Entrepreneurial ecosystem affects organisational learning, creativity and success

Figures & data

Table 1. Measurement scale

Constructs		Items	Statements
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem variables	Accessible Markets (ACMA)	ACMA1	Domestic Market – Large Companies as Customers
		ACMA2	Domestic Market – Small/Medium Companies as Customers
		ACMA3	Domestic Market – Governments as Customers
	Human Capital/Workforc (HUCA)	HUCA3	Entrepreneurial Company Experience
		HUCA4	Outsourcing Availability
		HUCA5	Access to Immigrant Workforce
	Support System (SUSY)	SUSY1	Mentors/Advisors
		SUSY2	Professional Services
		SUSY3	Incubators/Accelerators
		SUSY4	Network of Entrepreneurial Peers
	Regulatory Framework (REFRA)	REFRA1	Ease of Starting a Business
		REFRA2	Tax Incentives
		REFRA3	Business-Friendly Legislation/Policies
	Education and Training (EDUTRA)	EDUTRA2	Available Workforce with University Education
		EDUTRA3	Entrepreneur-Specific Training
		EDUTRA4	Universities Promoting a Culture of Respect for Entrepreneurship
		EDUTRA5	Role of Universities in Idea-Formation for New Companies
		EDUTRA6	Role of Universities in Providing Graduates for SMEs
	Cultural Support (CUSUP)	CUSUP2	Preference for Self-Employment
		CUSUP3	Success Stories/Role Models
		CUSUP4	Research Culture
		CUSUP5	Positive Image of Entrepreneurship
Organisational Learning (ENLE)		ENLE1	Acquiring much new and relevant knowledge
		ENLE2	Acquiring critical capacities and skills
		ENLE3	Influencing of new knowledge on improvements
		ENLE4	their organisations were learning organisations
Organisational Creativity (ENRE)		ENRE1	Adaptability to the changing environment
		ENRE2	New initiatives in planning
		ENRE3	New initiatives in control system
		ENRE4	New initiatives with integrated apparatus
Entrepreneurial Success (ENSU)		ENSU1	Market share
		ENSU2	Increase in sales.
		ENSU3	Increase in profitability
		ENSU4	Increase in earnings
		ENSU5	Sustainable grow
		ENSU6	Exceeding business goals

Source: Adapted from World Economic Forum (2013), Akgün et al. (2008); Ellinger et al. (2002); Hormiga et al. (2011).

Table 2. Demographic data

Demographic Categories		Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	119	59.5
	Female	81	40.5
Age	18–24	6	3.0
	25–34	61	30.5
	35–44	80	40.0
	45–54	49	24.5
	Above 55	4	2.0
Education level	High School	22	11.0
	College	47	23.5
	University	99	49.5
	Postgraduate	32	16.0
Income	Less than 1 billion VND	48	24.0
	2–3 billion VND	72	36.0
	4–5 billion VND	40	20.0
	More than 5 billion VND	40	20.0
Age of firms	Less than 1 year	43	21.5
	2–3 years	78	39.0
	4–5 years	39	19.5
	5 years	1	0.5
	More than 6 years	39	19.5
Fields	Industry	57	28.5
	Trading and Service	72	36.0
	High Technology	9	4.5
	Real Estate/Construction	18	9.0
	Others	44	22.0
Firms size (number of employees)	Less than 10 employees	92	46.0
	11–20 employees	54	27.0
	21–40 employees	31	15.5
	More than 40 employees	23	11.5

Source: Author owns calculation.

Table 4. Fornell-Larcker criterion analysis

	ACMA	CUSUP	EDUTRA	ENSU	ENRE	ENLE	REFRA	SUSY	HUCA
ACMA	0.779
CUSUP	0.377	0.818
EDUTRA	0.465	0.606	0.790
ENSU	0.443	0.284	0.381	0.779
ENRE	0.542	0.422	0.578	0.563	0.761
ENLE	0.550	0.426	0.482	0.505	0.576	0.795
REFRA	0.382	0.598	0.591	0.366	0.438	0.439	0.869
SUSY	0.486	0.486	0.642	0.532	0.613	0.504	0.553	0.769
HUCA	0.339	0.314	0.526	0.464	0.403	0.433	0.319	0.538	0.802

Source: Author own calculation, based on SmartPLS 3.0 program.

Table 3. Internal consistency

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE
ENLE	0.805	0.872	0.632
ENRE	0.759	0.846	0.580
ENSU	0.870	0.902	0.607
ACMA	0.678	0.815	0.596
HUCA	0.722	0.844	0.643
SUSY	0.770	0.851	0.588
EDUTRA	0.849	0.892	0.623
REFRA	0.837	0.902	0.754
CUSUP	0.836	0.888	0.667

Source: Author own calculation, based on SmartPLS 3.0 program.

Table 5. Path coefficient and hypotheses testing result

Hypothesises	Direct Effects Model		Path Coefficients	P-value	Results
H1	Organisational Learning -> Entrepreneurial Success		0.158	0.043	Supported
H2	Organisational Creativity -> Entrepreneurial Success		0.304	0.000	Supported
H3	Organisational Learning -> Organisational Creativity		0.249	0.001	Supported
H4	Entrepreneurial Ecosystem -> Organisational Learning	H4a - Accessible Markets	0.342	0.000	Supported
		H4b - Cultural Support	0.100	0.288	Rejected
		H4c - Education and Training	0.034	0.727	Rejected
		H4d - Regulatory Framework	0.111	0.228	Rejected
		H4e - Support System	0.112	0.155	Rejected
		H4f - Workforce	0.172	0.006	Supported
H5	Entrepreneurial Ecosystem -> Entrepreneurial Success	H5a - Accessible Markets	0.091	0.227	Rejected
		H5b - Cultural Support	−0.062	0.410	Rejected
		H5c - Education and Training	−0.165	0.102	Rejected
		H5d - Regulatory Framework	0.081	0.309	Rejected
		H5e - Support System	0.194	0.035	Supported
		H5f - Workforce	0.218	0.001	Supported
H6	Entrepreneurial Ecosystem -> Organisational Creativity	H6a - Accessible Markets	0.181	0.003	Supported
		H6b - Cultural Support	−0.005	0.951	Rejected
		H6c - Education and Training	0.217	0.024	Supported
		H6d - Regulatory Framework	−0.016	0.826	Rejected
		H6e - Support System	0.283	0.001	Supported
		H6f - Workforce	−0.024	0.729	Rejected

Source: Author owns calculation, based on SmartPLS 3.0 program.

Figure 1. Result of research framework.

Source: Author owns conception, based on research question.

Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2008). The moderating role of environmental dynamism between firm emotional capability and performance. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 21(2), 230–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810810856453

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organisation concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1010

 Google Scholar

Hormiga, E., Batista‐Canino, R. M., & Sánchez‐Medina, A. (2011). The impact of relational capital on the success of new business start‐ups. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(4), 617–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2011.00339.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar