking about my

future goals than my past

accomplishments

10.276 449 .000 .524 .39 .66

I am uncomfortable when I have

complete responsibility for deciding

how and when to do my work

10.858 449 .000 .540 .41 .67

I seldom get a sense of pride and

accomplishment from my work11.385 449 .000 .564 .44 .69

I get excited creating my own business

opportunities12.153 449 .000 .609 .48 .74

I entered in entrepreneurship by choice

not by obligation to ensure livelihood12.211 449 .000 .598 .47 .72

I am willing to risk my personal and

family’s material well being for the

sake of my enterprise

9.263 449 .000 .464 .33 .59

I am confident of my abilities and feel

good about myself8.351 449 .000 .424 .29 .56

An opportunity to beat a competitor in

a business deal is always a personal

thrill

11.714 449 .000 .598 .47 .73

I enjoy being able to use old business

concepts in new ways9.153 449 .000 .489 .35 .63

Success comes from conforming to

accepted business practices more so

than constantly doing new things

9.790 449 .000 .491 .36 .62

I can control most situations I find

myself in10.302 449 .000 .542 .41 .68

263 | P a g e

It is important to continually look for

new way to do things in the enterprise10.161 449 .000 .524 .39 .66

I like a job in which I don’t have to

answer to any one9.148 449 .000 .480 .34 .62

I frequently find myself in situations

where I am powerless to control the

outcome(s)

8.058 449 .000 .431 .29 .57

I often approach business tasks in

unique ways9.803 449 .000 .509 .37 .64

I buy insurance every time I travel 7.264 449 .000 .404 .26 .55

I do not enjoy being the catalyst for

change in business affairs9.720 449 .000 .516 .38 .65

Most business circumstances happen

because of luck, whether good or bad9.964 449 .000 .531 .39 .67

My knack for dealing with people has

enabled me to create many of my

business opportunities

11.292 449 .000 .584 .45 .72

I find that I can think better when I

have guidance and advice from others10.807 449 .000 .571 .43 .71

I frequently have doubts about myself

or my abilities when making business

proposals

9.987 449 .000 .538 .40 .68

I am in total control of my destiny 10.273 449 .000 .531 .40 .66

I worry about what my business

associates think of me9.078 449 .000 .471 .34 .61

In business, I enjoy turning

circumstances to my advantage11.339 449 .000 .589 .45 .72

I am driven to ever greater efforts by

an unquenched ambition11.620 449 .000 .567 .44 .69

Successful entrepreneur pursue any

opportunity, and do what they have to

do in order to survive

11.943 449 .000 .598 .47 .73

264 | P a g e

I thrive in situations which encourage

and reward my creativity10.832 449 .000 .553 .42 .69

I need to know the answer before I’ll

ask a question10.735 449 .000 .524 .40 .65

I judge my work by considering

whether it meets the minimum

requirements for the task

10.178 449 .000 .516 .38 .65

My goal when starting this enterprise

was to ‘do the kind of work I wanted to

do’

11.141 449 .000 .564 .43 .70

My goal when starting this enterprise

was to ‘make more money than

otherwise’

10.002 449 .000 .507 .38 .64

I, sometime, lack working

capital/liquid assets/funds to sustain

which contributes in industrial sickness

9.307 449 .000 .487 .35 .62

I think women entrepreneurs in

MSMEs in U.P. have problems beyond

men entrepreneurs’ problems

10.082 449 .000 .498 .37 .63

I think I have become competent

entrepreneur to achieve long term

objectives of the enterprise in effective

and efficient manner

12.198 449 .000 .622 .49 .75

Because I’m unsure of myself, I spend

a lot of time looking for someone who

can tell me how to solve all my

entrepreneurial problems

6.316 449 .000 .336 .20 .47

4.65 Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about Their Enterprises


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (In dealing with its competitors,

my enterprise typically responds to actions which competitors initiate) to 5

(My enterprise typically initiates actions which our competitors then respond

to) is 3.58 with Std. Deviation of 1.005.

265 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Is seldom the first business to

introduce new products or services, administrative techniques, operating

technologies etc.) to 5 (Is very often the first business to introduce new

products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.)

is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of .960.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (In general, the top manager(s) of

my enterprise favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true

products and services) to 5 (Favour a strong emphasis on R & D,

technological leadership and innovations) is 3.59 with Std. Deviation of 1.048.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for How many new lines of products or services

has your enterprise marketed in the past five (5) years? on the scale of 1 (No

new lines of products or services) to 5 (Many new lines of products or

services) is 3.45 with Std. Deviation of .941.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Regarding changing product or service lines,

how would you characterize your enterprise’s tendency to change products

or services? on the scale of 1 (Changes have been mostly of a minor nature) to

5 (Changes have usually been quite dramatic) is 3.45 with Std. Deviation of

.941.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My assessment of the enterprise’s level of

technology in terms of the work that we do, and how we do it, is: on the scale

of 1 (Low technology) to 5 (High technology) is 3.45 with Std. Deviation of

.941.

Table: 4.65; Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about Their Enterprises



Deviation

266 | P a g e

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statisti

c

Statistic

Rating Scale:

1 (In dealing with its

competitors, my enterprise

typically responds to

actions which competitors

initiate) to 5 (My enterprise

typically initiates actions

which our competitors then

respond to)

450 4 1 5 3.58 1.007

Rating Scale:

1 (Is seldom the first

business to introduce new

products or services,

administrative techniques,

operating technologies etc.)

to 5 (Is very often the first

business to introduce new

products or services,

administrative techniques,

operating technologies etc.)

450 4 1 5 3.54 .960

Rating Scale:

1 (In general, the top

manager(s) of my

enterprise favour a strong

emphasis on the marketing

of tried and true products

and services) to 5 (Favour

a strong emphasis on R &

D, technological leadership

and innovations)

450 4 1 5 3.59 1.048

267 | P a g e

How many new lines of

products or services has

your enterprise marketed in

the past five (5) years?

Rating Scale:

1 (No new lines of

products or services) to 5

(Many new lines of

products or services)

450 4 1 5 3.53 1.068

Regarding changing

product or service lines,

how would you

characterize your

enterprise’s tendency to

change products or

services?

Rating Scale:

1 (Changes have been

mostly of a minor nature)

to 5 (Changes have usually

been quite dramatic)

450 4 1 5 3.16 1.074

My assessment of the

enterprise’s level of

technology in terms of the

work that we do, and how

we do it, is

Rating Scale:

1 (Low technology) to 5

(High technology)

450 4 1 5 3.92 1.001

4.65.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about Their Enterprises


entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (In dealing with its competitors, my

enterprise typically responds to actions which competitors initiate) to 5 (My

enterprise typically initiates actions which our competitors then respond to)


268 | P a g e


‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in dealing with their competitors,

typically responds to actions which competitors initiate’ is ‘Rejected’ as the



entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (Is seldom the first business to

introduce new products or services, administrative techniques, operating

technologies etc.) to 5 (Is very often the first business to introduce new

products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.)



‘MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are seldom the first business to introduce new

products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.’


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (In general, the top manager(s) of my

enterprise favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true

products and services) to 5 (Favour a strong emphasis on R & D,

technological leadership and innovations) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as


Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘top management in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh, favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true products

and services’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.59 and the p-Value (.000) is less



entrepreneurs’ t value, for “How many new lines of products or services has

your enterprise marketed in the past five (5) years?” on the scale of 1 (No new

lines of products or services) to 5 (Many new lines of products or services)



‘in the past five years, no new lines of products or services have been introduced

269 | P a g e

by entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.53



entrepreneurs’ t value, for “Regarding changing product or service lines, how

would you characterize your enterprise’s tendency to change products or

services?” on the scale of 1 (Changes have been mostly of a minor nature) to 5

(Changes have usually been quite dramatic) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)

as Test Value, is 3.248 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence

Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘changes in the product or service lines

of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are mostly of a minor nature’ is ‘Rejected’ as the



entrepreneurs’ t value, for “My assessment of the enterprise’s level of

technology in terms of the work that we do, and how we do it, is:” on the scale

of 1 (Low technology) to 5 (High technology) against the mid-rating value (i.e.


Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh, the level of technology, in terms of the work that they do and how they

do, is low’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.92 and the p-Value (.000) is less than


Table: 4.65.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about TheirEnterprises

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Rating Scale:

1 (In dealing with its competitors, my

enterprise typically responds to actions

which competitors initiate) to 5 (My

enterprise typically initiates actions

which our competitors then respond to)

12.312 449 .000 .584 .46 .71

270 | P a g e

Rating Scale:

1 (Is seldom the first business to

introduce new products or services,

administrative techniques, operating

technologies etc.) to 5 (Is very often

the first business to introduce new

products or services, administrative

techniques, operating technologies

etc.)

11.882 449 .000 .538 .42 .65

Rating Scale:

1 (In general, the top manager(s) of my

enterprise favor a strong emphasis on

the marketing of tried and true

products and services) to 5 (Favor a

strong emphasis on R & D,

technological leadership and

innovations)

11.922 449 .000 .589 .46 .72

How many new lines of products or

services has your enterprise marketed in

the past five (5) years?

Rating Scale:

1 (No new lines of products or

services) to 5 (Many new lines of

products or services)

10.461 449 .000 .527 .40 .66

Regarding changing product or service

lines, how would you characterize your

enterprise’s tendency to change

products or services?

Rating Scale:

1 (Changes have been mostly of a

minor nature) to 5 (Changes have

usually been quite dramatic)

3.248 449 .000 .164 .03 .30

271 | P a g e

My assessment of the enterprise’s level

of technology in terms of the work that

we do, and how we do it, is

Rating Scale:

1 (Low technology) to 5 (High

technology)

19.448 449 .000 .918 .80 1.04

4.66 Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Serving a distinct and unique market niche on

the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.32 with Std.

Deviation of 1.183.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Access to the market (e.g. location) on the scale

of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.32 with Std. Deviation of

1.121.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Unique technology of product on the scale of 1

(Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.46 with Std. Deviation of 1.167.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Unique technology in process or production on

the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.42 with Std.

Deviation of 1.138.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Lower price than the competition on the scale

of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation of

1.109.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Significantly higher quality than the

competition on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.48


272 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Broad product / service lines providing

customer convenience on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High

competence) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of 1.139.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Significantly higher levels of customer service

and support on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.55


Table: 4.66; Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh



Deviation


Serving a distinct and unique

market niche450 4 1 5 3.32 1.183

Access to the market (e.g.

location)450 4 1 5 3.32 1.121

Unique technology of product 450 4 1 5 3.46 1.167

Unique technology in process or

production450 4 1 5 3.42 1.138

Lower price than the competition 450 4 1 5 3.43 1.109

Significantly higher quality than

the competition450 4 1 5 3.48 1.099

Broad product / service lines

providing customer convenience450 4 1 5 3.57 1.139

Significantly higher levels of

customer service and support450 4 1 5 3.55 1.178

From the Figure: 4.66 it may be seen for factor of competitive advantage for

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh mean rating is highest (3.57) for broad product /

service lines providing customer convenience whereas lowest (3.32) mean

rating is for access to the market (e.g. location). It means that major factor of

273 | P a g e

competitive advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be broad product /

service lines providing customer convenience and minor factor of competitive

advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be access to the market.

Figure: 4.66; Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

4.66.1 T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Serving a distinct and unique market niche on the

scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating



in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in serving a distinct and

unique market niche’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.32 and the p-Value (.000) is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Access to the market (e.g. location) on the scale of 1

(Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)

3.57

3.48

3.55

3.463.43 3.42

3.32 3.32

3.153.2

3.253.3

3.353.4

3.453.5

3.553.6

Factors of Competitive Advantage forMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

Factors of CompetitiveAdvantage for MSMEs inUttar Pradesh

274 | P a g e



Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in access to the market (e.g.

location)’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.32 and the p-Value (.000) is less than



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Unique technology of product on the scale of 1 (Low

competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test



don’t have competitive advantage in unique technology of product’ is ‘Rejected’


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Unique technology in process or production on the

scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating



in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in unique technology

process or production’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42 and the p-Value (.000)



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Lower price than the competition on the scale of 1

(Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)



Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in offering lower price than the

competition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less than



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Significantly higher quality than the competition on

the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating


275 | P a g e


in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in providing significantly

higher quality than the competition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for Broad product / service lines providing customer

convenience on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence)



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in

offering broad product / service lines providing customer convenience’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for Significantly higher levels of customer service and

support on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the



MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in significantly

higher levels of customer service and support’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55


Table: 4.66.1; T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs inUttar Pradesh

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Serving a distinct and unique market

niche5.740 449 .000 .320 .18 .46

Access to the market (e.g. location) 6.097 449 .000 .322 .19 .46

Unique technology of product 8.400 449 .000 .462 .32 .60

276 | P a g e

Unique technology in process or

production7.748 449 .000 .416 .28 .55

Lower price than the competition 8.204 449 .000 .429 .29 .56

Significantly higher quality than the

competition9.265 449 .000 .480 .35 .61

Broad product / service lines providing

customer convenience10.554 449 .000 .567 .43 .71

Significantly higher levels of customer

service and support9.963 449 .000 .553 .41 .70

4.67 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for existence of a current, comprehensive and

detailed business plan on the scale of 1 (Does not exist) to 5 (Current,

comprehensive and detailed) is 3.77 with Std. Deviation of 1.110.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for existence of written job descriptions on the

scale of 1 (Does not exist for any position) to 5 (Detailed job descriptions

exist for all position) is 3.18 with Std. Deviation of 1.068.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for standard operating procedures are in place

for most processes within the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Never true) to 5

(Always true) is 3.85 with Std. Deviation of 1.029.

Table: 4.67; Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning



Deviation


There exists a current,

comprehensive and detailed

business plan

450 4 1 5 3.77 1.110

277 | P a g e

There is existence of written job

descriptions450 4 1 5 3.18 1.068

Standard operating procedures

are in place for most processes

within the enterprise

450 4 1 5 3.85 1.029

From the Figure: 4.67 it may be seen for enterprises’ organisation and

planning mean rating is highest (3.85) for standard operating procedures are in

place for most processes within the enterprise whereas lowest (3.18) mean

rating is for there is existence of written job descriptions. It means that major

component of enterprises’ organisation and planning in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh tends to be standard operating procedures being in place for most

processes within the enterprise and minor component of enterprises’

organisation and planning in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be existence of

written job descriptions.

Figure: 4.67; Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning

4.67.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning


entrepreneurs’ t value, for existence of a current, comprehensive and detailed

business plan on the scale of 1 (Does not exist) to 5 (Current, comprehensive

and detailed) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 14.784 with df

3.85 3.773.18

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

Enterprises’ Organisation andPlanning

Enterprises’ Organisationand Planning

278 | P a g e


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have current,

comprehensive and detailed business plan’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.77 and



entrepreneurs’ t value, for existence of written job descriptions on the scale of 1

(Does not exist for any position) to 5 (Detailed job descriptions exist for all

position) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 3.665 with df


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have detailed

job descriptions for any position’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.18 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for standard operating procedures are in place for most

processes within the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Never true) to 5 (Always

true) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 17.495 with df (degree

of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that

‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have operating procedures in

place for most processes within the enterprise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.85


Table: 4.67.1; T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

There exists a current, comprehensive

and detailed business plan14.784 449 .000 .773 .64 .91

There is existence of written job

descriptions3.665 449 .000 .184 .05 .31

279 | P a g e

Standard operating procedures are in

place for most processes within the

enterprise

17.495 449 .000 .849 .72 .97

4.68 Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Our enterprise rarely change its

marketing practices to keep up with the market and competitors) to 5 (Our

enterprise must change its marketing practices extremely, frequently e.g.

semi-annually) is 3.26 with Std. Deviation of 1.150.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (The rate of at which products /

services are getting obsolete in the industry is very slow e.g. basic metal like

copper) to 5 (The rate of obsolescence is very high as in some fashion goods

and semiconductors) is 3.08 with Std. Deviation of 1.195.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Actions of competitors are quite

easy to predict as in some basic industries) to 5 (Actions of competitors are

unpredictable) is 3.31 with Std. Deviation of 1.104.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Research and development within the

industry on the scale of 1 (Virtually no R&D in industry e.g. bakery,

publishing, real estate) to 5 (Extremely R & D oriented industry e.g.

telecommunications, space, drugs) is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of .941.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Demands and consumer tastes

fairly easy to forecast e.g. for milk companies) to 5 (Demands and consumer

tastes are almost unpredictable e.g. high-fashion) is 3.42 with Std. Deviation

of 1.113.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Production and / or service

technology is not subject to very much change and is well established e.g. in

280 | P a g e

steel production) to 5 (Modes of production/service change often, and in a

major way e.g. advanced electronics) is 3.56 with Std. Deviation of 1.029.

Table: 4.68; Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry



Deviation


Rating scale:

1 (Our enterprise rarely change

its marketing practices to keep up

with the market and competitors)

to 5 (Our enterprise must change

its marketing practices

extremely, frequently e.g. semi-

annually)

450 4 1 5 3.26 1.150

Rating scale:

1 (The rate of at which products /

services are getting obsolete in

the industry is very slow e.g.

basic metal like copper) to 5

(The rate of obsolescence is very

high as in some fashion goods

and semiconductors)

450 4 1 5 3.08 1.195

Rating scale:

1 (Actions of competitors are

quite easy to predict as in some

basic industries) to 5 (Actions of

competitors are unpredictable)

450 4 1 5 3.31 1.104

Rating scale:

Research and development withinthe industry

1 (Virtually no R&D in industrye.g. bakery, publishing, real estate)to 5 (Extremely R & D orientedindustry e.g. telecommunications,space, drugs)

450 4 1 5 3.55 .941

281 | P a g e

Rating scale:

1 (Demands and consumer tastes

fairly easy to forecast e.g. for

milk companies) to 5 (Demands

and consumer tastes are almost

unpredictable e.g. high-fashion)

450 4 1 5 3.42 1.113

Rating scale:

1 (Production and / or service

technology is not subject to very

much change and is well

established e.g. in steel

production) to 5 (Modes of

production/service change often,

and in a major way e.g. advanced

electronics)

450 4 1 5 3.56 1.029

4.68.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry


entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Our enterprise rarely change its

marketing practices to keep up with the market and competitors) to 5 (Our

enterprise must change its marketing practices extremely, frequently e.g.

semi-annually) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 4.715 with


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh rarely change rarely

marketing practices to keep up with the market and competitors’ is ‘Rejected’ as


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (The rate of at which products / services

are getting obsolete in the industry is very slow e.g. basic metal like copper) to

5 (The rate of obsolescence is very high as in some fashion goods and

semiconductors) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 1.420 with


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that the rate

of at which products / services are getting obsolete in their industry is very slow’

282 | P a g e

is ‘Failed to Reject’ as the mean is 3.08 and the p-Value (.078) is more than .01



entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Actions of competitors are quite easy to

predict as in some basic industries) to 5 (Actions of competitors are

unpredictable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.890 with df


hypothesis that ‘actions of competitors of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh are quite easy to predict’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.31 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value for Research and development within the industry on the

scale of 1 (Virtually no R&D in industry e.g. bakery, publishing, real estate)

to 5 (Extremely R & D oriented industry e.g. telecommunications, space,

drugs)against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.325 with df (degree


‘virtually there is no research and development (R & D) within the industry of

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and the p-Value



entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Demands and consumer tastes fairly

easy to forecast e.g. for milk companies) to 5 (Demands and consumer tastes

are almost unpredictable e.g. high-fashion) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)


Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands

and consumer tastes are fairly easy to forecast’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42



entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Production and / or service technology

is not subject to very much change and is well established e.g. in steel

production) to 5 (Modes of production/service change often, and in a major

way e.g. advanced electronics) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test


283 | P a g e

Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and

/ or service technology is not subject to very much change and is well

established’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less than


Table: 4.68.1; T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Rating scale:

1 (Our enterprise rarely change its

marketing practices to keep up with the

market and competitors) to 5 (Our

enterprise must change its marketing

practices extremely, frequently e.g.

semi-annually)

4.715 449 .000 .256 .12 .40

Rating scale:

1 (The rate of at which products /

services are getting obsolete in the

industry is very slow e.g. basic metal

like copper) to 5 (The rate of

obsolescence is very high as in some

fashion goods and semiconductors)

1.420 449 .078 .080 -.07 .23

Rating scale:

1 (Actions of competitors are quite

easy to predict as in some basic

industries) to 5 (Actions of competitors

are unpredictable)

5.890 449 .000 .307 .17 .44

284 | P a g e

Rating scale:

Research and development within theindustry

1 (Virtually no R&D in industry e.g.bakery, publishing, real estate) to 5(Extremely R & D oriented industry e.g.telecommunications, space, drugs)

12.325 449 .000 .547 .43 .66

Rating scale:

1 (Demands and consumer tastes fairly

easy to forecast e.g. for milk

companies) to 5 (Demands and

consumer tastes are almost

unpredictable e.g. high-fashion)

8.092 449 .000 .424 .29 .56

Rating scale:

1 (Production and / or service

technology is not subject to very much

change and is well established e.g. in

steel production) to 5 (Modes of

production/service change often, and in

a major way e.g. advanced electronics)

11.457 449 .000 .556 .43 .68

4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on the

scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.46 with Std. Deviation of

1.070.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on

the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.66 with Std.

Deviation of .919.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for uncertainly about the economy on the scale of 1

(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.63 with Std. Deviation of .948.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for choosing a direction for enterprise on the scale

285 | P a g e

of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.71 with Std. Deviation of

1.019.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for regulations and paperwork on the scale of 1 (No

difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.63 with Std. Deviation of 1.021.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for time management on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for general management skills on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for changing customer needs on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for obtaining finances on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for uncertainty about the political situation on the


1.065.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits)on


Deviation of 1.094.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for quality of products / services on the scale of 1

(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.53 with Std. Deviation of 1.062.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for changing economic condition on the scale of 1

(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of 1.067.

286 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for intense competition on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for cost control on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to

5 (Great difficulties) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation of 1.053.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for educating the workforce on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for attracting quality workers on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for productivity on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to

5 (Great difficulties) is 3.31 with Std. Deviation of 1.151.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for lack of suppliers / health of suppliers on the


1.086.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for competing globally on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for motivating employees on the scale of 1 (No



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for incorporating new / emerging technologies on


Deviation of 1.114.

287 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for marketing problems on the scale of 1 (No


Table: 4.69; Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises



Deviation


Registration of MSMEs in U.P. 450 4 1 5 3.46 1.070

Establishment of MSMEs in U.P. 450 4 1 5 3.66 .919

Uncertainly about the economy 450 4 1 5 3.63 .948

Choosing a direction for

enterprise450 4 1 5 3.71 1.019

Regulations and paperwork 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.021

Time management 450 4 1 5 3.73 1.045

General management skills 450 4 1 5 3.39 1.152

Changing customer needs 450 4 1 5 3.56 1.026

Obtaining finances 450 4 1 5 3.66 1.040

Uncertainty about the political

situation450 4 1 5 3.66 1.065

Taxes, tax laws (including

mandated benefits)450 4 1 5 3.56 1.094

Quality of products / services 450 4 1 5 3.53 1.062

Changing economic condition 450 4 1 5 3.54 1.067

Intense competition 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.034

Cost control 450 4 1 5 3.43 1.053

Educating the workforce 450 4 1 5 3.42 1.128

Attracting quality workers 450 4 1 5 3.37 1.104

288 | P a g e

Productivity 450 4 1 5 3.31 1.151

Lack of suppliers / health of

suppliers450 4 1 5 3.33 1.086

Competing globally 450 4 1 5 3.42 1.138

Motivating employees 450 4 1 5 3.32 1.121

Incorporating new / emerging

technologies450 4 1 5 3.29 1.114

Marketing problems 450 4 1 5 3.34 1.229

From the Figure: 4.69 it may be seen for problems that have been creating

difficulties for enterprises mean rating is highest (3.73) for time management

whereas lowest (3.29) mean rating is for incorporating new/emerging

technologies. It means that major problem of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh tends to be time management and minor problem of entrepreneurs in

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be incorporating new/emerging technologies.

Figure: 4.69; Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises

289 | P a g e

4.69.1 T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises


entrepreneurs’ t value, for registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on the scale

of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)



Pradesh have no difficulties in registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on the

scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value



3.733.71

3.663.663.66

3.633.633.63

3.563.56

3.543.53

3.463.433.423.42

3.393.37

3.343.333.323.31

3.29

3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8

Time managementChoosing a direction for…

Establishment of MSMEs in…Obtaining finances

Uncertainty about the…Uncertainly about the…

Regulations and paperworkIntense competition

Changing customer needsTaxes, tax laws (including…

Changing economic…Quality of products / services

Registration of MSMEs in…Cost control

Educating the workforceCompeting globally

General management skillsAttracting quality workers

Marketing problemsLack of suppliers / health of…

Motivating employeesProductivity

Incorporating new /…

Problems that have been CreatingDifficulties for Enterprises

Problems that have beenCreating Difficulties forEnterprises

290 | P a g e

in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in establishment of MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.66 and the p-Value (.000) is less than



entrepreneurs’ t value, for uncertainly about the economy on the scale of 1 (No

difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test



have no difficulties for their enterprises due to uncertainty about the economy’


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for choosing a direction for enterprise on the scale of 1

(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as



Pradesh have no difficulties in choosing a direction for enterprise for their

enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.71 and the p-Value (.000) is less than



entrepreneurs’ t value, for regulations and paperwork on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties for their enterprises due to regulations and paperwork’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for time management on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to

5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 14.891


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties

291 | P a g e

in time management’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.73 and the p-Value (.000) is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for general management skills on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties regarding general management skills’ is ‘Rejected’ as the



entrepreneurs’ t value, for changing customer needs on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties due to change in customer needs’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean



entrepreneurs’ t value, for obtaining finances on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)

to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is


the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no

difficulties in obtaining finances’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.66 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for uncertainty about the political situation on the scale

of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)



Pradesh have no difficulties due to uncertainty about the political situation’ is


Confidence Level.

292 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ t value, for taxes & tax laws (including mandated benefits) on

the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating



in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding taxes & tax laws’ is ‘Rejected’


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for quality of products / services on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties in maintaining quality of products / services’ is ‘Rejected’


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for changing economic condition on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties regarding change in economic conditions’ is ‘Rejected’ as


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for intense competition on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)




difficulties regarding intense competition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.63 and



entrepreneurs’ t value, for cost control on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5

293 | P a g e

(Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.593



in cost control’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less



entrepreneurs’ t value, for educating the workforce on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties in educating the workforce’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for attracting quality workers on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties in attracting quality workers’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for productivity on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5

(Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.775



in maintaining productivity’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.31 and the p-Value



entrepreneurs’ t value, for lack of suppliers / health of suppliers on the scale of 1

(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as



Pradesh have no difficulties due lack of suppliers / health of suppliers’ is

294 | P a g e


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for competing globally on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)




difficulties in competing globally’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42 and the p-



entrepreneurs’ t value, for motivating employees on the scale of 1 (No




have no difficulties in motivating employees’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.32



entrepreneurs’ t value, for incorporating new / emerging technologies on the

scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value



in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in incorporating new / emerging

technologies’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.29 and the p-Value (.000) is less



entrepreneurs’ t value, for marketing problems on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)




difficulties regarding marketing problems’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.34 and


Table: 4.69.1; T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises

295 | P a g e

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Registration of MSMEs in U.P. 9.079 449 .000 .458 .33 .59

Establishment of MSMEs in U.P. 15.124 449 .000 .656 .54 .77

Uncertainly about the economy 14.027 449 .000 .627 .51 .74

Choosing a direction for enterprise 14.800 449 .000 .711 .59 .84

Regulations and paperwork 13.152 449 .000 .633 .51 .76

Time management 14.891 449 .000 .733 .61 .86

General management skills 7.246 449 .000 .393 .25 .53

Changing customer needs 11.481 449 .000 .556 .43 .68

Obtaining finances 13.422 449 .000 .658 .53 .78

Uncertainty about the political

situation13.053 449 .000 .656 .53 .79

Taxes, tax laws (including mandated

benefits)10.819 449 .000 .558 .42 .69

Quality of products / services 10.657 449 .000 .533 .40 .66

Changing economic condition 10.820 449 .000 .544 .41 .67

Intense competition 12.987 449 .000 .633 .51 .76

Cost control 8.593 449 .000 .427 .30 .56

Educating the workforce 7.896 449 .000 .420 .28 .56

Attracting quality workers 7.132 449 .000 .371 .24 .51

Productivity 5.775 449 .000 .313 .17 .45

Lack of suppliers / health of suppliers 6.508 449 .000 .333 .20 .47

Competing globally 7.828 449 .000 .420 .28 .56

296 | P a g e

Motivating employees 6.097 449 .000 .322 .19 .46

Incorporating new / emerging

technologies5.545 449 .000 .291 .16 .43

Marketing problems 5.791 449 .000 .336 .19 .49

4.70 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems of Entrepreneurs inMSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in registration of MSMEs in U.P. between

the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.391 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for



entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,

the level of problem in registration of MSMEs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in establishment of MSMEs in U.P.

between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.605 with df (degree of freedom) of 1



‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar

Pradesh, the level of problem in establishment of MSMEs is same’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the economy





Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the economy is same’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in choosing a direction for enterprise

297 | P a g e





Pradesh, the level of problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is same.’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to regulations and paperwork between





the level of problem due to regulations and paperwork is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in time management between the districts





problem in time management is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to general management skills





Pradesh, the level of problem related to general management skills is same.’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in customer needs between



298 | P a g e



the level of problem due to change in customer needs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in obtaining finances between the districts





problem in obtaining finances is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the political

situation between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.792 with df (degree of




districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the

political situation is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including

mandated benefits) between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 6.042 with df




Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem regarding

taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits) is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding quality of products / services





299 | P a g e

Pradesh, the level of problem regarding quality of products / services is same.’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in economic condition





Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in economic condition is same.’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to intense competition between the

districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.213 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between

groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.004) is less than

.01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for


the level of problem due to intense competition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in cost control between the districts of

Uttar Pradesh, is 2.740 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and

448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%



problem in cost control is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in educating the workforce between the





the level of problem in educating the workforce is same’ is ‘Rejected’.

300 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in attracting quality workers between the





the level of problem in attracting quality workers is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to productivity between the





the level of problem related to productivity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to lack of suppliers / health of

suppliers between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.727 with df (degree of




districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health

of suppliers is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in competing globally between the districts





problem in competing globally is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in motivating employees between the


301 | P a g e

groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.043) is more than



the level of problem in motivating employees is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in incorporating new / emerging

technologies between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.366 with df (degree of




districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging

technologies is same’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Marketing problems between the districts of Uttar





marketing problems is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.

Table: 4.70; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Registration of MSMEs in U.P.

Between Groups 44.178 17 2.599 2.391 .002

Within Groups 469.520 432 1.087

Total 513.698 449

Establishment of MSMEs in U.P.

Between Groups 35.291 17 2.076 2.605 .001


Total 379.611 449

Uncertainly about the economy

Between Groups 47.680 17 2.805 3.407 .000


Total 403.280 449

Choosing a direction for enterpriseBetween Groups 73.484 17 4.323 4.752 .000


302 | P a g e

Total 466.444 449

Regulations and paperwork

Between Groups 66.260 17 3.898 4.186 .000


Total 468.500 449

Time management

Between Groups 72.240 17 4.249 4.394 .000


Total 490.000 449

General management skills

Between Groups 126.260 17 7.427 6.839 .000

Within Groups 469.120 432 1.086

Total 595.380 449

Changing customer needs

Between Groups 63.431 17 3.731 3.935 .000


Total 473.111 449

Obtaining finances

Between Groups 48.178 17 2.834 2.801 .000

Within Groups 437.120 432 1.012

Total 485.298 449

Uncertainty about the political situation

Between Groups 66.171 17 3.892 3.792 .000

Within Groups 443.440 432 1.026

Total 509.611 449


benefits)

Between Groups 103.158 17 6.068 6.042 .000

Within Groups 433.840 432 1.004

Total 536.998 449

Quality of products / services

Between Groups 89.280 17 5.252 5.444 .000


Total 506.000 449

Changing economic condition

Between Groups 64.971 17 3.822 3.697 .000

Within Groups 446.640 432 1.034

Total 511.611 449

Intense competition

Between Groups 38.500 17 2.265 2.213 .004

Within Groups 442.000 432 1.023

Total 480.500 449

Cost control

Between Groups 48.480 17 2.852 2.740 .000

Within Groups 449.600 432 1.041

Total 498.080 449

Educating the workforce

Between Groups 58.580 17 3.446 2.902 .000

Within Groups 513.040 432 1.188

Total 571.620 449

Attracting quality workers

Between Groups 63.744 17 3.750 3.352 .000

Within Groups 483.280 432 1.119

Total 547.024 449

ProductivityBetween Groups 66.180 17 3.893 3.181 .000

Within Groups 528.640 432 1.224

303 | P a g e

Total 594.820 449

Lack of suppliers / health of suppliers

Between Groups 51.360 17 3.021 2.727 .000

Within Groups 478.640 432 1.108

Total 530.000 449

Competing globally

Between Groups 50.980 17 2.999 2.441 .001

Within Groups 530.640 432 1.228

Total 581.620 449

Motivating employees

Between Groups 34.998 17 2.059 1.680 .043

Within Groups 529.280 432 1.225

Total 564.278 449

Incorporating new / emerging technologies

Between Groups 47.424 17 2.790 2.366 .002

Within Groups 509.440 432 1.179

Total 556.864 449

Marketing problems

Between Groups 42.011 17 2.471 1.678 .044

Within Groups 636.320 432 1.473

Total 678.331 449

4.71 Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise

is very safe, little threat to the survival and well-being of my enterprise) to 5

(Environment for our enterprise is very risky, one false step can mean my

enterprise’s undoing) is 3.42 with Std. Deviation of 1.150.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise

is very rich in investment and marketing opportunities) to 5 (Environment

for our enterprise is very stressful, exacting, hostile; very hard to keep

afloat) is 3.33 with Std. Deviation of 1.061.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (An environment demanding

little in the way of technological sophistication) to 5 (Technologically, a very

sophisticated and complex environment for our enterprise) is 3.52 with Std.

Deviation of 1.107.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (An environment that my

enterprise can control and manipulate to its own advantage, such as a

304 | P a g e

dominant enterprise has in an industry with little competition and few

hindrances) to 5 (A dominating environment in which my enterprise’s

initiatives count for very little against the tremendous political,

technological or competitive forces) is 3.50 with Std. Deviation of 1.125.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Minimal requirements for

registration or licensing, present few rules and regulations that govern

entrepreneurial activity, and provides a favourable environment for

entrepreneurs) to 5 (Excessive requirements for registration and licensing,

high costs in fulfilling procedural requirements, and a generally

unfavourable attitude towards entrepreneurship) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation

of 1.119.

