We integrate opportunity evaluation reasoning with affordance theory to develop a nuanced theoretical model of action orientation in entrepreneurial decision-making. We test our model with a conjoint experiment of 864 decisions made by 54 corporate venture capital (CVC) managers evaluating digital ventures for investment. Our findings provide evidence that CVC managers value two sources of digital affordances: the recombinability and the reprogrammability of digital technologies. The results show that CVC managers individuate affordance-based investment opportunities based on their personal and organizational background. We contribute to a fine-grained understanding of action potentials in the evaluation of opportunities and advance affordance theory through a cognitive judgment perspective.
AguinisH.GottfredsonR. K.CulpepperS. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1490–1528.
2.
Aiman-SmithL.ScullenS. E.BarrS. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: A tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 388–414.
3.
AmitR.HanX. (2017). Value creation through novel resource configurations in a digitally enabled world. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 228–242.
4.
AnokhinS.PeckS.WincentJ. (2016). Corporate venture capital: The role of governance factors. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4744–4749.
5.
ArtingerS.PowellT. C. (2016). Entrepreneurial failure: Statistical and psychological explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), 1047–1064.
6.
AutioE.DahlanderL.FrederiksenL. (2013). Information exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: An investigation of an online user community. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1348–1371.
7.
AutioE.NambisanS.ThomasL. D. W.WrightM. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.
8.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
9.
BasuS.PhelpsC. C.KothaS. (2011). Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2), 153–171.
10.
BasuS.PhelpsC. C.KothaS. (2016). Search and integration in external venturing: An inductive examination of corporate venture capital units. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(2), 129–152.
11.
BehrensJ.PatzeltH. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship managers’ project terminations: Integrating portfolio–level, individual–level, and firm–level effects. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 815–842.
12.
BlauG. (1999). Early-career job factors influencing the professional commitment of medical technologists. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 687–695.
13.
BusenbarkJ. R.GraffinS. D.CampbellR. J.LeeE. Y. (2022). A marginal effects approach to interpreting main effects and moderation. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 147–169.
14.
BygstadB.MunkvoldB. E.VolkoffO. (2016). Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: A framework for critical realist data analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 31(1), 83–96.
15.
ChesbroughH. (2002). Making sense of corporate venture capital. Harvard Business Review, 80(3), 90–99.
16.
ChrzanK. (1994). Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 5, 165–172.
17.
Di LorenzoF.Van de VrandeV. (2019). Tapping into the knowledge of incumbents: The role of corporate venture capital investments and inventor mobility. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1), 24–46.
18.
DokkoG.GabaV. (2012). Venturing into new territory: Career experiences of corporate venture capital managers and practice variation. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 563–583.
19.
D’OriaL.CrookT. R.KetchenD. J.Jr.SirmonD. G.WrightM. (2021). The evolution of resource-based inquiry: A review and meta-analytic integration of the strategic resources–actions–performance pathway. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1383–1429.
20.
DoughertyD. (1992). Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.
21.
DroverW.BusenitzL.MatusikS.TownsendD.AnglinA.DushnitskyG. (2017). A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: Venture capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1820–1853.
22.
DroverW.WoodM. S.ZacharakisA. L. (2017). Attributes of angel and crowdfunded investments as determinants of VC screening decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 323–347.
23.
DushnitskyG.LenoxM. J. (2005). When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures?: Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy, 34(5), 615–639.
24.
DushnitskyG.ShapiraZ. (2010). Entrepreneurial finance meets organizational reality: Comparing investment practices and performance of corporate and independent venture capitalists. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 990–1017.
25.
DushnitskyG.YuL. (2022). Why do incumbents fund startups? A study of the antecedents of corporate venture capital in China. Research Policy, 51(3), 104463.
26.
EllerR.AlfordP.KallmünzerA.PetersM. (2020). Antecedents, consequences, and challenges of small and medium-sized enterprise digitalization. Journal of Business Research, 112, 119–127.
27.
FitzgeraldM.KruschwitzN.BonnetD.WelchM. (2014). Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 1–12.
28.
FrankeN.GruberM.HarhoffD.HenkelJ. (2006). What you are is what you like—similarity biases in venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 802–826.
29.
FrankeN.GruberM.HarhoffD.HenkelJ. (2008). Venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams: Trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 459–483.
30.
GabaV.MeyerA. D. (2008). Crossing the organizational species barrier: How venture capital practices infiltrated the information technology sector. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 976–998.
31.
GarudR.JainS.TuertscherP. (2008). Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organization Studies, 29(3), 351–371.
32.
GibsonJ. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In ShawR.BransfordJ. (Ed.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Erlbaum.
33.
GiustizieroG.KretschmerT.SomayaD.WuB. (2022). Hyperspecialization and hyperscaling: A resource-based theory of the digital firm. Strategic Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3365
GruberM.KimS. M.BrinckmannJ. (2015). What is an attractive business opportunity? An empirical study of opportunity evaluation decisions by technologists, managers, and entrepreneurs. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(3), 205–225.
36.
HahnG.ShapiroS. (1966). A catalogue and computer program for the design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional factorial designs. General Electric Corporation.
37.
HaynieJ. M.ShepherdD. A.McMullenJ. S. (2009). An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 337–361.
38.
HelfatC. E.EisenhardtK. M. (2004). Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1217–1232.
39.
HenningssonS.KettingerW. J.ZhangC.VaidyanathanN. (2021). Transformative rare events: Leveraging digital affordance actualisation. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(2), 137–156.
40.
HillS. A.BirkinshawJ. (2014). Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1899–1931.
41.
HillS. A.MaulaM. V. J.BirkinshawJ. M.MurrayG. C. (2009). Transferability of the venture capital model to the corporate context: Implications for the performance of corporate venture units. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(1), 3–27.
42.
HoenigD.HenkelJ. (2015). Quality signals? The role of patents, alliances, and team experience in venture capital financing. Research Policy, 44(5), 1049–1064.
43.
HollandD. V.ShepherdD. A. (2013). Deciding to persist: Adversity, values, and entrepreneurs’ decision policies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 331–358.
44.
HuangJ.HenfridssonO.LiuM. J.NewellS. (2017). Growing on steroids: Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 301–314.
45.
JeonE.MaulaM. V. J. (2022). Progress toward understanding tensions in corporate venture capital: A systematic review. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(4), 106226.
46.
KallinikosJ.AaltonenA.MartonA. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357–370.
47.
KeilT.AutioE.GeorgeG. (2008). Corporate venture capital, disembodied experimentation and capability development. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1475–1505.
48.
KeilT.MaulaM. V. J.WilsonC. (2010). Unique resources of corporate venture capitalists as a key to entry into rigid venture capital syndication networks. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 83–103.
49.
KleinertS.BaferaJ.UrbigD.VolkmannC. K. (2021). Access denied: How equity crowdfunding platforms use quality signals to select new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1626–1657.
50.
KraaijenbrinkJ.SpenderJ.-C.GroenA. J. (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372.
51.
LeonardiP. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.
52.
LohrkeF. T.HollowayB. B.WoolleyT. W. (2010). Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research: A review and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 16–30.
53.
LyytinenK.YooY.BolandR. J.Jr. (2016). Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal, 26(1), 47–75.
54.
MajchrzakA.MarkusM. L. (2013). Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS). In KesslerE. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 832–835). SAGE Publications.
55.
MalhotraA.MajchrzakA.LyytinenK. (2021). Socio-technical affordances for large-scale collaborations: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organization Science, 32(5), 1371–1390.
56.
MarvelM. R.DavisJ. L.SproulC. R. (2016). Human capital and entrepreneurship research: A critical review and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 599–626.
57.
MarvelM. R.LumpkinG. T. (2007). Technology entrepreneurs’ human capital and its effects on innovation radicalness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 807–828.
58.
MaulaM. V. J. (2007). Corporate venture capital as a strategic tool for corporations. In LandströmH. (Ed.), Handbook of research on venture capital (pp. 371–392). Edward Elgar Publishing.
59.
MaulaM. V. J.AutioE.MurrayG. (2005). Corporate venture capitalists and independent venture capitalists: What do they know, who do they know and should entrepreneurs care?Venture Capital, 7(1), 3–21.
60.
MaulaM. V. J.AutioE.MurrayG. C. (2009). Corporate venture capital and the balance of risks and rewards for portfolio companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 274–286.
61.
MaulaM. V. J.KeilT.ZahraS. A. (2013). Top management’s attention to discontinuous technological change: Corporate venture capital as an alert mechanism. Organization Science, 24(3), 926–947.
62.
McMullenJ. S.ShepherdD. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
63.
MitchellJ. R.ShepherdD. A. (2010). To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 138–154.
64.
MurnieksC. Y.HaynieJ. M.WiltbankR. E.HartingT. (2011). ‘I like how you think’: Similarity as an interaction bias in the investor-entrepreneur dyad. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1533–1561.
65.
NambisanS. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055.
66.
NambisanS.WrightM.FeldmanM. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8), 103773.
67.
NasonR. S.WiklundJ. (2018). An assessment of resource-based theorizing on firm growth and suggestions for the future. Journal of Management, 44(1), 32–60.
68.
NormanD. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.
69.
OsterE. (2019). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(2), 187–204.
70.
PalichL. E.BagbyR. D. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 425–438.
71.
PenroseE. (1955). Limits to the growth and size of firms. American Economic Review, 45(2), 531–543.
72.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
SchadeP.SchuhmacherM. C. (2022). Digital infrastructure and entrepreneurial action-formation: A multilevel study. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(5), 106232.
76.
SchildtH. A.MaulaM. V. J.KeilT. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 493–515.
77.
ShaneS.VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
78.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–28.
79.
ShepherdD. A. (2011). Multilevel entrepreneurship research: Opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision making. Journal of Management, 37(2), 412–420.
80.
ShepherdD. A.WilliamsT. A.PatzeltH. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46.
81.
ShepherdD. A.ZacharakisA. L. (1997). Conjoint analysis: A window of opportunity for entrepreneurship research. In KatzJ. A.BrockhausR. H. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 203–248). Emerald Publishing.
82.
ShepherdD. A.ZacharakisA. L. (1999). Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital, 1(3), 197–217.
83.
SmithS. W.ShahS. K. (2013). Do innovative users generate more useful insights? An analysis of corporate venture capital investments in the medical device industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 151–167.
84.
SouitarisV.ZerbinatiS. (2014). How do corporate venture capitalists do deals? An exploration of corporate investment practices. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(4), 321–348.
85.
SouitarisV.ZerbinatiS.LiuG. (2012). Which iron cage? Endo- and exoisomorphism in corporate venture capital programs. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 477–505.
86.
StrebulaevI. A.WangA. (2021). Organizational structure and decision-making in corporate venture capital. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3963514
87.
StrongD. M.VolkoffO.JohnsonS. A.PelletierL. A.TuluB.Bar-OnI.TrudelJ.GarberL. (2014). A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(2), 53–85.
88.
TitusV. K.AndersonB. S. (2018). Firm structure and environment as contingencies to the corporate venture capital-parent firm value relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(3), 498–522.
89.
TumasjanA.WelpeI.SpörrleM. (2013). Easy now, desirable later: The moderating role of temporal distance in opportunity evaluation and exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 859–888.
90.
UzuegbunamI.OfemB.NambisanS. (2019). Do corporate investors affect entrepreneurs’ IP portfolio? Entrepreneurial finance and intellectual property in new firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(4), 673–696.
91.
Van de VrandeV.VanhaverbekeW. (2013). How prior corporate venture capital investments shape technological alliances: A real options approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1019–1043.
92.
Van de VrandeV.VanhaverbekeW.DuystersG. (2011). Technology in-sourcing and the creation of pioneering technologies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 974–987.
93.
VolkoffO.StrongD. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.
94.
VolkoffO.StrongD. M. (2018). Affordance theory and how to use it in IS research. In SteinM.-K.GalliersR. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to management information systems (pp. 223–246). Routledge.
95.
Von BrielF.ReckerJ.DavidssonP. (2018). Not all digital venture ideas are created equal: Implications for venture creation processes. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(4), 278–295.
96.
WadhwaA.KothaS. (2006). Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 819–835.
97.
WadhwaA.PhelpsC. C.KothaS. (2016). Corporate venture capital portfolios and firm innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 95–112.
98.
WalskeJ. M.ZacharakisA. L. (2009). Genetically engineered: Why some venture capital firms are more successful than others. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 297–318.
99.
WangG. (2022). Digital reframing: The design thinking of redesigning traditional products into innovative digital products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(1), 95–118.
100.
WarnickB. J.MurnieksC. Y.McMullenJ. S.BrooksW. T. (2018). Passion for entrepreneurship or passion for the product? A conjoint analysis of angel and VC decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 315–332.
101.
WeberC. (2009). Corporate venture capitalists with a ‘bird’s-eye view’—a dynamic social network perspective. Schmalenbach Business Review, 61(2), 195–224.
102.
WeberC.BaukeB.RaibuletV. (2016). An empirical test of the relational view in the context of corporate venture capital. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(3), 274–299.
103.
WilliamsD. W.WoodM. S. (2015). Rule-based reasoning for understanding opportunity evaluation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2), 218–236.
104.
WoodM. S.McKelvieA. (2015). Opportunity evaluation as future focused cognition: Identifying conceptual themes and empirical trends. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 256–277.
105.
WoodM. S.McKelvieA.HaynieJ. M. (2014). Making it personal: Opportunity individuation and the shaping of opportunity beliefs. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 252–272.
106.
WoodM. S.WilliamsD. W. (2014). Opportunity evaluation as rule-based decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 573–602.
107.
YooY. (2013). The tables have turned: How can the information systems field contribute to technology and innovation management research?Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 14(5), 227–236.
108.
YooY.HenfridssonO.LyytinenK. (2010). Research commentary: The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.
109.
ZacharakisA. L.McMullenJ. S.ShepherdD. A. (2007). Venture capitalists’ decision policies across three countries: An institutional theory perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 691–708.
110.
ZacharakisA. L.MeyerG. (1998). A lack of insight: Do venture capitalists really understand their own decision process?Journal of Business Venturing, 13(1), 57–76.
111.
ZacharakisA. L.ShepherdD. A. (2001). The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists’ decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 311–332.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