Table: 4.71; Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment



Deviation


Rating Scale:

1 (Environment for our

enterprise is very safe, little

threat to the survival and well-

being of my enterprise) to 5

(Environment for our enterprise

is very risky, one false step can

mean my enterprise’s undoing)

450 4 1 5 3.42 1.150

Rating Scale:

1 (Environment for our

enterprise is very rich in

investment and marketing

opportunities) to 5 (Environment

for our enterprise is very

stressful, exacting, hostile; very

hard to keep afloat)

450 4 1 5 3.33 1.061

305 | P a g e

Rating Scale:

1 (An environment demanding

little in the way of technological

sophistication) to 5

(Technologically, a very

sophisticated and complex

environment for our enterprise

450 4 1 5 3.52 1.107

Rating Scale:

1 (An environment that my

enterprise can control and

manipulate to its own advantage,

such as a dominant enterprise has

in an industry with little

competition and few hindrances)

to 5 (A dominating environment

in which my enterprise’s

initiatives count for very little

against the tremendous political,

technological or competitive

forces)

450 4 1 5 3.50 1.125

Rating Scale:

1 (Minimal requirements for

registration or licensing, present

few rules and regulations that

govern entrepreneurial activity,

and provides a favourable

environment for entrepreneurs)

to 5 (Excessive requirements for

registration and licensing, high

costs in fulfilling procedural

requirements, and a generally

unfavourable attitude towards

entrepreneurship)

450 4 1 5 3.43 1.119

4.71.2 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment


entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise is very

safe, little threat to the survival and well-being of my enterprise) to 5

306 | P a g e

(Environment for our enterprise is very risky, one false step can mean my

enterprise’s undoing) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 7.709


hypothesis that ‘environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is

very safe with little threat to the survival and well-being of their enterprises’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise is very

rich in investment and marketing opportunities) to 5 (Environment for our

enterprise is very stressful, exacting, hostile; very hard to keep afloat) against


449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘environment

for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is very rich in investment and

marketing opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.33 and the p-Value



entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (An environment demanding little in the

way of technological sophistication) to 5 (Technologically, a very

sophisticated and complex environment for our enterprise against the mid-

rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.007 with df (degree of freedom) of 449

and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘environment for

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh demands little in the way of

technological sophistication’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value



entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (An environment that my enterprise can

control and manipulate to its own advantage, such as a dominant enterprise

has in an industry with little competition and few hindrances) to 5 (A

dominating environment in which my enterprise’s initiatives count for very

little against the tremendous political, technological or competitive forces)



307 | P a g e

‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh has an environment that their

enterprises can control and manipulate to their own advantage’ is ‘Rejected’ as


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Minimal requirements for registration

or licensing, present few rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial

activity, and provides a favourable environment for entrepreneurs) to 5

(Excessive requirements for registration and licensing, high costs in fulfilling

procedural requirements, and a generally unfavourable attitude towards

entrepreneurship) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.213


hypothesis that ‘there are Minimal requirements for registration or licensing,

present few rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial activity, and

provides a favourable environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less than


Table: 4.71.2; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about ExternalEnvironment

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Rating Scale:

1 (Environment for our enterprise is

very safe, little threat to the survival

and well-being of my enterprise) to 5

(Environment for our enterprise is very

risky, one false step can mean my

enterprise’s undoing)

7.709 449 .000 .418 .28 .56

308 | P a g e

Rating Scale:

1 (Environment for our enterprise is

very rich in investment and marketing

opportunities) to 5 (Environment for

our enterprise is very stressful,

exacting, hostile; very hard to keep

afloat)

6.619 449 .000 .331 .20 .46

Rating Scale:

1 (An environment demanding little in

the way of technological

sophistication) to 5 (Technologically, a

very sophisticated and complex

environment for our enterprise

10.007 449 .000 .522 .39 .66

Rating Scale:

1 (An environment that my enterprise

can control and manipulate to its own

advantage, such as a dominant

enterprise has in an industry with little

competition and few hindrances) to 5

(A dominating environment in which

my enterprise’s initiatives count for

very little against the tremendous

political, technological or competitive

forces)

9.468 449 .000 .502 .37 .64

Rating Scale:

1 (Minimal requirements for

registration or licensing, present few

rules and regulations that govern

entrepreneurial activity, and provides a

favourable environment for

entrepreneurs) to 5 (Excessive

requirements for registration and

licensing, high costs in fulfilling

procedural requirements, and a

generally unfavourable attitude

towards entrepreneurship)

8.213 449 .000 .433 .30 .57

4.72 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment

309 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for In general, I face environmental problems

external to my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, there are a large

quantity of small enterprises and a diversity of economic activity on the scale


1.097.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, there is a

supportive public attitude towards entrepreneurship (e.g. recognition of

exemplary entrepreneurial performance) on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree)

to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of 1.131.


entrepreneurs’ mean rating for educational and training programs as well as

necessary information to improve technical, vocational and business skills are

available in my area on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, non-financial

assistance is available through modern transportation and communication

facilities, counselling support services and other programs on the scale of 1



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, financial

institutions are willing to finance small entrepreneurs on the scale of 1



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, financial assistance

is available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative

310 | P a g e

sources of financing on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for MSMEs related policies of both central as well

as state govt. have been achieved their objectives on the scale of 1 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for adequate support to MSMEs of U.P. in terms

of grants, subsidies and incentives is adequate with fair, unbiased and

impartial allocation/selection and effective and efficient and/or corruption-

free distribution on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for MSMEs of U.P face managerial problems even

they are not responsible for that on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the governments

overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments on the scale of 1 (Strongly



entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Within your geographic area, how would you

rate the ‘infrastructure’ (transportation system, roadway,

telecommunication systems, etc) on the scale of 1 (Inadequate) to 5 (Excellent)


Table: 4.72; Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment



Deviation


311 | P a g e

In general, I face environmental

problems external to my

enterprise

450 4 1 5 3.37 1.149

Within my geographic area, there

are a large quantity of small

enterprises and a diversity of

economic activity

450 4 1 5 3.57 1.097

Within my geographic area, there

is a supportive public attitude

towards entrepreneurship (e.g.

recognition of exemplary

entrepreneurial performance)

450 4 1 5 3.57 1.131

Educational and training

programs as well as necessary

information to improve technical,

vocational and business skills are

available in my area

450 4 1 5 3.48 1.117

Within my geographic area, non-

financial assistance is available

through modern transportation

and communication facilities,

counselling support services and

other programs

450 4 1 5 3.56 1.122

Within my geographic area,

financial institutions are willing

to finance small entrepreneurs

450 4 1 5 3.49 1.123

within my geographic area,


in the form of venture capital,

low-cost loans and alternative


450 4 1 5 3.55 1.094

MSMEs related policies of both

central as well as state govt. have

been achieved their objectives

450 4 1 5 3.48 1.164

312 | P a g e

Adequate support to MSMEs of

U.P. in terms of grants, subsidies

and incentives is adequate with

fair, unbiased and impartial

allocation/selection and effective

and efficient and/or corruption-

free distribution

450 4 1 5 3.39 1.096

MSMEs of U.P face managerial

problems even they are not

responsible for that

450 4 1 5 3.48 1.051

MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the

governments overweigh the costs

of MSMEs to governments

450 4 1 5 3.66 1.093

Within your geographic area,

how would you rate the

“infrastructure” (transportation

system, roadway, tele-

communication systems, etc)

450 4 1 5 3.51 1.143

From the Figure: 4.72 it may be seen considering entrepreneurs opinion

about external environment mean rating is highest (3.66) for MSMEs’ (of U.P.)

benefits to the governments overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments

whereas lowest (3.37) mean rating is for in general, I face environmental

problems external to my enterprise. It means that in entrepreneurs’opinion

problems related to the environment external to them are not creating much

problem.

Figure: 4.72; Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment

313 | P a g e

4.72.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment


entrepreneurs’ t value, for in general, I face environmental problems external

to my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



‘in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face

environmental problems external to their enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean



entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, there are a large

quantity of small enterprises and a diversity of economic activity on the scale

of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e.

3.66

3.57

3.57

3.56

3.55

3.51

3.49

3.48

3.48

3.48

3.39

3.37

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits tothe governments…

Within my geographicarea, there are a large…

Within my geographicarea, there is a supportive…

Within my geographicarea, non-financial…

within my geographicarea, financial assistance is…

Within your geographicarea, how would you rate…

Within my geographicarea, financial institutions…

Educational and trainingprograms as well as…

MSMEs related policies ofboth central as well as…

MSMEs of U.P facemanagerial problems even…

Adequate support to MSMEsof U.P. in terms of…

In general, I faceenvironmental problems…

Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment

Entrepreneurs’ Opinion aboutExternal Environment

314 | P a g e



in Uttar Pradesh don’t have a large quantity of small enterprises and a diversity

of economic activity within their geographic area’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is



entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, there is a supportive

public attitude towards entrepreneurship (e.g. recognition of exemplary

entrepreneurial performance)on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5

(Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.713


hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel that there

is a supportive public attitude towards entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the



entrepreneurs’ t value, for educational and training programs as well as

necessary information to improve technical, vocational and business skills are

available in my area on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



‘educational and training programs as well as necessary information to improve

technical, vocational and business skills are not available for entrepreneurs in

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value



entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, non-financial assistance

is available through modern transportation and communication facilities,

counselling support services and other programs on the scale of 1 (Strongly

disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,



Pradesh non-financial assistance through modern transportation and

communication facilities, counselling support services and other programs is

315 | P a g e

not available’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less



entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, financial institutions are

willing to finance small entrepreneurs on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to

5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9,233


hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial

institutions are not willing to finance small entrepreneurs’ is ‘Rejected’ as the



entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, financial assistance is


sources of financing on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)



‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial assistance is not

available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative sources

of financing’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and the p-Value (.000) is less



entrepreneurs’ t value, for MSMEs related policies of both central as well as

state govt. have been achieved their objectives on the scale of 1 (Strongly



the null hypothesis that ‘MSMEs related policies of both central as well as state

govt. have not been achieved their objectives’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48



entrepreneurs’ t value, for adequate support to MSMEs of U.P. in terms of

grants, subsidies and incentives is available with fair, unbiased and impartial


distribution on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against

316 | P a g e


449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is not

adequate support available for MSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in terms of grants,

subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased and impartial allocation/selection

and effective and efficient and/or corruption-free distribution’ is ‘Rejected’ as


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for MSMEs of U.P face managerial problems even they

are not responsible for that on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly

agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.774 with df (degree


‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face managerial problems’ is


Confidence Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the governments

overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments on the scale of 1 (Strongly



Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to the

governments don’t overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments’ is ‘Rejected’


Level.


entrepreneurs’ t value, for within your geographic area, how would you rate

the “infrastructure” (transportation system, roadway, telecommunication

systems, etc)on the scale of 1 (Inadequate) to 5 (Excellent) against the mid-


99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘infrastructure

facilities for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are inadequate’ is ‘Rejected’ as the


317 | P a g e

Table: 4.72.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Mean

Difference


of the Difference

Lower Upper

In general, I face environmental

problems external to my enterprise6.850 449 .000 .371 .23 .51

Within my geographic area, there are a

large quantity of small enterprises and

a diversity of economic activity

10.956 449 .000 .567 .43 .70

Within my geographic area, there is a

supportive public attitude towards

entrepreneurship (e.g. recognition of

exemplary entrepreneurial

performance)

10.713 449 .000 .571 .43 .71

Educational and training programs as

well as necessary information to

improve technical, vocational and

business skills are available in my area

9.073 449 .000 .478 .34 .61

Within my geographic area, non-


through modern transportation and

communication facilities, counseling

support services and other programs

10.505 449 .000 .556 .42 .69

Within my geographic area, financial

institutions are willing to finance small

entrepreneurs

9.233 449 .000 .489 .35 .63

within my geographic area, financial

assistance is available in the form of

venture capital, low-cost loans and

alternative sources of financing

10.599 449 .000 .547 .41 .68

MSMEs related policies of both central

as well as state govt. have been


8.828 449 .000 .484 .34 .63

318 | P a g e

Adequate support to MSMEs of U.P. in

terms of grants, subsidies and

incentives is adequate with fair,

unbiased and impartial

allocation/selection and effective and

efficient and/or corruption-free

distribution

7.571 449 .000 .391 .26 .52

MSMEs of U.P face managerial

problems even they are not responsible

for that

9.774 449 .000 .484 .36 .61

MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the

governments overweigh the costs of

MSMEs to governments

12.896 449 .000 .664 .53 .80

Within your geographic area, how

would you rate the “infrastructure”

(transportation system, roadway, tele-

communication systems, etc)

9.487 449 .000 .511 .37 .65

4.73 Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterprise and at Present


entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the

time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your

management in the developing a business plan is 2.94 with Std. Deviation of

1.318 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &

Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the

skills and ability of your management in the developing a business plan is





management in the strategic planning is 3.00 with Std. Deviation of 1.156

and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &


skills and ability of your management in the strategic planning is 3.47 with


319 | P a g e




management in the start-up operations is 2.92 with Std. Deviation of 1.275



skills and ability of your management in the start-up operations is 3.43 with





management in the personnel is 3.00 with Std. Deviation of 1.123 and mean

rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available & Affordable) for at

present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and ability of

your management in the personnel is 3.50 with Std. Deviation of 1.068.




management in the finance is 2.90 with Std. Deviation of 1.190 and mean



your management in the finance is 3.51 with Std. Deviation of 1.024.




management in the inventory control / purchasing is 2.92 with Std.

Deviation of 1.153 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5

(Available & Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of

assistance of the skills and ability of your management in the inventory

control / purchasing is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of 1.049.




320 | P a g e

management in the feasibility analysis is 3.04 with Std. Deviation of 1.228



skills and ability of your management in the feasibility analysis is 3.58 with





management in the pro-forma financial analysis is 2.82 with Std. Deviation

of 1.228 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &


skills and ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis is





management in the accounting is 2.92 with Std. Deviation of 1.191 and mean



your management in the accounting is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.056.




management in the general management skills is 3.04 with Std. Deviation of

1.206 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &


skills and ability of your management in the general management skills is

3.53 with Std. Deviation of .997.




management in the production is 3.06 with Std. Deviation of 1.214 and mean


321 | P a g e


your management in the production is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of 1.073.




management in the marketing is 2.03 with Std. Deviation of 1.227 and mean



your management in the marketing is 3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.131.

Table: 4.73; Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterprise and atPresent

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std.

Deviation

Pair 1

At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and

ability of your management in the developing a business plan3.32 450 1.150

At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability

of your management in the developing a business plan2.94 450 1.318

Pair 2


ability of your management in the strategic planning3.47 450 1.076


of your management in the strategic planning3.00 450 1.156

Pair 3


ability of your management in the start-up operations3.43 450 1.113


of your management in the start-up operations2.92 450 1.275

Pair 4


ability of your management in the personnel3.50 450 1.068


of your management in the personnel3.00 450 1.123

Pair 5At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and

ability of your management in the finance3.51 450 1.024

322 | P a g e


of your management in the finance2.90 450 1.190

Pair 6


ability of your management in the inventory control / purchasing3.54 450 1.049


of your management in the inventory control / purchasing2.92 450 1.153

Pair 7


ability of your management in the feasibility analysis3.58 450 1.050


of your management in the feasibility analysis3.04 450 1.228

Pair 8


ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis3.49 450 1.133


of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis2.82 450 1.228

Pair 9


ability of your management in the accounting3.52 450 1.056


of your management in the accounting2.92 450 1.191

Pair 10


ability of your management in the general management skills3.53 450 .997


of your management in the general management skills3.04 450 1.206

Pair 11


ability of your management in the production3.55 450 1.073


of your management in the production3.06 450 1.214

Pair 12


ability of your management in the marketing3.49 450 1.131


of your management in the marketing3.03 450 1.227

4.73 (a) Confidence Interval of the Difference for Change in Skills and Ability

323 | P a g e

Table: gives confidence interval of the difference for change in skills and

ability.

Table: 4.73 (a) Confidence Interval of the Difference for Change in Skills andAbility

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

Mean Std.

Deviation


of the Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1

At present availability / affordability of assistance

of the skills and ability of your management in the

developing a business plan - At the time of starting

the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability

of your management in the developing a business

plan

.378 1.586 .184 .571

Pair 2



strategic planning - At the time of starting the

enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of

your management in the strategic planning

.476 1.411 .303 .648

Pair 3



start-up operations - At the time of starting the


your management in the start-up operations

.513 1.527 .327 .699

Pair 4



personnel - At the time of starting the enterprise,

availability of the skills and ability of your

management in the personnel

.496 1.464 .317 .674

Pair 5



finance - At the time of starting the enterprise,


management in the finance

.607 1.520 .421 .792

324 | P a g e

Pair 6



inventory control / purchasing - At the time of

starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and

ability of your management in the inventory

control / purchasing

.622 1.450 .445 .799

Pair 7



feasibility analysis - At the time of starting the


your management in the feasibility analysis

.544 1.535 .357 .732

Pair 8



pro-forma financial analysis - At the time of

starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and

ability of your management in the pro-forma

financial analysis

.673 1.458 .495 .851

Pair 9



accounting - At the time of starting the enterprise,


management in the accounting

.598 1.462 .419 .776

Pair 10



general management skills - At the time of starting

the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability

of your management in the general management

skills

.496 1.461 .317 .674

Pair 11



production - At the time of starting the enterprise,


management in the production

.496 1.426 .322 .669

Pair 12



marketing - At the time of starting the enterprise,


management in the marketing

.462 1.465 .284 .641

325 | P a g e

4.73.1 Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Ability afterestablishment of Enterprise


entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance

of the skills and ability of your management in the developing a business plan

- At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of

your management in the developing a business plan on the scale of 1

(Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-



MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and

affordability of skills in the developing of a business plan after establishment of

enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .378 and the p-Value (.000) is less than




of the skills and ability of your management in the strategic planning - At the


management in the strategic planning on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to

5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test


Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,

don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in

the strategic planning after establishment of their enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as

the mean is .476 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level.



of the skills and ability of your management in the start-up operations - At

the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your

management in the start-up operations on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available)

to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as


326 | P a g e


Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of

skills in the start-up operations after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’

as the mean is .513 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence

Level.



of the skills and ability of your management in the personnel - At the time of

starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your

management in the personnel on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5

(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test




the personnel after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is

.496 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.



of the skills and ability of your management in the finance - At the time of


management in the finance on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5





the finance after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .607




of the skills and ability of your management in the inventory control /

purchasing - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills

and ability of your management in the inventory control / purchasing on the

scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against

327 | P a g e



‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and


purchasing after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .622




of the skills and ability of your management in the feasibility analysis - At

the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your

management in the feasibility analysis on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to

5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test




the feasibility analysis after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the

mean is .544 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.



of the skills and ability of your management in the pro-forma financial

analysis - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and

ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis on the scale of

1 (Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-




affordability of skills in the pro-forma financial analysis after establishment of





of the skills and ability of your management in the accounting - At the time of


328 | P a g e

management in the accounting on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5





the accounting after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is




of the skills and ability of your management in the general management skills

- At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of

your management in the general management skills on the scale of 1

(Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-




affordability of the general management skills after establishment of





of the skills and ability of your management in the production - At the time of


management in the production on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5





the production after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is




of the skills and ability of your management in the marketing - At the time of

329 | P a g e


management in the marketing on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5





the marketing after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is


Table: 4.73.1; Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise

Paired Samples Test

Mean t df p-Value

(1-tailed)

Pair 1

At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills

and ability of your management in the developing a business

plan - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the

skills and ability of your management in the developing a

business plan

.378 5.052 449 .000

Pair 2


and ability of your management in the strategic planning - At the

time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and

ability of your management in the strategic planning

.476 7.148 449 .000

Pair 3


and ability of your management in the start-up operations - At

the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and

ability of your management in the start-up operations

.513 7.133 449 .000

Pair 4


and ability of your management in the personnel - At the time of

starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of

your management in the personnel

.496 7.180 449 .000

Pair 5


and ability of your management in the finance - At the time of


your management in the finance

.607 8.467 449 .000

330 | P a g e

Pair 6


and ability of your management in the inventory control /

purchasing - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of

the skills and ability of your management in the inventory

control / purchasing

.622 9.104 449 .000

Pair 7


and ability of your management in the feasibility analysis - At

the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and

ability of your management in the feasibility analysis

.544 7.525 449 .000

Pair 8


and ability of your management in the pro-forma financial

analysis - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of

the skills and ability of your management in the pro-forma

financial analysis

.673 9.794 449 .000

Pair 9


and ability of your management in the accounting - At the time

of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of

your management in the accounting

.598 8.671 449 .000

Pair 10


and ability of your management in the general management

skills - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the

skills and ability of your management in the general

management skills

.496 7.195 449 .000

Pair 11


and ability of your management in the production - At the time

of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of

your management in the production

.496 7.374 449 .000

Pair 12


and ability of your management in the marketing - At the time of


your management in the marketing

.462 6.692 449 .000

4.74 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including AllBenefits)

From the Table 4.74 & Figure 4.74 it may be seen that for 450 observed

entrepreneurs, most (171/450) entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal (gross)

income from the enterprise (including all benefits) is in the range of Rs. 4 Lakhs

to Rs. 15 Lakhs and for least (17/450) entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal

331 | P a g e

(gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) is in the range of Rs. 15

Lakhs to Rs. 1 Crore.

Table: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)

Frequency Percent

Up to Rs. 50,000 26 5.8

Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 94 20.9

Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 142 31.6

Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 171 38.0

Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 17 3.8

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)

Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including All Benefits)

4.75 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs fromtheir Enterprises

Table: 4.75 shows sex of entrepreneurs & personal (gross) income of

entrepreneurs from their enterprises. We can observe that among male

entrepreneurs most (=152/360) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)

income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=16/360)

entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of

171

331 | P a g e





Frequency Percent

Up to Rs. 50,000 26 5.8

Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 94 20.9

Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 142 31.6

Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 171 38.0

Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 17 3.8

Total 450 100.0









2694

142

17 Up to Rs. 50,000

Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000

Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000

Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000

Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs.1,00,00,000

331 | P a g e





Frequency Percent

Up to Rs. 50,000 26 5.8

Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 94 20.9

Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 142 31.6

Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 171 38.0

Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 17 3.8

Total 450 100.0









Up to Rs. 50,000

Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000

Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000

Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000

Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs.1,00,00,000

332 | P a g e

Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore whereas among female entrepreneurs most (=36/90)


Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least (=9/90) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal

(gross) income from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000.

Table: 4.75; Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

Sex * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all

benefits)

Total

Up to Rs.

50,000

Rs. 50,000 to

Rs. 2,00,000

Rs. 2,00,000 to

Rs. 4,00,000

Rs. 4,00,000 to

Rs. 15,00,000

Rs. 15,00,000 to

Rs. 1,00,00,000

Sex

Male 17 58 117 152 16 360

Female 9 36 25 19 1 90

Total 26 94 142 171 17 450

4.76 Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture& Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

Table: 4.76 shows enterprises being/ not being entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture & personal (gross) income of entrepreneurs from their

enterprises. We can observe that among enterprises being entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture most (=152/379) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal

(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least

(=15/379) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their

enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore whereas among enterprises not being

entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture most (=29/71) entrepreneurs tend to

have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs

and least (=2/71) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from

their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.

Table: 4.76; Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from

their Enterprises

Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the

enterprise (including all benefits)

333 | P a g e

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including

all benefits)

Total

Up to Rs.

50,000

Rs. 50,000

to Rs.

2,00,000

Rs. 2,00,000

to Rs.

4,00,000

Rs. 4,00,000

to Rs.

15,00,000

Rs. 15,00,000

to Rs.

1,00,00,000

Is this your first

entrepreneurial

venture?

Yes 22 65 125 152 15 379

No 4 29 17 19 2 71

Total 26 94 142 171 17 450

4.77 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

Table: 4.77 shows entrepreneurs’ highest educational level & personal

(gross) income of entrepreneurs from their enterprises. The cases having total

counts below 10 have been excluded from analysis. We can observe that among

Primary (5th) educated entrepreneurs most (=4/10) entrepreneurs tend to have their

personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least


enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Secondary (8th) educated


income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least (=0/28)


Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs. Among Highschool (10th) passed entrepreneurs most


enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least (=0/61) entrepreneurs tend to have

their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.

Among Intermediate (12th) passed entrepreneurs most (=37/98) entrepreneurs tend

to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4

Lakhs and least (=3/98) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income

from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Bachelors’ degree

holder entrepreneurs most (=62/132) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal

(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least


enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Post Graduate entrepreneurs most

334 | P a g e


enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=4/95) entrepreneurs tend to

have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000.

Among Masters’ degree holder entrepreneurs most (=13/23) entrepreneurs tend to

have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15

Lakhs and least (=0/23) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income

from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.

Table: 4.77; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal (Gross)Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

Your highest educational level * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise

(including all benefits)

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including

all benefits)

Total

Up to Rs.

50,000

Rs. 50,000

to Rs.

2,00,000

Rs. 2,00,000

to Rs.

4,00,000

Rs. 4,00,000

to Rs.

15,00,000

Rs. 15,00,000

to Rs.

1,00,00,000

Your

highest

educational

level

Illiterate 1 1 0 0 0 2

(Up to)

Primary (5th)3 4 2 1 0 10

Secondary

(8th)3 19 5 0 1 28

High School

(10th)2 23 18 18 0 61

Intermediate

(12th)5 17 37 36 3 98

Bachelor’s

degree8 20 38 62 4 132

Post

Graduate4 8 34 40 9 95

Master’s

degree0 2 8 13 0 23

Ph. D. 0 0 0 1 0 1

335 | P a g e

Total 26 94 142 171 17 450

4.78 Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from theirEnterprises

Table: 4.78 shows entrepreneurs with/ without any supplemental, continuing

education or training & personal (gross) income of entrepreneurs from their

enterprises. We can observe that among entrepreneurs having any supplemental,

continuing education or training most (=58/118) entrepreneurs tend to have their

personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs and least


enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000 whereas among entrepreneurs not having any

supplemental, continuing education or training most (=113/332) entrepreneurs

tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to

15 Lakhs and least (=7/332) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)

income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.

Table: 4.78; Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from

their Enterprises


skills) * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the


Total

Up to

Rs.

50,000

Rs.

50,000 to

Rs.

2,00,000

Rs.

2,00,000

to Rs.

4,00,000

Rs.

4,00,000

to Rs.

15,00,000

Rs.

15,00,000

to Rs.

1,00,00,000

Any supplemental, continuing

education or training

(technical, professional or


Yes 4 11 35 58 10 118

No 22 83 107 113 7 332

Total 26 94 142 171 17 450

4.79 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises

336 | P a g e

Table: 4.79 shows entrepreneurs’ type of industry/business & personal

(gross) income of entrepreneurs from their enterprises. The cases having total

counts below 10 have been excluded from analysis. We can observe that among

enterprises in Professional Services most (=38/56) enterprises tend to have their

personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and

least (=0/56) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their

enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000. Among enterprises in Consumer Services most

(=38/63) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their

enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs or Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=2/63)


Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among enterprises in Guest Services most (=22/57)

enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs.

4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=2/57) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal

(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among

enterprises in Manufacturing most (=28/59) enterprises tend to have their personal

(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=0/59)


up to Rs. 50,000. Among enterprises in Transportation and Public Utilities most


enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=1/31) entrepreneurs tend to

have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1

Crore. Among enterprises in Retail most (=39/85) enterprises tend to have their

personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs and least


enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among enterprises in Wholesale most


enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs and least (=1/33) entrepreneurs tend to have

their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000. Among

enterprises in Agricultural & Allied Sector most (=11/29) enterprises tend to have

their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and

least (=0/29) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their

enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among enterprises in Construction Related

activities most (=22/32) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income

from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=0/32) entrepreneurs

337 | P a g e

tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs

to 1 Crore.

Table: 4.79; Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal (Gross)Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises

Type of Industry/Business * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all

benefits)

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the


Total

Up to

Rs.

50,000

Rs.

50,000 to

Rs.

2,00,000

Rs.

2,00,000

to Rs.

4,00,000

Rs.

4,00,000

to Rs.

15,00,000

Rs.

15,00,000

to Rs.

1,00,00,000

Type of

Industry/

Business

Professional services (e.g.

accounting, consulting)0 15 19 19 3 56

Consumer services (e.g.

hairdressing, auto service)5 19 18 19 2 63

Guest services (e.g. hotel,

restaurant )6 9 18 22 2 57

Manufacturing (consumer or

durable goods)0 12 17 28 2 59

Transportation or public

utilities3 4 8 15 1 31

Retail ( including

import/export)6 13 39 24 3 85

Wholesale (including import/

export)1 8 11 10 3 33

Agricultural or agricultural

related2 11 7 9 0 29

Construction related

(Including all trades)2 3 5 22 0 32

Mining, extraction, oil 1 0 0 3 1 5

Total 26 94 142 171 17 450

338 | P a g e

4.80 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including AllBenefits) & Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

Table: 4.80 shows presently available number of sources of funding in each

category of entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal (gross) income from the

enterprise. We can observe that in income level of up to Rs. 50,000 most (13/26)

entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently available and least

(0/26) entrepreneurs tend to have more than 10 sources of funding presently

available. In income level of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2 Lakhs most (57/94) entrepreneurs

tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently available and least (0/94)

entrepreneurs tend to have more than 10 sources of funding presently available. In

income level of Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 4 Lakhs most (69/142) entrepreneurs tend to

have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently available and least (2/142) entrepreneurs

tend to have more than 10 sources of funding presently available. In income level

of 4 Lakhs to Rs. 15 Lakhs most (77/171) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5

sources of funding presently available and least (10/171) entrepreneurs tend to

have 6 or more sources of funding presently available. In income level of 15

Lakhs to Rs. 1 Crore most (7/17) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of

funding presently available and least (0/17) entrepreneurs tend to have more than

10 sources of funding presently available.

Table: 4.80; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits) & Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) * Presently

available number of sources of funding



Annual level

of personal

(gross)

income from

the enterprise

(including all

benefits)

Up to Rs. 50,000 7 13 5 1 0 26

Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 18 57 16 3 0 94

Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 24 69 40 7 2 142

Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 26 58 77 5 5 171

Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 3 7 5 2 0 17

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

339 | P a g e

4.81 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including AllBenefits) & Most Available Source of Funding

Table: 4.81 shows most available source of funding in each category of

entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise. We

can observe that in income level of up to Rs. 50,000 most (19/26) entrepreneurs

tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least (0/26)

entrepreneurs tend to have venture capitalists as most available source of funding.

In income level of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2 Lakhs most (79/94) entrepreneurs tend to

have banks as most available source of funding and least (2/94) entrepreneurs tend

to have venture capitalists as most available source of funding. In income level of

Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 4 Lakhs most (116/142) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as

most available source of funding and least (6/142) entrepreneurs tend to have

government loan programs as most available source of funding. In income level of

4 Lakhs to Rs. 15 Lakhs most (137/171) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most

available source of funding and least (6/171) entrepreneurs tend to have venture

capitalists as most available source of funding. In income level of 15 Lakhs to Rs.

1 Crore most (13/17) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of

funding and least (0/17) entrepreneurs tend to have venture capitalists as most

available source of funding.

Table: 4.81; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits) & Most Available Source of Funding

Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) * Most available

source of funding


Banks Private

investors

Venture

capitalists

Govt. loan

programs

Annual level of

personal

(gross) income

from the

enterprise

(including all

benefits)

Up to Rs. 50,000 19 4 0 3 26

Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 79 10 2 3 94

Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 116 11 9 6 142

Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 137 17 6 11 171

Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 13 3 0 1 17

Total 364 45 17 24 450

340 | P a g e

4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises

From Table: 4.82 & Figure: 4.82 it may be seen that out of 450 observed

enterprises 342 (76%) enterprises have sales growth as one of the objectives of

their enterprises and 108 (24%) don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of

their enterprises. It means that most of the enterprise have sales growth as one of

their enterprises’ objectives.

Table: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises

Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise

Frequency Percent

Yes 342 76.0

No 108 24.0

Total 450 100.0

Figure: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises

Is Sales Growth One of the Objectives of Your Enterprise?

4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self & Having Sales

Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives


relation to the Enterprises started by self & Having sales growth as one of

enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts


108

340 | P a g e









Frequency Percent

Yes 342 76.0

No 108 24.0

Total 450 100.0









342

108

340 | P a g e









Frequency Percent

Yes 342 76.0

No 108 24.0

Total 450 100.0









342

Yes

No

341 | P a g e

Table: 4.83; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self &

Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

Did enterprise start by self? * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise

Is sales “growth” one of the

objectives of your enterprise

Total

Yes No


YesCount 303 69 372


NoCount 39 39 78




4.83.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprises Started by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Enterprises started by self & Having sales

growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, is 34.969 with df (degree of freedom)

of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%


relationship between the enterprises started by self and having sales growth as

one of enterprises’ objectives’ is ‘Rejected’

Table: 4.83.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between EnterprisesStarted by Self & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

Chi-Square Tests





Fisher's Exact Test




4.83.2 Strength of Association between Enterprises Started by Self & Having SalesGrowth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

342 | P a g e

From Table: 4.83.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Enterprises

started by self & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives’


Cramer’s V (=.279) and Contingency Coefficient (=.269) all are low it implies

that despite of statistically significant relationship between Enterprises started by

self & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of

association is poor.

Table: 4.83.2; Strength of association between Enterprise Start by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .279 .000





4.84 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as

One of Enterprises’ Objectives


relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Having sales growth as one of



Table: 4.84; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having

Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

Sex * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise

Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise Total

Yes No

Sex







343 | P a g e

4.84.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Having sales

growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, is 25.780 with df (degree of freedom)

of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%


relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and having sales growth as one of

enterprises’ objectives’ is ‘Rejected’

Table: 4.84.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

Chi-Square Tests








4.84.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having SalesGrowth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives


entrepreneurs & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives’


Cramer’s V (=.239) and Contingency Coefficient (=.233) all are low it implies

that despite of statistically significant relationship between Sex of entrepreneurs &

Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of


Table: 4.84.2; Strength of association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

344 | P a g e

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .239 .000





4.85 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise being Entrepreneur’s FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives


relation to the Enterprise being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture

& Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts

are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is


Table: 4.85; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise being Entrepreneur’sFirst Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One of

Enterprises’ Objectives

Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise



Total

Yes No

Is this your first


YesCount 302 77 379


NoCount 40 31 71




4.85.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprise being Entrepreneur’sFirst Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Enterprise being entrepreneur’s firstentrepreneurial venture & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’objectives, is 17.867 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level.

Since the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the

null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between enterprise

345 | P a g e

being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture and having sales growth as

one of enterprises’ objectives’ is ‘Rejected’

Table: 4.85.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as


Chi-Square Tests








4.85.2 Strength of Association between Enterprise being Entrepreneur’s FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives

From Table: 4.85.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Enterprise

being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture & Having sales growth as

one of enterprises’ objectives’ measures of strength of association Phi


Coefficient (=.195) all are low it implies that despite of statistically significant

relationship between Enterprise being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture

& Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of


Table: 4.85.2; Strength of Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as


Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi .199 .000


346 | P a g e




4.86 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & EntrepreneursHighest Educational Level

Table: 4.86 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of

enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each level of highest education. Among the

entrepreneurs who has sales growth as an objective of their enterprise most

(94/342) entrepreneurs are Bachelors’ degree holder and least (1/342)

entrepreneurs are Ph.D. degree holder whereas among the entrepreneurs who

don’t have sales growth as an objective of their enterprise most (38/108)

entrepreneurs are Bachelors’ degree holder and least (0/108) entrepreneurs are

illiterate or Ph.D. degree holder.

Table: 4.86; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Entrepreneurs Highest Educational Level

Your highest educational level * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise

Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise Total

Yes No

Your highest

educational

level

Illiterate 2 0 2








Ph. D. 1 0 1

Total 342 108 450

347 | P a g e

4.87 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or

Training & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives


relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education or training & Having

sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts are

showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable

for the data.

Table: 4.87; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing

Education or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives


skills) * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise



Total

Yes No

Any supplemental, continuing

education or training (technical,

professional or functional business

skills)

YesCount 79 39 118


NoCount 263 69 332




4.87.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives


Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education

or training & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, is 7.183

with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value

(.007) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis

that ‘there is no significant relationship between any supplemental, continuing

education or training and having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives’is ‘Rejected’

Table: 4.87.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of


Chi-Square Tests

348 | P a g e








4.87.2 Strength of Association between Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives

From Table: 4.87.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Any

supplemental, continuing education or training & Having sales growth as one

of enterprises’ objectives’ measures of strength of association Phi Correlation

Coefficient (= -.126), Cramer’s V (=.126) and Contingency Coefficient (=.125)

all are very low it implies that despite of statistically significant relationship

between Any supplemental, continuing education or training & Having sales

growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of association is very

poor.

Table: 4.87.2; Strength of Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of


Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi -.126 .007





4.88 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & Enterprises’ Type ofIndustry/Business

349 | P a g e


enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each type of business/industry. Among the

entrepreneurs who has sales growth as an objective of their enterprise most

(77/342) entrepreneurs are in retail and least (4/342) entrepreneurs are in mining,

extraction, oil whereas among the entrepreneurs who don’t have sales growth as

an objective of their enterprise most (27/108) entrepreneurs are in professional

services and least (1/108) entrepreneurs are in mining, extraction, oil.

Table: 4.88; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business

Type of Industry/Business * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise



Total

Yes No

Type of

Industry/

Business

Professional services (e.g. accounting, consulting) 29 27 56

Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto service) 43 20 63

Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 38 19 57

Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods) 45 14 59

Transportation or public utilities 24 7 31

Retail ( including import/export) 77 8 85

Wholesale (including import/ export) 29 4 33

Agricultural or agricultural related 24 5 29

Construction related (Including all trades) 29 3 32

Mining, extraction, oil 4 1 5

Total 342 108 450

4.89 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding


enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each category of presently available sources of

funding. Among the entrepreneurs who have sales growth as an objective of their

350 | P a g e

enterprise most (169/342) entrepreneurs have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently

available and least (7/342) entrepreneurs have more than 10 sources of funding

presently available whereas among the entrepreneurs who don’t have sales growth

as an objective of their enterprise most (58/108) entrepreneurs have 3 to 5 sources

of funding presently available and least (0/108) entrepreneurs have more than 10

sources of funding presently available.

Table: 4.89; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding

Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise * Presently available number of sources of

funding





Yes 64 169 85 17 7 342

No 14 35 58 1 0 108

Total 78 204 143 18 7 450

4.90 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & Most AvailableSource of Funding


enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each category of most available source of funding.

Among the entrepreneurs who have sales growth as an objective of their enterprise

most (280/342) entrepreneurs have banks as most available source of funding and

least (13/342) entrepreneurs have venture capitalists as most available source of

funding whereas among the entrepreneurs who don’t have sales growth as an

objective of their enterprise most (84/108) entrepreneurs have banks as most

available source of funding and least (4/108) entrepreneurs have venture

capitalists as most available source of funding.

Table: 4.90; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & MostAvailable Source of Funding

Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise * Most available source of funding


351 | P a g e

Banks Private

investors

Venture

capitalists

Government

loan programs



Yes 280 32 13 17 342

No 84 13 4 7 108

Total 364 45 17 24 450

4.91 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems of Entrepreneurs inMSMEs between the Enterprises with and without having Sales Growth asOne of their Enterprises’ Objectives


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in registration of MSMEs in U.P. between

Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the

objectives of their enterprises, is 6.984 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for


less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in

Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not

having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in

registration of MSMEs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in establishment of MSMEs in U.P.

between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of

the objectives of their enterprises, is 4.095 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for


more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in



establishment of MSMEs is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the economy




352 | P a g e



having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due

to uncertainty about the economy is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in choosing a direction for enterprise







choosing a direction for enterprise is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to regulations and paperwork between







to regulations and paperwork is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in time management between







time management is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.

353 | P a g e


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to general management skills






having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem

related to general management skills is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in customer needs between







to change in customer needs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in obtaining finances between







obtaining finances is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the political

situation between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth

as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 34.651 with df (degree of


354 | P a g e


hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are

having and who are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise,

the level of problem due to uncertainty about the political situation is same.’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including

mandated benefits) between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have

sales growth as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 29.569 with df



Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of

entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not having sales growth as an

objective of their enterprise, the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws

(including mandated benefits) is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding quality of products / services







regarding quality of products / services is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in economic condition






355 | P a g e


to change in economic condition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to intense competition between







to intense competition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in cost control between Entrepreneurs who

have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of their

enterprises, is 4.462 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448


Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both

types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not having sales growth as

an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in cost control is same’ is

‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in educating the workforce between







educating the workforce is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in attracting quality workers between


356 | P a g e






attracting quality workers is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to productivity between


objectives of their enterprises, is .313 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for





related to productivity is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to lack of suppliers / health of

suppliers between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth

as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 7.635 with df (degree of





the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same.’ is

‘Rejected’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in competing globally between






357 | P a g e


competing globally is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in motivating employees between


objectives of their enterprises, is .140 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for





motivating employees is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.


entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in incorporating new / emerging

technologies between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales

growth as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 1.777 with df (degree of





the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging technologies is same’ is



entrepreneurs’ F-value for Marketing problems between Entrepreneurs who

have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of their

enterprises, is .000 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448


Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both

types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not having sales growth as

an objective of their enterprise, the level of marketing problems is same’ is


358 | P a g e

Table: 4.91; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs between the Enterprises with and without having

Sales Growth as One of their Enterprises’ Objectives

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Registration of MSMEs in U.P.

Between Groups 7.885 1 7.885 6.984 .009

Within Groups 505.813 448 1.129

Total 513.698 449

Establishment of MSMEs in U.P.

Between Groups 3.439 1 3.439 4.095 .044


Total 379.611 449

Uncertainly about the economy

Between Groups 1.662 1 1.662 1.854 .174


Total 403.280 449

Choosing a direction for enterprise

Between Groups 16.499 1 16.499 16.428 .000

Within Groups 449.945 448 1.004

Total 466.444 449

Regulations and paperwork

Between Groups 14.417 1 14.417 14.224 .000

Within Groups 454.083 448 1.014

Total 468.500 449

Time management

Between Groups 9.689 1 9.689 9.037 .003

Within Groups 480.311 448 1.072

Total 490.000 449

General management skills

Between Groups 67.584 1 67.584 57.366 .000

Within Groups 527.796 448 1.178

Total 595.380 449

Changing customer needs

Between Groups 7.615 1 7.615 7.328 .007

Within Groups 465.497 448 1.039

Total 473.111 449

Obtaining finances

Between Groups 23.630 1 23.630 22.930 .000

Within Groups 461.668 448 1.031

Total 485.298 449

Uncertainty about the political situation

Between Groups 36.587 1 36.587 34.651 .000

Within Groups 473.024 448 1.056

Total 509.611 449


benefits)

Between Groups 33.248 1 33.248 29.569 .000

Within Groups 503.750 448 1.124

Total 536.998 449

Quality of products / services

Between Groups 24.234 1 24.234 22.536 .000

Within Groups 481.766 448 1.075

Total 506.000 449

359 | P a g e

Changing economic condition

Between Groups 20.281 1 20.281 18.492 .000

Within Groups 491.330 448 1.097

Total 511.611 449

Intense competition

Between Groups 19.885 1 19.885 19.340 .000

Within Groups 460.615 448 1.028

Total 480.500 449

Cost control

Between Groups 4.912 1 4.912 4.462 .035

Within Groups 493.168 448 1.101

Total 498.080 449

Educating the workforce

Between Groups 2.175 1 2.175 1.711 .192

Within Groups 569.445 448 1.271

Total 571.620 449

Attracting quality workers

Between Groups 8.934 1 8.934 7.438 .007

Within Groups 538.090 448 1.201

Total 547.024 449

Productivity

Between Groups .416 1 .416 .313 .576

Within Groups 594.404 448 1.327

Total 594.820 449

Lack of suppliers / health of suppliers

Between Groups 8.882 1 8.882 7.635 .006

Within Groups 521.118 448 1.163

Total 530.000 449

Competing globally

Between Groups 2.874 1 2.874 2.225 .136

Within Groups 578.746 448 1.292

Total 581.620 449

Motivating employees

Between Groups .176 1 .176 .140 .709

Within Groups 564.102 448 1.259

Total 564.278 449

Incorporating new / emerging technologies

Between Groups 2.201 1 2.201 1.777 .183

Within Groups 554.664 448 1.238

Total 556.864 449

Marketing problems

Between Groups .001 1 .001 .000 .983

Within Groups 678.330 448 1.514

Total 678.331 449

4.92 Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth

From the Table: 4.92 it may be seen that for 342 enterprises which has sales

growth as one of their enterprises’ objectives targeted annual percentage sales

growth is 12.67 with Std. Deviation of 5.31.

Table: 4.92; Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth


360 | P a g e


Deviation


Targeted Annual Percentage

Sales Growth342 27.00 3.00 30.00 12.6687 5.30944

4.93 Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5 Years as a CumulativePercentage

From the Table: 4.93 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises total

change in gross sales achieved over the past 5 years as a cumulative

percentage is 8.42 with Std. Deviation of 5.43.

Table: 4.93; Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5 Years as aCumulative Percentage



Deviation


Total Change in Gross Sales

Achieved over the Past 5 Years

as a Cumulative Percentage

450 43.00 2.00 45.00 8.4162 5.43054

361 | P a g e

5. Findings & Conclusions

5.1 Findings

Table: 5.1 gives result of hypotheses tested. The confidence level for each

test is 99 % i.e. level of significance for testing is .01 for all hypotheses.

Table: 5.1; Findings of Hypotheses Testing

Sl.No.

Null Hypothesis Test Sig.

Decision(99%

Confidence)

1there is no significant relationship betweenthe sex of entrepreneurs and the starting the

business by self ᵡ2 Test.001 Rejected

2there is no significant relationship between

the category of entrepreneurs and sex ofentrepreneurs ᵡ2 Test

.086Failed to

Reject

3there is no significant relationship between

the category of entrepreneurs andentrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture ᵡ2 Test

.014Failed to

Reject

4there is no significant relationship betweenthe any supplemental, continuing educationor training and category of Entrepreneurs ᵡ2 Test

.635 Failed toReject

5there is no significant relationship betweensex of entrepreneurs and starting enterprise

by self ᵡ2 Test.061 Failed to

Reject

6

there is no significant relationship betweenstarting enterprise by self and any

supplemental, continuing education ortraining

ᵡ2 Test.198

Failed toReject

7there is no significant relationship betweenthe category of entrepreneurs and starting

enterprise by self ᵡ2 Test.661

Failed toReject

8

there is no significant relationship betweenthe sex of entrepreneurs and any

supplemental, continuing education ortraining

ᵡ2 Test.335

Failed toReject

9

there is no significant relationship betweenbeing entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurialventure and any supplemental, continuing

education or trainingᵡ2 Test

.175 Failed toReject

362 | P a g e

10

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have previous relevant experience

and/or educational background within thefield of their enterprise

T Test .000 Rejected

11for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

personal achievement is not an importantcause of their entrepreneurship


12for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshstatus and prestige is not an important cause

of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected

13for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesheconomic necessity is not an important cause



Flexibility in work / family is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship



independence is not an important cause oftheir entrepreneurship



learning and personal growth is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship


17for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshtest their own ideas is not an important cause


18for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshmoney and wealth is not an important cause


19for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshopportunity is not an important cause of their

entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected

20for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshrecognition is not an important cause of their

entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected


satisfying work relationships is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship



career security is not an important cause oftheir entrepreneurship


363 | P a g e

23

in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance

of personal achievement is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

24


of status and prestige is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

25


of economic necessity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

26


of flexibility in work/family is same

F Test&

ANOVA.001 Rejected

27


of independence is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

28


of learning and personal growth is same

F Test&

ANOVA.013 Failed to

Reject

29

in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importanceof testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same

F Test&

ANOVA.040 Failed to

Reject

30


of money and wealth is same’

F Test&

ANOVA.061

Failed toReject

31


of opportunity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.001 Rejected

32


of recognition is same

F Test&

ANOVA.002 Rejected

33


of satisfying work relationship is same

F Test&

ANOVA.009 Rejected

34


of career security is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

364 | P a g e

35

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,

the level of importance of personalachievement is same’

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

36

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of status and prestige

is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

37

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of economic necessity

is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

38


the level of importance of flexibility inwork/family is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

39


the level of importance of independence issame

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

40

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all thedistricts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of

importance of learning and personal growthis same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

41

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all thedistricts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of

importance of testing entrepreneurs’ ownideas is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

42

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of money and wealth

is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

43for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of opportunity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected


Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of recognition is same

F Test&

ANOVA.006 Rejected

45


the level of importance of satisfying workrelationships is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

46

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of career security is

same

F Test&

ANOVA.001 Rejected

365 | P a g e


outside funding / financing is not availablewhen they start the enterprise


48

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of

availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of personal achievement is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

49


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of personal achievement is same

F Test&

ANOVA.282

Failed toReject

50


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of economic necessity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.009 Rejected

51


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of flexibility in work/family is

same

F Test&

ANOVA.909

Failed toReject

52


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of independence is same

F Test&

ANOVA.013 Failed to

Reject

53


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of learning and professional

growth is same

F Test&

ANOVA.006 Rejected

54


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of testing of entrepreneurs’ own

ideas is same

F Test&

ANOVA.162

Failed toReject

55


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of money and wealth is same

F Test&

ANOVA.002 Rejected

56


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of opportunity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.002 Rejected

57


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of recognition is same

F Test&

ANOVA.048

Failed toReject

58


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of satisfying work relationships is

F Test&

ANOVA.018

Failed toReject

366 | P a g e

same

59


availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of career security is same

F Test&

ANOVA.214

Failed toReject

60

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the types of most available

source of funding, the level of importance ofpersonal achievement is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

61

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of

funding, the level of importance of status andprestige is same

F Test&

ANOVA.004 Rejected

62


funding, the level of importance of economicnecessity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.003 Rejected

63


funding, the level of importance of flexibilityin work/family is same

F Test&

ANOVA.001 Rejected

64


funding, the level of importance ofindependence is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

65

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source offunding, the level of importance of learning

and personal growth is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

66

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source offunding, the level of importance of testing

entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same

F Test&

ANOVA.001 Rejected

67


funding, the level of importance of money andwealth is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

68


funding, the level of importance ofopportunity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.001 Rejected

69


funding, the level of importance ofrecognition is same

F Test&

ANOVA.015

Failed toReject

367 | P a g e

70


funding, the level of importance of satisfyingwork relationships is same

F Test&

ANOVA.008 Rejected

71

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the types of most available

source of funding, the level of importance ofcareer security is same

F Test&

ANOVA.248

Failed toReject

72entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

are not satisfied with their enterprises’ sales,profit and overall satisfaction



don’t wish to continue with same enterprises T Test .000 Rejected

74

in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in UttarPradesh have a strong attraction for low–risk

projects with normal and certain rates ofreturn

T Test .094 Failed toReject

75

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshtypically adopt a bold, aggressive posture in

order to maximize the probability ofexploiting potential opportunities



don’t participate in professional / tradeassociations



don’t have business applications of personalcontacts


78

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t push themselves and don’t feel realsatisfaction when their work is among the

best


79

happenings in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh arenot affected more by entrepreneurs’ abilities,

control and guidance than by externalinfluences


80entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t need to know that it’s already been

done before they are willing to try itT Test .000 Rejected


don’t respect rules and establishedprocedures as they guide them


82entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t feel self-conscious when they are with

very successful entrepreneur(s)T Test .000 Rejected

368 | P a g e

83entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not ultimately responsible for their own

enterprises’ successT Test .000 Rejected

84entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not quite independent of the opinions of

othersT Test .000 Rejected

85entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy intimidating other in pursuing

business opportunitiesT Test .000 Rejected


generally don’t have modest and easilyachievable goals and ambitions


87entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not particularly inventive or creative


88

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy the uncertainty and risks of

business and they don’t energize them morethan circumstances with predictable outcomes



don’t believe that nothing that life can offer isa substitute for great achievement


90entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t spend more time thinking about their

future goals than their past accomplishmentsT Test .000 Rejected

91

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare comfortable when they have complete

responsibility for deciding how and when todo their work



don’t get a sense of pride andaccomplishment from their work



don’t get excited creating their own businessopportunities



don’t enter in entrepreneurship by choice butby obligation to ensure livelihood


95

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not willing to risk their personal and

family’s material well being for the sake oftheir enterprise


369 | P a g e

96entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not confident of their abilities and they

don’t feel good about themselvesT Test .000 Rejected


an opportunity to beat a competitor in abusiness deal is not a personal thrill


98entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy being able to use old business

concepts in new waysT Test .000 Rejected

99

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t believe that success comes from

conforming to accepted business practicesmore so than constantly doing new things



can’t control most situations they findthemselves in


101

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think that it’s important to continually

look for new way to do things in theenterprise


102entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t like a job in which they don’t have to

answer to any oneT Test .000 Rejected

103

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t frequently find themselves in situations

where they are powerless to control theoutcome(s)



don’t often approach business tasks in uniqueways


105entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t buy insurance every time they travel T Test .000 Rejected


enjoy being the catalyst for change inbusiness affairs


107entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t believe that business circumstances

happen because of luck, whether good or badT Test .000 Rejected

108

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think that their knack for dealing withpeople has enabled them to create many of

their business opportunities


370 | P a g e


don’t find that they can think better when theyhave guidance and advice from others


110

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have doubts frequently about

themselves or their abilities when makingbusiness proposals



are not in total control of their destinyT Test .000 Rejected


don’t worry about what their businessassociates think about them


113entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy turning circumstances to their

advantage in businessT Test .000 Rejected

114entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not driven to ever greater efforts by an

unquenched ambitionT Test .000 Rejected

115

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think that successful entrepreneurspursue any opportunity, and do what they

have to do in order to survive


116entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t thrive in situations which encourage

and reward their creativityT Test .000 Rejected


don’t need to know the answer before they aska question


118

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t judge their work by considering

whether that meets the minimum requirementsfor the task



don’t start their enterprises for doing the kindof work they want to do


120entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t start their enterprise to make more

money than otherwiseT Test .000 Rejected

121

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshnever lack working capital/liquid assets/funds(which contributes in industrial sickness) to

sustain


371 | P a g e

122

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs

in U.P. have problems beyond menentrepreneurs’ problems


123

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave not become competent entrepreneur to

achieve long term objectives of theirenterprises in effective and efficient manner


124

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t spend a lot of time looking for someone

who can tell them how to solve all theirentrepreneurial problems because they are

unsure of themselves


125entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in

dealing with their competitors, typicallyresponds to actions which competitors initiate


126

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are seldom the firstbusiness to introduce new products or

services, administrative techniques, operatingtechnologies etc.


127top management in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of

tried and true products and servicesT Test .000 Rejected

128in the past five years, no new lines of products

or services have been introduced byentrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh


129changes in the product or service lines ofMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are mostly of a

minor natureT Test .000 Rejected

130in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, the level of

technology, in terms of the work that they doand how they do, is low



don’t have competitive advantage in serving adistinct and unique market niche



don’t have competitive advantage in access tothe market (e.g. location)


133entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in unique

technology of productT Test .000 Rejected

372 | P a g e

134entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in unique

technology process or productionT Test .000 Rejected


don’t have competitive advantage in offeringlower price than the competition


136

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in

providing significantly higher quality than thecompetition


137

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in offering

broad product / service lines providingcustomer convenience


138

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in

significantly higher levels of customer serviceand support



don’t have current, comprehensive anddetailed business plan


140entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have detailed job descriptions for any

positionT Test .000 Rejected


don’t have operating procedures in place formost processes within the enterprise


142entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshrarely change rarely marketing practices to

keep up with the market and competitorsT Test .000 Rejected

143

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshthink that the rate of at which products /

services are getting obsolete in their industryis very slow

T Test .078 Failed toReject

144actions of competitors of entrepreneurs inMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are quite easy to

predictT Test .000 Rejected

145virtually there is no research and

development (R & D) within the industry ofMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh


146in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands andconsumer tastes are fairly easy to forecast


373 | P a g e

147in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and /

or service technology is not subject to verymuch change and is well established



have no difficulties in registration of MSMEsin Uttar Pradesh



have no difficulties in establishment ofMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh


150entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties for their enterprises due

to uncertainty about the economyT Test .000 Rejected


have no difficulties in choosing a direction forenterprise for their enterprises


152entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties for their enterprises due

to regulations and paperworkT Test .000 Rejected


have no difficulties in time managementT Test .000 Rejected


have no difficulties regarding generalmanagement skills



have no difficulties due to change in customerneeds


156entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in obtaining finances



have no difficulties due to uncertainty aboutthe political situation


158entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties regarding taxes & tax

lawsT Test .000 Rejected


have no difficulties in maintaining quality ofproducts / services



have no difficulties regarding change ineconomic conditions


374 | P a g e


have no difficulties regarding intensecompetition



have no difficulties in cost controlT Test .000 Rejected


have no difficulties in educating theworkforce



have no difficulties in attracting qualityworkers



have no difficulties in maintainingproductivity


166entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties due lack of suppliers /

health of suppliersT Test .000 Rejected

167entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in competing globally


168entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in motivating employees


169entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in incorporating new /

emerging technologiesT Test .000 Rejected

170entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties regarding marketing

problemsT Test .000 Rejected

171

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in registration of MSMEs

is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.002

Rejected

172


the level of problem in establishment ofMSMEs is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.001

Rejected

173

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to uncertainty about

the economy is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

174

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in choosing a direction

for enterprise is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

375 | P a g e

175

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to regulations and

paperwork is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

176

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in time management is

same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

177

‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,

the level of problem related to generalmanagement skills is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

178


the level of problem due to change incustomer needs is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

179

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in obtaining finances is

same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

180

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to uncertainty about

the political situation is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

181

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws

(including mandated benefits) is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

182


the level of problem regarding quality ofproducts / services is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

183


the level of problem due to change ineconomic condition is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

184


the level of problem due to intensecompetition is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.004

Rejected


Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in cost control is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

186


the level of problem in educating theworkforce is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

376 | P a g e

187


the level of problem in attracting qualityworkers is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

188

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem related to productivity is

same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

189

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to lack of suppliers /

health of suppliers is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.000

Rejected

190

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in competing globally is

same

F Test&

ANOVA

.001

Rejected

191

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in motivating employees

is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.043Failed to

Reject

192

for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in incorporating new /

emerging technologies is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.002

Rejected


Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of marketing problems is same

F Test&

ANOVA

.044Failed to

Reject

194

environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh is very safe with little threat to

the survival and well-being of theirenterprises


195environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh is very rich in investment and

marketing opportunitiesT Test .000 Rejected

196environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh demands little in the way of

technological sophisticationT Test .000 Rejected

197

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhas an environment that their enterprises can

control and manipulate to their ownadvantage


198

there are Minimal requirements forregistration or licensing, present few rules

and regulations that govern entrepreneurialactivity, and provides a favourable

environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh


377 | P a g e

199in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in UttarPradesh don’t face environmental problems

external to their enterprisesT Test .000 Rejected

200

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have a large quantity of small

enterprises and a diversity of economicactivity within their geographic area


201entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t feel that there is a supportive public

attitude towards entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected

202

educational and training programs as well asnecessary information to improve technical,

vocational and business skills are notavailable for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in

Uttar Pradesh


203

for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshnon-financial assistance through modern

transportation and communication facilities,counselling support services and other

programs is not available



financial institutions are not willing tofinance small entrepreneurs


205

for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshfinancial assistance is not available in theform of venture capital, low-cost loans and

alternative sources of financing


206MSMEs related policies of both central aswell as state govt. have not been achieved

their objectivesT Test .000 Rejected

207

there is not adequate support available forMSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in terms of grants,subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased

and impartial allocation/selection andeffective and efficient and/or corruption-free

distribution



don’t face managerial problems T Test .000 Rejected

209in Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to thegovernments don’t overweigh the costs of

MSMEs to governmentsT Test .000 Rejected

210infrastructure facilities for MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh are inadequateT Test .000 Rejected

378 | P a g e

211

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and

ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the developing of a business plan after


Dependent


212


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the strategic planning after establishment

of their enterprises

Dependent


213


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the start-up operations after establishment

of enterprises

Dependent


214


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the personnel after establishment of

enterprises

Dependent


215


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the finance after establishment of

enterprises

Dependent


216


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the inventory control / purchasing after


Dependent


217


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the feasibility analysis after establishment

of enterprises

Dependent


218


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the pro-forma financial analysis after


Dependent


219


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the accounting after establishment of

enterprises

Dependent


220


ability/availability and affordability of thegeneral management skills after


Dependent


379 | P a g e

221


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the production after establishment of

enterprises

Dependent


222


ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the marketing after establishment of

enterprises

Dependent


223there is no significant relationship betweenthe enterprises started by self and having

sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives ᵡ2 Test.000 Rejected

224there is no significant relationship betweenthe sex of entrepreneurs and having salesgrowth as one of enterprises’ objectives ᵡ2 Test

.000 Rejected

225

there is no significant relationship betweenenterprise being entrepreneur’s first

entrepreneurial venture and having salesgrowth as one of enterprises’ objectives

ᵡ2 Test.000 Rejected

226

there is no significant relationship betweenany supplemental, continuing education ortraining and having sales growth as one of

enterprises’ objectives ᵡ2 Test.007 Rejected

227

in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of

their enterprise, the level of problem inregistration of MSMEs is same

F Test&

ANOVA.009 Rejected

228


their enterprise, the level of problem inestablishment of MSMEs is same

F Test&

ANOVA.044

Failed toReject

229


their enterprise, the level of problem due touncertainty about the economy is same

F Test&

ANOVA.174

Failed toReject

230


their enterprise, the level of problem inchoosing a direction for enterprise is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

380 | P a g e

231


their enterprise, the level of problem due toregulations and paperwork is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

232


their enterprise, the level of problem in timemanagement is same

F Test&

ANOVA.003 Rejected

233


their enterprise, the level of problem relatedto general management skills is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

234


their enterprise, the level of problem due tochange in customer needs is same

F Test&

ANOVA.007 Rejected

235


their enterprise, the level of problem inobtaining finances is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

236


their enterprise, the level of problem due touncertainty about the political situation is

same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

237


their enterprise, the level of problemregarding taxes, tax laws (including

mandated benefits) is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

238


their enterprise, the level of problemregarding quality of products / services is

same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

239


their enterprise, the level of problem due tochange in economic condition is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

381 | P a g e

240


their enterprise, the level of problem due tointense competition is same

F Test&

ANOVA.000 Rejected

241


their enterprise, the level of problem in costcontrol is same

F Test&

ANOVA.035 Failed to

Reject

242


their enterprise, the level of problem ineducating the workforce is same

F Test&

ANOVA.192 Failed to

Reject

243


their enterprise, the level of problem inattracting quality workers is same

F Test&

ANOVA.007 Rejected

244


their enterprise, the level of problem relatedto productivity is same

F Test&

ANOVA.576

Failed toReject

245


their enterprise, the level of problem due tolack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same

F Test&

ANOVA.006 Rejected

246


their enterprise, the level of problem incompeting globally is same

F Test&

ANOVA.136

Failed toReject

247


their enterprise, the level of problem inmotivating employees is same

F Test&

ANOVA.709

Failed toReject

248


their enterprise, the level of problem inincorporating new / emerging technologies is

same

F Test&

ANOVA.183

Failed toReject

382 | P a g e

249


their enterprise, the level of marketingproblems is same

F Test&

ANOVA.983 Failed to

Reject

5.2 Conclusions

In order to attain objectives of this research effort, from Table: 5.1, we may

conclude that:

1. There is significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and the

starting the business by self


and sex of entrepreneurs


and entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture

4. There is no significant relationship between the any supplemental,

continuing education or training and category of Entrepreneurs

5. There is no significant relationship between sex of entrepreneurs and

starting enterprise by self

6. There is no significant relationship between starting enterprise by self and



and starting enterprise by self



9. There is no significant relationship between being entrepreneurs’ first

entrepreneurial venture and any supplemental, continuing education or

training

10. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have previous relevant

experience and/or educational background within the field of their

enterprise

11. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh personal achievement is an


12. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh status and prestige is an


383 | P a g e

13. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh economic necessity is an


14. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Flexibility in work / family

is an important cause of their entrepreneurship

15. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh independence is an


16. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh learning and personal

growth is an important cause of their entrepreneurship

17. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh test their own ideas is an


18. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh money and wealth is an


19. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh opportunity is an important

cause of their entrepreneurship

20. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh recognition is an important

cause of their entrepreneurship

21. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh satisfying work

relationships is an important cause of their entrepreneurship

22. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh career security is an




is not same


start business themselves, the level of importance of status and prestige is

not same


start business themselves, the level of importance of economic necessity is

not same


start business themselves, the level of importance of flexibility in

work/family is not same

384 | P a g e


start business themselves, the level of importance of independence is not

same


start business themselves, the level of importance of learning and personal

growth is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of testing entrepreneurs’

own ideas is same


start business themselves, the level of importance of money and wealth is

same


start business themselves, the level of importance of opportunity is not

same


start business themselves, the level of importance of recognition is not

same


start business themselves, the level of importance of satisfying work

relationship is not same


start business themselves, the level of importance of career security is not

same



is not same


Pradesh, the level of importance of status and prestige is not same


Pradesh, the level of importance of economic necessity is not same


Pradesh, the level of importance of flexibility in work/family is not same

385 | P a g e


Pradesh, the level of importance of independence is not same


of importance of learning and personal growth is not same


of importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is not same


Pradesh, the level of importance of money and wealth is not same

43. for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar

Pradesh, the level of importance of opportunity is not same


Pradesh, the level of importance of recognition is not same


Pradesh, the level of importance of satisfying work relationships is not

same


Pradesh, the level of importance of career security is not same

47. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh outside funding / financing

is available when they start the enterprise



personal achievement is not same






economic necessity is not same



flexibility in work/family is same



independence is same

386 | P a g e



learning and professional growth is not same



testing of entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same



money and wealth is not same



opportunity is not same



recognition is same



satisfying work relationships is same



career security is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of personal

achievement is not same


available source of funding, the level of importance of status and prestige

is not same


available source of funding, the level of importance of economic necessity

is not same


available source of funding, the level of importance of flexibility in

work/family is not same

387 | P a g e


available source of funding, the level of importance of independence is not

same


available source of funding, the level of importance of learning and

personal growth is not same


available source of funding, the level of importance of testing

entrepreneurs’ own ideas is not same


available source of funding, the level of importance of money and wealth

is not same


available source of funding, the level of importance of opportunity is not

same


available source of funding, the level of importance of recognition is same


available source of funding, the level of importance of satisfying work

relationships is not same


available source of funding, the level of importance of career security is

same

72. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are satisfied with their

enterprises’ sales, profit and overall satisfaction

73. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh wish to continue with same

enterprises

74. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a strong

attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return

75. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t adopt a bold, aggressive

posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential

opportunities

76. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh participate in professional /

trade associations

388 | P a g e

77. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have business applications of

personal contacts

78. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh push themselves and don’t feel

real satisfaction when their work is among the best

79. Happenings in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are affected more by

entrepreneurs’ abilities, control and guidance than by external influences

80. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh need to know that it’s already

been done before they are willing to try it

81. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh respect rules and established

procedures as they guide them

82. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh feel self-conscious when they

are with very successful entrepreneur(s)

83. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are ultimately responsible for

their own enterprises’ success

84. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are quite independent of the

opinions of others

85. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy intimidating other in

pursuing business opportunities

86. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh generally have modest and

easily achievable goals and ambitions

87. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are particularly inventive or

creative

88. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy the uncertainty and risks

of business and they energize them more than circumstances with

predictable outcomes

89. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh believe that nothing that life can

offer is a substitute for great achievement

90. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh spend more time thinking about

their future goals than their past accomplishments

91. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not comfortable when they

have complete responsibility for deciding how and when to do their work

92. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh get a sense of pride and

accomplishment from their work

389 | P a g e

93. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh get excited creating their own

business opportunities

94. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enter in entrepreneurship by

choice but by obligation to ensure livelihood

95. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are willing to risk their personal

and family’s material well being for the sake of their enterprise

96. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are confident of their abilities

and they don’t feel good about themselves

97. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh an opportunity to beat a

competitor in a business deal is a personal thrill

98. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy being able to use old

business concepts in new ways

99. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh believe that success comes from

conforming to accepted business practices more so than constantly doing

new things

100. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh can control most situations they

find themselves in

101. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that it’s important to

continually look for new way to do things in the enterprise

102. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh like a job in which they don’t

have to answer to any one

103. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh frequently find themselves in

situations where they are powerless to control the outcome(s)

104. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh often approach business tasks in

unique ways

105. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh buy insurance every time they

travel

106. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy being the catalyst

for change in business affairs

107. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh believe that business

circumstances happen because of luck, whether good or bad

108. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that their knack for

dealing with people has enabled them to create many of their business

opportunities

390 | P a g e

109. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh find that they can think better

when they have guidance and advice from others

110. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have doubts frequently about

themselves or their abilities when making business proposals

111. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are in total control of their

destiny

112. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh worry about what their business

associates think about them

113. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy turning circumstances to

their advantage in business

114. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are driven to ever greater efforts

by an unquenched ambition

115. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that successful

entrepreneurs pursue any opportunity, and do what they have to do in order

to survive

116. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh thrive in situations which

encourage and reward their creativity

117. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh need to know the answer before

they ask a question

118. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh judge their work by considering

whether that meets the minimum requirements for the task

119. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh start their enterprises for doing

the kind of work they want to do

120. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh start their enterprise to make

more money than otherwise

121. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh may lack working capital/liquid

assets/funds (which contributes in industrial sickness) to sustain

122. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think women entrepreneurs in

MSMEs in U.P. have problems beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems

123. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have become competent

entrepreneur to achieve long term objectives of their enterprises in

effective and efficient manner

391 | P a g e

124. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh spend a lot of time looking for

someone who can tell them how to solve all their entrepreneurial problems

because they are unsure of themselves

125. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in dealing with their

competitors, don’t responds always to actions which competitors initiate

126. MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are not often first business to introduce new

products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.

127. Top management in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t favour a strong

emphasis on the marketing of tried and true products and services

128. In the past five years, new lines of products or services have been

introduced by entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

129. Changes in the product or service lines of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not

mostly of a minor nature

130. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, the level of technology, in terms of the work

that they do and how they do, is not low

131. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in

serving a distinct and unique market niche


access to the market (e.g. Location)


unique technology of product


unique technology process or production


offering lower price than the competition


providing significantly higher quality than the competition


offering broad product / service lines providing customer convenience


significantly higher levels of customer service and support

139. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have current, comprehensive

and detailed business plan

392 | P a g e

140. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have detailed job descriptions

for any position

141. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have operating procedures in

place for most processes within the enterprise

142. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh frequently change marketing

practices to keep up with the market and competitors

143. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that the rate of at which

products / services are getting obsolete in their industry is very slow

144. Actions of competitors of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are

not easy to predict

145. Virtually there is research and development (R & D) within the industry of

MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

146. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands and consumer tastes are not so easy

to forecast

147. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and / or service technology is

subject to very much change and is well established

148. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in registration

of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

149. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in

establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

150. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties for their

enterprises due to uncertainty about the economy

151. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in choosing a

direction for enterprise for their enterprises

152. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties for their

enterprises due to regulations and paperwork

153. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in time

management

154. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding

general management skills

155. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties due to change

in customer needs

156. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in obtaining

finances

393 | P a g e

157. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties due to

uncertainty about the political situation

158. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding taxes

& tax laws

159. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in maintaining

quality of products / services


change in economic conditions


intense competition

162. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in cost control

163. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in educating

the workforce

164. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in attracting

quality workers

165. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in maintaining

productivity

166. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties due lack of

suppliers / health of suppliers

167. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in competing

globally

168. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in motivating

employees

169. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in

incorporating new / emerging technologies


marketing problems


Pradesh, the level of problem in registration of MSMEs is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in establishment of MSMEs is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the economy is not

same

394 | P a g e


Pradesh, the level of problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is not

same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to regulations and paperwork is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in time management is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem related to general management skills is not

same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in customer needs is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in obtaining finances is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the political

situation is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including

mandated benefits) is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem regarding quality of products / services is not

same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in economic condition is not

same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to intense competition is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in cost control is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in educating the workforce is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in attracting quality workers is not same

395 | P a g e


Pradesh, the level of problem related to productivity is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers

is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in competing globally is not same


Pradesh, the level of problem in motivating employees is same


Pradesh, the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging

technologies is not same


Pradesh, the level of marketing problems is same

194. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is not very safe

with little threat to the survival and well-being of their enterprises

195. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is not very rich

in investment and marketing opportunities

196. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh does not

demands little in the way of technological sophistication

197. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have an environment that

their enterprises can control and manipulate to their own advantage

198. There are not minimal requirements for registration or licensing, present

few rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial activity, and provides

an unfavourable environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar

Pradesh

199. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh face environmental

problems external to their enterprises

200. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a large quantity of small

enterprises and a diversity of economic activity within their geographic

area

201. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh feel that there is a supportive

public attitude towards entrepreneurship

396 | P a g e

202. Educational and training programs as well as necessary information to

improve technical, vocational and business skills are available for

entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh

203. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh non-financial assistance

through modern transportation and communication facilities, counselling

support services and other programs is available

204. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial institutions are

willing to finance small entrepreneurs

205. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial assistance is



206. MSMEs related policies of both central as well as state govt. have been


207. There is adequate support available for MSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in terms

of grants, subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased and impartial


distribution

208. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh face managerial problems

209. In Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to the governments overweigh the costs

of MSMEs to governments

210. Infrastructure facilities for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are adequate

211. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and

ability/availability and affordability of skills in the developing of a

business plan after establishment of enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the strategic planning after

establishment of their enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the start-up operations after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the personnel after


397 | P a g e


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the finance after




purchasing after establishment of enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the feasibility analysis after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the pro-forma financial

analysis after establishment of enterprises


ability/availability and affordability of skills in the accounting after



ability/availability and affordability of the general management skills after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the production after



ability/availability and affordability of skills in the marketing after


223. There is significant relationship between the enterprises started by self and


224. There is significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and


225. There is significant relationship between enterprise being entrepreneur’s

first entrepreneurial venture and having sales growth as one of enterprises’

objectives

226. There is significant relationship between any supplemental, continuing

education or training and having sales growth as one of enterprises’

objectives

398 | P a g e



problem in registration of MSMEs is not same



problem in establishment of MSMEs is same



problem due to uncertainty about the economy is same



problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is not same



problem due to regulations and paperwork is not same



problem in time management is not same



problem related to general management skills is not same



problem due to change in customer needs is not same



problem in obtaining finances is not same



problem due to uncertainty about the political situation is not same



problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits) is not

same

399 | P a g e



problem regarding quality of products / services is not same



problem due to change in economic condition is not same



problem due to intense competition is not same



problem in cost control is same



problem in educating the workforce is same



problem in attracting quality workers is not same



problem related to productivity is same



problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is not same



problem in competing globally is same



problem in motivating employees is same



problem in incorporating new / emerging technologies is same

400 | P a g e



marketing problems is same

401 | P a g e

6. Bibliography/References

1. Adelman, Philip J.; and Alan M. Marks. (2001). Entrepreneurial

Finance: Finance for Small Businesses, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

2. Africa, Matthew. (2000). The Misuse of Licensing Evidence in Fair Use

Analysis: New Technologies, New Markets and the Courts. California Law

Review, vol. 88, pp. 1145-84.

3. Aldrich, Howard E.; and Martha Argelia Martinez. (Summer 2001).

Many Are Called, but Few Are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the

Study of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, pp. 41-56.

4. Amabile, Teresa M. (September – October 1998). How to Kill Creativity.

Harvard Business Review, pp. 77-87.

5. Anestopoulou, Maria. (2001). Challenging Intellectual Property Law in the

Internet: An Overview of the Legal Implications of the MP3 technology.

Information & Communications Technology Law, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 319-37.

6. Ang, James S.; and James C. Brau. (2002). Firm Transparency and the

Costs of Going Public. Journal of Financial Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-

17.

7. Antoncic, Bostjan; and Robert D. Hisrich. (1999). An Integrative

Conceptual Model. In Leo Paul Dana, ed., International

Entrepreneueurship: An Anthology. Singapore: NTU-Entrepreneurship

Development Center, pp. 15-32.

8. Ardichvili, Alexander; and Richard N. Cardozo. (2000). A Model of

Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition Process. Journal of Enterprising

Culture, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 103-19.

9. Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard Cardozo; and Sourav Ray. (2003). A

Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification and Development.

Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 105-24.

10. Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard N. Cardozo; Kathleen Tune; and Judy

Reinach. (2002). The Role of Angle investors in the Assembly of Non-

Financial Resources of New Ventures: Conceptual Framework and

402 | P a g e

Empirical Evidence. Journal of Enterprising Culture; vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 39-

65.

11. Armstrong, Peter; (2001). Science, Enterprise and Profit: Ideology in the

Knowledge- Driven Economy. Economy and Society, vol. 30, no.4, pp. 524-

52.

12. Avila, Stephen M; Ramon A. Avila; and Douglas W. Naffziger. (May

2003). A Comparison of Family Owned Business: Succession Planners and

Nonplanners. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, vol. 57, no. 3, pp.

85-92.

13. Barney, Jay B. (2001). Resource-Based “Theories” of Competitive

Advantage: A Ten Year Retrospective on the Resource-Based View.

Journal of Management, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 643-751.

14. Baron, Robert A.; and Gideon D. Markman. (2000). Beyond Social

Capital: How Social Skills Can Enhance Entrepreneurs’ Success. Academy

of Management Executive, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 106-16.

15. Barth, Mary E.; Donald P. Cram; and Karen K. Nelson. (2001).

Accruals and the Prediction of Future Cash Flows. The Accounting Review,

vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 27-58.

16. Bartlett, Christopher A; and Sumantra Goshal. (1996) Release the

Entrepreneurial Hostages from your Corporate Hierarchy. Strategy &

Leadership, vol.24, no.4, pp. 36-42.

17. Basu, Anuradha; and Simon C. Parker. (2001). Family Finance and New

Business Start-Ups. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 63, no.

3, pp. 333-58.

18. Baum, J. Robert; Edwin A, Locke; and Ken G. Smith. (2001). A

Multidimensional Model of Venture Growth. Academy of Management

Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 292-304.

19. Bazerman, Max H.; and Jared R. Curhan. (2000). Negotiation. Annual

Review of Psychology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 279-315.

20. Becattini, Giacomo. (2002). Industrial Sectors and Industrial Districts:

Tools for Industrial Analysis. European Planning Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.

483-93.

21. Bergmann Lichtenstein, Benyamin M.; and Candida G. Brush. (Spring

2001). How do “Resource Bundles” Develop and Change in New Ventures?

403 | P a g e

A Dynamic Model and Longitudinal Exploration. Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, pp. 37-58.

22. Berkovitch, Elzar; Ronen Israel; and Yossef Spiegel. (2000). Managerial

Compensation and Capital Structure. Journal of Economics & Management

Strategy, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 549-84.

23. Boden, Richard J.; and Brian Headd. (October 2002). Race and Gender

Differences in Business Ownership and Business Turnover. Business

Economics, pp. 61-72.

24. Bodie, Zvi; Robert S. Kaplan; and Robert C. Merton. (2003). For the

Last Time: Stock Options Are an Expense. Harvard Business Review, vol.

81, no. 3, pp. 62-71.

25. Borins, Sandford. (2000). Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers, or

Enterprising Leader? Some Evidence about Innovative Public Managers.

Public Administration Review, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 498-507.

26. Bradley, Daniel J.; and Bradford D. Jordan. (2002). Partial Adjustment

to Public Information and IPO Underpricing. Journal of Financial and

Quantitative Analysis, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 595-616.

27. Brau, James C.; and Jerome S. Osteryoung. (2001). The Determinants of

Successful Micro-IPOs: An Analysis of Issues Made under the Small

Corporate Offering Registration (SCOR) Procedure. Journal of Small

Business Management, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 209-27.

28. Braunschwig, Carolina. (January 2003). Nano Nonsense. VC Journal, pp.

18-26.

29. Brouwer, Maria T. (2002). Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on

Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Journal of Evolutionary

Economics, vol. 12, pp. 83-105.

30. Brush, Candida G.; Patricia G. Greene; and Myra M. Hart. (2001).

From Initial Idea to Unique Advantage: The Entrepreneurial Challenge of

Constructing a Resource Base. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 15,

no. 1, pp. 64-80.

31. Bruton, Garry D.; Vance H. Fried; and Robert D. Hisrich. (Summer

2000). CEO Dismissal in Venture Capital Backed Firms: Further Evidence

from an Agency Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 69-

77.

404 | P a g e

32. Bruton, Gary D.; and Yuri Rubanik. (2002). Resources of the Firm,

Russian High-Technology Startups and Firm Growth. Journal of Business

Venturing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 553-77.

33. Bucar, Branko; and Robert Hisrich. (2001). Ethics of Business Managers

vs. Entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 6, no.

1, pp. 59-83.

34. Buckley, William M. (July 2, 2003). Dot-Com Hope: Akamai, Others

Discover New Life. Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition, vol. 242, no. 2,

pp. B1-B2.

35. Bunderson, J. Stuart; and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe. (2002). Comparing

Alternative Conceptualizations of Functional Diversity in Management

Teams: Process and Performance Effects. Academy of Management Journal,

vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 875-93.

36. Burmeister, Paul. (March 2003). What to Present to Venture Capitalists.

Strategic Finance, pp. 36-39.

37. Burpitt, William J.; and Dennis A. Rondinelli. (2000). Small Firms’

Motivations for Exporting: To Earn and Learn? Journal of Small Business

Management, October 2000, pp. 1-14.

38. Bushrod, Lisa. (June 2001). Investing Seed Capital. European Venture

Capital Journal, pp. 46-49.

39. Callison, William J. (Fall 2000). Venture Capital and Corporate

Governance: Evolving the Limited Liability Company to Finance the

Entrepreneurial Business. Journal of Corporation Law, pp. 97-124.

40. Calori, Roland; Leif Melin; Tugrul Atamer; and Peter Gustavsson.

(2000). Innovative International Strategies, Journal of World Business, Vol.

35, no. 4, pp. 333-54.

41. Campbell, Steven V. (1997). An Investigation of the Direct Costs of

Bankruptcy Reorganization for Closely Held Firms. Journal of Small


42. Carpenter, Robert E.; and Bruce C. Petersen. (2002). Capital Market

Imperfections, High-Tech Investment and New Equity Financing.

Economical Journal, vol. 112, pp. 54-72.

405 | P a g e

43. Carrier, Camille. (1994). Intrapreneurship in Large Firms and SMEs: A

Comparative Study. International Small Business Journal, vol.12, no 3, pp.

54-61.

44. Certo, S. Trevis; Catherine M. Daily; and Dan R. Dalton. (Winter 2001).

Signaling Firm Value through Board Structure: An Investigation of Initial

Public Offerings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 33-50.

45. Champion, David. (February 2001). Too Soon to IPO? Harvard Business

Review, pp. 35-46.

46. Chandler, Gaylen N.; and Douglas W. Lyon. (2001). Entrepreneurial

Teams in New Ventures: Composition Turnover and Performance. Academy

of Management Proceedings, pp. A1-A6.

47. Chrisman, James J.; and W. Ed McMullan. (Spring 2000). A Preliminary

Assessment of Outsider Assistance as a Knowledge Resource: The Long-

Term Impact of New Venture Counseling. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, pp. 37-53.

48. Colarelli O’ Connor, Gina; and Mark Rice. (2001). Opportunity

Recognition and Breakthrough Innovation in Large Established Firms.

California Management Review, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 95-116.

49. Coleman, Susan. (2002). Constraints Faced by Women Small Business

Owners: Evidence form the Data. Journal of Development

Entrepreneurship, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 151-74.

50. Coleman, Susan. (July 2000). Access to Capital and Terms of Credit: A

Comparison of Men and Women Owned Small Businesses. Journal of Small

Business Management, pp. 37-52.

51. Collingwood, Harris. (March 2003). The Private-Capital Survival Guide.

Inc., pp. 100-9.

52. Comiskey, Eugene E.; and Charles W. Mulford. (1998). Analyzing

Small-Company Financial Statements: Some Guidance for Lenders.

Commercial Lending Review, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 30-42.

53. Corwin, Shane A.; and Jeffrey H. Harris. (Spring 2001). The Initial

Listing Decisions of Firms That Go Public. Financial Management, pp. 35-

55.

54. Cowley, Louise. (December-January 2002). Venture Capital Hotspots.

European Venture Capital Journal, pp. 42-45.

406 | P a g e

55. Cowling, Marc. (2000). Are Entrepreneurs Different across Countries?

Applied Economics Letters, vol. 7, pp. 785-89.

56. Cyr, Linda A.; Diane E. Johnson; and Theresa M. Welbourne. (2000).

Human Resources in Initial Public offering Firms: Do Venture Capitalists

Make a Difference? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 25, no. 1,

pp. 79-91.

57. Dahl, Darren W.; and Page Moreau. (2002). The Influence and Value of

Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation. Journal of Marketing

Research, vol. 39, pp. 47-60.

58. Danaher, Peter J.; Bruce G. S. Hardie; and William P. Putsis Jr.

(November 2001). Marketing-Mix variables and the Diffusion of

Successive Generations of a Technological Innovation. Journal of

Marketing Research, vol. 38, pp. 501-14.

59. Danis, Wade M.; and Andrew V. Shipilov. (2002). A Comparison of

Entrepreneurship Development in Two Post- Communist Countries: The

Cases of Hungary and Ukraine. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship,

vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 67-94.

60. Danneels, Erwin. (2002). The Dynamics of Product Innovations and Firm

Competences. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1095-122.

61. David, Byron L. (1994). How Internal Venture Groups Innovate. Research–

Technology Management, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 38-43.

62. Davidson, Steve. (September 2000). Recent Research on Trends in Small

Business Bank Lending. Community Banker, pp. 40-42.

63. Davidsson, Per; Bruce Kirchhoff; Abdulnasser Hatemi; and Halena

Gustavsson. (2002). Empirical Analysis of Business Growth Factors Using

Swedish Data. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 40, no. 4, pp.

332-50.

64. Davis, Craig R. (Summer 2002). Calculated Risk: A Framework for

Evaluating Product Development. MIT Sloan Management Review, pp. 71-

77.

65. Davis, James. (May 2003). Staking Your Life on a Betting Future.

Accountancy, vol. 131, no. 1317, pp. 54-56.

66. Davis, Peter S.; and Paula D. Harveston. (2000). Internationalization and

Organizational Growth: The Impact of Internet Usage and Technology

407 | P a g e

Involvement among Entrepreneur-Led Family Business. Family Business

Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 107-20.

67. Delmar, Frederic; Per Davidsson; and William B. Gartner. (2003).

Arriving at the High-Growth Firm. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18,

no. 2, pp. 189-217.

68. Denis, David, J.; and Atulya Sarin. (Fall-Winter 2002). Taxes and the

Relative Vauation of S Corporations and C Corporations. Journal of Applied

Finance, pp. 5-14.

69. Dias, Sam; David Pihlens; and Lorena Ricci. (2002). Understanding the

Drivers of Customer Value. The Fusion of Macro of and Micro-Modeling.

Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, vol. 10, no.

3, pp. 269-81.

70. Dibb, Sally. (2002). Marketing Planning Best Practice. The Marketing

Review, vol. 2, pp. 441-59.

71. Dibb, Sally; and Lyndon Simkin. (2000). Pre-Empting Implementation

Barriers: Foundations, Processes and Actions __ The Need for Internal

Relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 16, pp. 483-503.

72. Dietmeyer, Brian J.; and Max J. Bazerman. (2001). Value Negotiation.

Executive Excellence, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 7.

73. Douglas, Evan J.; and Dean A. Shepherd. (Spring 2002). Self-

Employment as a Career Choice: Attitudes, Entrepreneurial Intentions and

Utility Maximization. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, pp. 81-90.

74. Drayton, William. (2002). The Citizen Sector: Becoming as

Entrepreneurial and Competitive as Business. California Management

Review, vol. 44, no. 3, pp.120-32.

75. Duffy, John F. (2002). Harmony and Diversity in Global Patent Law.

Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 17, pp. 685-726.

76. Dyer, Linda M: and Christopher A. Ross. (April 2000). Ethnic

Enterprises and Their Clientele. Journal of Small Business Management, pp.

48-66.

77. Ehrhardt, Michael C.; and Phillip R. Daves. (Fall-Winter 2000). Capital

Budgeting: The Valuation of Unusual, Irregular, or Extraordinary Cash

Flows. Financial Practice and Education, pp. 106-14.

408 | P a g e

78. Ensley, Michael D.; James W. Carland; and Joann C. Carland. (October

2000). Investigating the Existence of the Lead Entrepreneur, Journal of

Small Business Management, pp. 59-77.

79. Erikson, Truls. (2002). Entrepreneurial Capital: The Emerging Venture’s

Most Important Asset and Competitive Advantage. Journal of Business


80. Ernst & Young LLP. (1997). Outline for a Business Plan.

81. Ernzer, Marc; and Wolfgang Wimmer. (2002). From Environmental

Assessment Results to Design for Environment Product Changes: An

Evaluation of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. Journal of Engineering

Design, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 233-42.

82. Feldman, Daniel: and Mark C. Bolino. (July 2000). Career Patterns of the

Self-Employed: Career Motivations and Career Outcomes. Journal of Small

Business Management, pp. 53-67.

83. Fillis, Ian. (2002). An Andalusian Dog or a Rising Star? Creativity and the

Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface. Journal of Marketing Management,

vol. 18, pp. 379-95.

84. Fiol, C. Marlene; and Edward J. O’Connor. (2003). Waking Up!

Mindfulness in the Face of Bandwagons. Academy of Management Review,

vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 54-71.

85. Formaini, Robert L. (Fourth Quarter 2001). The Engine of Capitalist

Process: Entrepreneurs in Economic Theory. Economic and Financial

Review, pp. 2-11.

86. France, M.; and S. Siwolop. (1996). How to Skin a Copycat. Business

Week, pp. 4-7.

87. George, Gerard; and Ganesh N. Prabhu. (2000). Developmental

Financial Institutions as Catalysts of Entrepreneurship in Emerging

Economies. Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 620-29.

88. George, Gerard; Shaker A. Zahra; and Robley D. Wood. (2002). The

Effect of Business-University Alliances on Innovative Output and Financial

Performance: A Study of Publicly Traded Biotechnology Companies.


409 | P a g e

89. Ghauri, Pervez; and Tony Fang. (2001) . Negotiating with the Chinese: A

Socio-Cultural Analysis. Journal of World Business, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 303-

25.

90. Gifford, Sharon. (1998). Limited Entrepreneurial Attention and Economic

Development. Small Business Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 17-30.

91. Girard, Bryan. (May 2002). Is There an ESOP in Our Company’s Future?

Strategic Finance, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 48-51.

92. Goldenberg, Jacob; Roni Horowitz; Amnon Levav; and David

Mazursky. (March 2003). Finding Your Innovation Sweet Spot. Harvard

Business Review, pp. 120-29.

93. Gongming Qian. (2002). Multinationality, Product Diversification and

Profitability of Emerging US Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Journal

of Business Venturing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 611-34.

94. Goodden, Randall. (2001). Product Liability Prevention – The Next

Dimension in Quality. Total Quality Management, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 623-

28.

95. Goold, Michael; and Andrew Campbell. (March 2002). Do You Have a

Well-Designed Organization? Harvard Business Review, pp. 117-24.

96. Gramlich, Jeffrey D.; Mary Lea McNally; and Jacob Thomas. (2001).

Balance Sheet Management: Case of Short-Term Obligations Reclassified

as Long-Term Debt. Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 39, no. 2, pp.

283-95.

97. Grote, Jim (July 2002). The role of the Planner in Start-Ups: Angels,

Advisors, Devil’s Advocates. Journal of Financial Planning, pp. 54-61.

98. Gulati, Ranjay; and Monica C. Higgins. (2003). Which Ties Matter

When? The Contingent Effects of Interorganizational Partnership on IPO

Success. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 127-45.

99. Gutner, T. (August 12, 1996). The Moves if You’re Broke. Business Week,

pp. 110-3.

100. Hansen, Morten T.; Henry W. Chesbrough; Nitin Nohria; and Donald

N. Sull. (September-October 2000) Networked Incubators. Harvard


410 | P a g e

101. Hayton, James C.; Gerard George; and Shaker A. Zahra (Summer

2002). National Culture and Entrepreneurship: A Review of Behavioral

Research. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, pp. 33-52.

102. Hean Tat Keh; Maw Der Foo; and Boon Chong Lim. (Winter 2002).

Opportunity Evaluation under Risky Conditions: The Cognitive Processes of

Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 125-48.

103. Hisrich, Robert D. (1986). The Woman Entrepreneur: Characteristics,

Skills, Problem and Prescriptions for Success. The Art and Science of

Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 61-84.

104. Holmberg, Stevan R.; and Kathryn B. Morgan. (2003). Franchise

Turnover and Failure: New Research and Perspectives. Journal of Business


105. Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser. (February 2001). Figures of Hate.

Financial Management, pp. 22-25.

106. Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser. (October 2000). Beyond Budgeting.

Financial Management, pp. 30-35.

107. How, Janice C.Y.; and John S. Howe. (2001). Warrants in Initial Public

offering: Empirical Evidence. Journal of Business, vol. 74, pp. 433-57.

108. Huang, Xueli; Geoffrey N. Soutar; and Alan Brown. (2002). New

Product Development Process in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises;

Some Australian Evidence. Journal of Small Business Management, vol.

40, no. 1, pp. 27-42.

109. Johnson, Scott. (February 2003). Using and Protecting Trademarks. The

CPA Journal, pp. 39-41.

110. Johnston, Jarrod; and Jeff Madura. (2002). The performance of internet

Firms Following Their Initial Public Offering. Financial Review, vol. 37,

pp. 525-50.

111. Jordan, Charles E.; and Marilyn A. Waldron. (2001). Predicting Cash

Flow from Operations: Evidence on the Comparative Abilities for a

Continuum of Measures. Journal of Applied Business Research, vol. 17, no.

3, pp. 87-94.

112. Kambil, Ajit; Erik, D. Eselius; and Karen A. Monteiro. (March 2000).

Fast Venturing: The Quick Way to Start Web Businesses. Sloan

Management Review, pp. 55-67.

411 | P a g e

113. Keh, Hean T.; Maw Der Foo; and Boon C. Lim. (2002). Opportunity

Evaluation under Risky Conditions: The Cognitive Processes of

Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 2, pp 125-

49.

114. Kelley, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice. (2002). Advantage beyond Founding

the Strategic Use of Technologies. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 17,

no. 1, pp. 41-58.

115. Kelly, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice. (2002). Leveraging the Value of

Proprietary Technologies. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 40,

no. 1, pp. 1-16.

116. Kenis, Patrick; and David Knoke. (2002). How Organizational Field

Networks Shape Interoganizational Tie-Formation Rates. Academy of

Management Review, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 275-94.

117. Khatoon, Akram. (2002). Making Woman Entrepreneur. Economics


118. Kim, W. Chan; and Renee Mauborgne. (September-October 2000).

Knowing a Winning Business Idea When You See One. Harvard Business

Review, pp. 129-38.

119. Krueger, Norris F. Jr. (2000). The Cognitive Infrastructure of Opportunity

Emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 5-23.

120. Kuemmerle, Walter. (May 2002). A Test for the Fainthearted. Harvard


121. Laukkanen, Mauri. (2000). Exploring Alternative Approaches in High-

Level Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Micro-Mechanisms for

Endogenous Regional Growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,

vol. 12, p. 25-47.

122. Lawrence, William F.; Barry S. White; Thomas J. Kowalski; Susan K.

Lehnhardt; and David A. Zwally. (2001). Licensing Intellectual Property.

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 208-17.

123. Lee, Sang N.; and Suzanne J. Peterson. (2000). Culture, Entrepreneurial

Orientation and Global Competitiveness. Journal of World Business, vol.

35, no. 4, pp. 401-16.

412 | P a g e

124. Lerner, Josh. (Fourth Quarter 2002). Boom and Bust in the Venture Capital

Industry and the Impact on Innovation. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Economic Review, pp. 25-39.

125. Lerner, Miri; Candida Brush; and Robert Hisrich. (1997). Israeli

Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance.


126. Lerouge, Cindy; and Angela Picard. (November 2000). A Blueprint for

Bricks to Clicks. Strategic Finance, pp. 26-35.

127. Levesque, Moren; and Dean A. Shepherd. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ Choice

of Entry Strategy in Emerging and Developed Markets. Journal of Business


128. Lichtenstein, Benyamin; G. Thomas Lumpkin; and Rodney Sharder.

(2003). A Theory of Entrepreneurial Action. In J. Katz and D.A. Shepherd,

eds., Advances in Entrepreneurship: Firm Emergence and Growth (vol. 6).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

129. Lieberman, Marvin B.; and David B. Montgomery. (1998). First-Mover

(Dis)advantages: Retrospective and Link with the Resource-Based View.

Strategic Management Journal, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1111-26.

130. Light, Ivan; and Steven Gold. (2000). Ethnic Economies. San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

131. Lim, Yee Fen. (2002). Internet Governance, Resolving the Unresolvable:

Trademark Law and Internet Domain Names. International Review of Law

Computers & Technology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 199-209.

132. Lindsay, Noel J.; and Justin Craig. (Winter 2002). A Framework for

Understanding Opportunity Recognition. The Journal of Private Equity. pp.

13-24.

133. Ling-yee, Li; and Gabriel O. Ogunmokun. (2001). Effect of Export

Financing Resources and Supply-Chain Skills on Export Competitive

Advantages: Implications for Superior Export Performance. Journal of

World Business, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 260-79.

134. Lodish, Leonard. (May-June 2001). Building Marketing Models That

Make Money. Interfaces, vol. 31, no. 3, part 2, pp. S45-S55.

135. Logue, Dennis E.; Richard J. Rogalski; James K. Seward; and Lynn

Foster-Johnson. (2002). What Is Special about the Roles of Underwriter

413 | P a g e

Reputation and Market Activities in Initial Public Offerings? Journal of

Business, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 213-43.

136. Lumpkin, G.T.; and G.G. Dess. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial

Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Academy of


137. Luo, Yadong. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities in International Expansion.

Journal of World Business, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 355-78.

138. Maddy, Monique. (2000). Dream Deferred: The Story of a High-Tech

Entrepreneur in a Low-Tech World. Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, no.

3, pp. 56-69.

139. Magretta, Joan.(May 2002). Why Business Models Matter. Harvard


140. Marino, Louis; Karen Strandholm; Kevin H. Steensma; and Mark K.

Weaver. (2002). The Moderating Effect of National Culture on the

Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Strategic Alliance

Portfolio Extensiveness. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 26, no.

4, pp. 145-61.

141. Mason, Colin M.; and Richard T. Harrison. (2002). Barriers to

Investments in the Informal Venture Capital Sector. Entrepreneurship &

Regional Development, vol. 14, pp. 271-87.

142. Maurer, Steven D.; and Michael T. Zugelder. (2000). Trade Secret

Management in High Technology: A Legal Review and Research Agenda.

The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp.

155-74.

143. McDougall, P. P.; and B. M. Oviatt. (1997). International

Entrepreneurship Literature in the 1990s and Directions for Future

Research. In D. L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor, eds., Entrepreneurship 2000.

Chicago, IL: Upstart Publishing Company, pp. 291-320.

144. McEvily, Susan K.; and Bala Chakravarthy. (2002). The Persistence of

Knowledge-Based Advantage: An Empirical Test for Product Performance

and Technological Knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23 no.

4, pp. 285-306.

145. McMullen, Jeffery S.; and Dean A. Shepherd. (2003). A Theory of

Entrepreneurial Action. In J. Katz and D.A. Shepherd, eds., Advances in

414 | P a g e

Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth (vol.6). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press, pp. 203-48.

146. Melewar, T. C.; and John Sounders. (2000). Global Corporate Visual

Identity Systems: Using an Extended Marketing Mix. European Journal of

Marketing, vol. 34, nos. 5-6, pp. 538-50.

147. Michael, Steven C. (2000). Investment to Create Bargaining Power: The

Case of Franchising. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 497-

517.

148. Michael, Steven C. (2003). First Mover Advantage through Franchising.

Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 61-81.

149. Minerm, J.; R. Norman; and J. S. Brecker. (1992). Defining the Inventor-

Entrepreneur in the Context of Established Typologies. Journal of Business


150. Mitchel, Ronald K.; Brock Smith; Kristie W. Seawright; and Eric A.

Morse. (2000). Cross- Cultural Cognitions and the Venture Creation

Decision, Academy of Management Journal, vol.43, no5, pp. 974-93.

151. Modigliani, Franco; and Enrico Perotti. (2000). Security Markets versus

Bank Finance: Legal Enforcement and Investors’ Protection. International

Review of Finance, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 81-96.

152. Morris, Michael H.; John W Watling; and Minet Schindehutte. (July

2000). Venture Capitalists Involvement in Portfolio Companies: Insight

from South Africa. Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 68-77.

153. Mueller, Janice M. (2002). Patent Misuse through the Capture of Industry

Standards. Berkley Technology Law Journal, vol. 17, pp. 623-84.

154. Mueller, Stephen L.; and Srecko Goic. (2002). Entrepreneurial potential

in Transition Economies: A View from Tomorrow’s Leaders. Journal of

Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 399-414.

155. Muller, Holger M.; and Karl Warberyd. (2001). Inside versus Outside

Ownership: A Political Theory of the Firm. RAND Journal of Economics,

vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 527-41.

156. Newiss, Hilary; and Audrey Horton. (2001). Practical and Legal

Preparation for Young Companies Seeking Technology Transfer. Journal of

Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 335-42.

415 | P a g e

157. Nicholls-Nixon, Charlene L.; and Arnold C. Cooper. (2000). Strategic

Experimentation: Understanding Change and Performance in New Ventures.

Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15, no. 5/6, pp. 493-524.

158. Nodoushani, Omid; and Patricia A. Nodoushani. (2002). Industrial

Espionage: The Dark Side of the “Digital Age”. Competitiveness Review,

vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 96-101.

159. Nour, Mohamad A.; and Adam Fadlalla. (Spring 2000). A Framework

for Web Marketing Strategies. Information System Management, pp. 41-50.

160. Oetzel, Jennifer M.; Richard A. Bettis; and Marc Zenner. (2001).

Country Risk Measures: How Risky Are They? Journal of World Business,

vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 128-45.

161. Osborne, Stephen W.; Thomas W. Falcone; and Prashanth B.

Nagendra. (2000). From Unemployed to Entrepreneur: A Case Study in

Intervention. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.

115-36.

162. Park, Choelsoon. (2003). Prior Performance Characteristics of Related and

Unrelated Acquirers. Strategic Management Journal, nol. 24, no. 5, pp. 471-

81.

163. Park, Seung H.; Roger R. Chen; and Scott Gallagher. (2002). Firm

Resources as Moderators of the Relationship between Market Growth and

Strategic Alliances in Semiconductor Start-Ups. Academy of Management

Journal, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 527-46.

164. Pearce II, John A.; and Louise Hatfield. (2002). Performance Effects of

Alternative Joint Venture Resource Responsibility Structures. Journal of

Business Venturing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 343-65.

165. Pelham, Alfred M. (2000). Market Orientation and Other Potential

Influences on Performance in Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing

Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 48-67.

166. Penrose, Edith. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Business. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

167. Perry, Stephen C. (2001). The Relationship between Written Business

Plans and the Failure of Small Businesses in the U.S. Journal of Small


416 | P a g e

168. Perry, Stephen C. (2002). A Comparison of Failed and Non- Failed Small

Businesses in the United States: Do Men and Women Use Different

Planning and Decision Making Strategies? Journal of Developmental


169. Pettus, Michael L. (2001). The Resource-Based View as a Developmental

Growth Process: Evidence from the Deregulated Trucking Industry.

Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 878-97.

170. Phillips, Paul A.; Fiona M. Davies.; and Luiz Moutinho. (2001). The

Interactive Effects of Strategic Marketing Planning and Performance: A

Neutral Networking Analysis. Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 17,

pp. 159-82.

171. Pope, Ralph A. (2002). Why Small Firms Export: Another Look. Journal of

Small Business Management, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 17-26.

172. Prasad, Dev; Garry D. Bruton; and George Vozikis. (2000). Signaling

Value to Business Angles: The Proportion of the Entrepreneur’s Net Worth

Invested in a New Venture as a Decision Signal. Venture Capital, vol. 2, no.

3, pp. 167-82.

173. Prince, C. J. (January 2000). The Ultimate Business Plan. Success, pp. 44-

49.

174. Ranft, Annette L.; and Hugh M. O’ Neil. (2001). Board Composition and

High-Flying Founders: Hints of Trouble to Come? Academy of Management

Executive, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 126-38.

175. Rebecca Reuber, A.; and Eileen Fischer. (2002). Foreign Sales and Small

Firm Growth: The Moderating Role of the Management Team.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 29-46.

176. Renzulli, Linda A; Howard Aldrich; and Junes Moody. (2000). Family

Matters: Gender, Networks and Entrepreneurial Outcomes. Social Forces,

vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 523-46.

177. Rezaee, Zabihollah. (February 2003) High Quality Financial Reporting.

The Six- Legged Stool. Strategic Finance, pp. 26-30.

178. Robb, Alicia M. (2002). Entrepreneurial Performance by Women and

Minorities: The Case of New Firms. Journal of Developmental


417 | P a g e

179. Robins, Fred. (2000). The Marketing E-Mix. The Marketing Review, vol. 1,

pp. 249-74.

180. Robinson, William T.; and Sungwook Min. (2002). Is the First to Market

the First to Fail? Empirical Evidence for Industrial Goods Businesses.

Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 120-29.

181. Ronde, Thomas. (2001). Trade Secrets and Information Sharing. Journal of

Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 391-417.

182. Ruback, Richard S. (Summer 2002). Capital Cash Flows: A Simple

Approach to Valuing Risky Cash Flows. Financial Management, pp. 85-

103.

183. Rugman, Alan M.; and Alan Verbeke. (2002). Edith Penrose’s

Contribution to the Resource-Based View of Strategic Management.

Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 769-81.

184. Ryan, Kenneth E. (2003). Product Liability Risk Control. Professional

Safety, February 2003, pp. 20-25.

185. Sahlman, William A. (1997). How to Write a Great Business Plan.

Harvard Business Review, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 98-108.

186. Sarkar, M. B.; R. A. J. Echambadi; and Jeffrey S. Harrison. (2001).

Alliance Entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic

management Journal, vol. 22, no 6/7. Pp. 201-12.

187. Schmid Klein, Linda; Thomas J. O’Brien; and Stephen R.Peters.

(2002). Debt vs. Equity and Asymmetric Information: A Review. The

Financial Review, vol. 37, pp. 317-50.

188. Schulze, William S.; Michael H. Lubatkin; and Richard N. Dino (2003).

A Social Capital Model of High Growth Ventures. Academy of Management

Journal, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 374-85.

189. Shane, Scott. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of

Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organization Science, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 448-

69.

190. Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable. (2002). Network Ties, Reputation and the

Financing of New Ventures. Management Science, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 364-

81.

418 | P a g e

191. Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable. (2002). Network Ties, Reputation and the

Financing of New Ventures. Management Science, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 364-

81.

192. Shapiro, Carl. (2001). Navigating the Patent Ticket: Cross Licenses, Patent

Pools and Standard Setting. NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, vol. 1,

no. 1, pp. 119-50.

193. Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zacharakis. (Spring 2001). Speed to

Initial public Offering of VC-Backed Companies. Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, pp. 59-69.

194. Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zackarakis. (2000). Structuring Family

Business Succession: An Analysis of the Future Leader’s Decision Making.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 25-39.

195. Shepherd, Dean A.; Evan J. Douglas; and Mark Shanley. (2000). New

Venture Survival: Ignorance, External Shocks and Risk Reduction

Strategies. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15, no. 5-6, pp. 393-410.

196. Shepherd, Dean A.; Richard Etenson; and Andrew Croch. (2000). The

Venture Strategy and Profitability: A Venture Capitalist’s Assessment.

Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15, pp. 449-67.

197. Skripsky, Harold. (2001). Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail: A look at a Yearly

Operating Business Plan. Journal of Leisure Property, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 282-

86.

198. Sonfield, Matthew; Robert Lussier; Joel Corman; and Mary

McKinney. (2001). Gender Comparisons in Strategic Decision-making: An

Empirical Analysis of the Entrepreneurial Strategy Matrix. Journal of Small


199. Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A. (September 2002). What Makes Great Boards

Great. Harvard Business Review, pp. 106-13.

200. Sorenson, Olav; and Toby E. Stuart. (2001). Syndication Networks and

the Spatial Distribution of Venture Capital Investments. American Journal

of Sociology, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 1546-88.

201. Spears, Nancy. (2001). Time Pressure and Information in Sales Promotion

Strategy: Conceptual Framework and Content Analysis. Journal of

Advertising, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 67-76.

419 | P a g e

202. Steier, Lloyd; and Royston Greenwood. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the

Evolution of Angel Financial Networks. Organizational Studies, vol. 21, no.

1, pp. 163-92.

203. Steinglod, F. S. (1998). Legal Guide for Starting and Running a Small

Business (Vol. 1). Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press.

204. Stopford, John M.; and Charles W. F. Baden-Fuller. (1994). Creating

Corporate Entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, no. 7,

pp. 521-36.

205. Strischek, Dev. (October 2001). A Banker’s Perspective on Working

Capital and Cash Flow Management. Strategic Finance, pp. 38-45.

206. Takala, Tuomo; and Paul Pallab. (2000). Individual, Collective and Social

Responsibility of the Firm. Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 9, no.

2, pp. 109-18.

207. Tarantino, David. (September-October 2001). Understanding Financial

Statements. The Physician Executive, pp. 72-76.

208. Teplensky Jill D.; John R. Kimberly; Alan L. Hillman; and J. Stanford

Schwartz. (1993). Scope, Timing and Strategic Adjustment in Emerging

Markets: Manufacturer Strategies and the Case of MRI. Strategic

Management Journal, vol. 14, pp. 505-27.

209. Tidd, Joe; and Kirsten Bodley. (2002). The Influence of Project Novelty

on the New Product Development Process. R&D Management, vol. 32, no.

2, pp. 127-38.

210. Ucbasaran, Deniz; Mike Wright; Paul Westhead; and Lowell W.

Busenitz. (2003). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Experience on Opportunity

identification and Exploitation: Habitual and Novice Entrepreneurs. In J.

Katz and D. A. Shepherd, eds., Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm

Emergence and Growth (vol.6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

211. Ucbasaran, Deniz; Paul Westhead; and Mike Wright. (Summer 2001).

The focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual and Process Issues.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 57-80.

212. Van Auken, Howard E. (2001). Financing Small Technology-Based

Companies: The Relationship between Familiarity with Capital and Ability

to Price and Negotiate Investment. Journal of Small Business Management,

vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 240-58.

420 | P a g e

213. Van Osnabrugge, Mark; and Robert J. Robinson. (2000). Angel

Investing: Matching Start-Up Funds with Start-Up Companies. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

214. Wang, Shouhong. (2000). Managing the Organizational Aspects of

Electronic Commerce. Human Systems Management, vol. 19, pp. 49-59.

215. Wansink, Brian. (Summer 2000). New Techniques to Generate Key

Marketing Insights. Marketing Research, pp. 28-36.

216. Watson, Warren; Wayne Stewart Jr.; and Anat BarNir. (2003). The

Effects of Human Capital, Organizational Demography and Interpersonal

Processes on Venture Partner Perceptions of Firm Profit and Growth.


217. Wennekers, Sander; and Roy Thurik. (1999). Linking Entrepreneurship

and Economic Growth. Small Business Economics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 27-55.

218. Wetzel, William. (September-October 2002). Angel Money and Sustainable

Business. In Business, pp. 26-28.

219. Wiklund, Johan; and Dean A. Shephard. (2003). Aspiring for, and

Achieving Growth: The Moderating Role of Resources and Opportunities.

Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1919-42.

220. Wiklund, Johan; Per Davidsson; and Frederic Delmar. (2003).What do

They Think and Feel about Growth? An Expectancy-Value Approach to

Small Business Manager’s Attitudes toward Growth. Entrepreneurship:

Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 247-71.

221. Williams, Devid. (2001). Writing a Marketing Report. The Marketing


222. Williams, Steve. (2000). An Empirical Application of Transaction-Costs

Theory to Organizational Design Characteristics. Journal of Psychology,

vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 81-92.

223. Xiao, Jing J.; M. J. Alhabeeb; Gong-Soog Hon; and George W. Haynes.

(2001). Attitude toward Risk and Risk-Taking Behavior of Business-

Owning Families. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 307-

25.

224. Yates, Don; and Davis, Mark. (January–February 2001). Your Company

Does Not Exist. Journal of Business Strategy, pp. 14-18.

421 | P a g e

225. Zahra, Shaker A.; Donald O. Neubaum; and Galal M. El-Hagrassey.

(2002). Competitive Analysis and New Venture Performance:

Understanding the Impact of Strategic Uncertainty and Venture Origin.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-29.

226. Zimmerman, Monica A.; and Gerald Z. Zeitz. (2002). Beyond Survival:

Achieving New Venture Growth by Building Legitimacy. Academy of


422 | P a g e

AppendixA.1 Questionnaire used for Data Collection

423 | P a g e

424 | P a g e

425 | P a g e

426 | P a g e

427 | P a g e

Documents

Jainendra Kumar Verma, - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/44145/2/... · 1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs 46 1.7.1.1 Innovative 46 1.7.1.2