1| Page A Study of Entrepreneurship in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uttar Pradesh Thesis Submitted to the University of Lucknow for the Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
4.23 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &
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
1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units 33
1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs 34
1.1.4 Production by MSMEs 35
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
4.2 Self-started Enterprises 149
4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex 151
4.6 Districts of Data collection 154
4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs 159
4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture 169
4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level 172
4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training 183
4.32 Type of Industry/Business 186
4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service 187
4.34 Investment in Enterprises 188
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 (IncludingEntrepreneur)
191
4.39 Causes of Entrepreneurship 194
4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding 209
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding 210
4.53 Most Available Source of Funding 221
4.63 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 234
4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology 247
4.66 Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh 273
4.67 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 277
4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises 288
4.72 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment 312
4.74 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
331
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises 340
23 | P a g e
List of Tables
Tab.No.
Title of Table PageNo.
1.1.1 Profile of Indian MSME Sector 32
1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units 33
1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs 34
1.1.4 Production by MSMEs 34
1.2 Official Definition of MSMEs in India 37
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 &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
4.6 Districts of Data collection 153
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
4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs 159
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
4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level 172
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
4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training 183
4.31Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground
184
4.31.1T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground
185
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
4.37Average 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 Causes of Entrepreneurship 194
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
4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding 208
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding 210
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
4.53 Most Available Source of Funding 221
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 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 233
4.63.1 T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 236
4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology 243
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 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 276
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 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment 310
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
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises 340
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
Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html
Figure: 1.1.2; Growth in Number of MSME Units
Growth in Number of MSME Units
1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs
From Table: 1.1.3 and Figure: 1.1.3 it may be seen that till Financial Year
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
Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html
Figure: 1.1.3; Total Employment in MSMEs
1.1.4 Production by MSMEs
From Table: 1.1.4 and Figure: 1.1.4 it may be seen that till Financial Year
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
Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html
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 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
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 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
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
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,
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 –
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
From the Table: 4.4 & Figure: 4.4 it may be seen that for 450 observed
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
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
Expected Count 74.4 15.6 90.0
TotalCount 372 78 450
Expected Count 372.0 78.0 450.0
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
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
Expected Count 74.4 15.6 90.0
TotalCount 372 78 450
Expected Count 372.0 78.0 450.0
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 & Starting
360
90
Entrepreneurs’ Sex
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
Expected Count 74.4 15.6 90.0
TotalCount 372 78 450
Expected Count 372.0 78.0 450.0
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 & 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
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
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
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
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?
Did enterprise start by self? Total
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
Gautam Budh Nagar 21 4 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
Gautam Budh Nagar 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
Expected Count 48.8 12.2 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 16 7 23
Expected Count 18.4 4.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 153 30 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
GeneralCount 148 35 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
TotalCount 360 90 450
Expected Count 360.0 90.0 450.0
4.12.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs
183
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
Expected Count 48.8 12.2 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 16 7 23
Expected Count 18.4 4.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 153 30 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
GeneralCount 148 35 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
TotalCount 360 90 450
Expected Count 360.0 90.0 450.0
4.12.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs
61 23
183
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)
Other Backward Classes
General
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
Expected Count 48.8 12.2 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 16 7 23
Expected Count 18.4 4.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 153 30 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
GeneralCount 148 35 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
TotalCount 360 90 450
Expected Count 360.0 90.0 450.0
4.12.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)
Other Backward Classes
General
161 | P a g e
From Table: 4.12.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.587a 3 .086
Likelihood Ratio 6.176 3 .103
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.397 1 .065
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
Cramer's V .121 .086
Contingency Coefficient .120 .086
162 | P a g e
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.13 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’First Entrepreneurial Venture
From Table: 4.13 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
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
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)Count 54 7 61
Expected Count 51.4 9.6 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 14 9 23
Expected Count 19.4 3.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 157 26 183
Expected Count 154.1 28.9 183.0
GeneralCount 154 29 183
Expected Count 154.1 28.9 183.0
TotalCount 379 71 450
Expected Count 379.0 71.0 450.0
4.13.1 Hypothesis testing for Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
From Table: 4.13.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.629a 3 .014
Likelihood Ratio 8.530 3 .036
Linear-by-Linear Association .000 1 1.000
N of Valid Cases 450
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 3.63.
4.13.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
From Table: 4.13.2 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 (=.154), Cramer’s V (=.154) and Contingency
Coefficient (=.152) all are very low it implies that besides no statistically
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
Cramer's V .154 .014
Contingency Coefficient .152 .014
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
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.
Your highest educational level * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Total
Yes No
Your highest
educational
level
Illiterate 1 1 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 0 10
Secondary (8th) 25 3 28
High School (10th) 44 17 61
Intermediate (12th) 85 13 98
Bachelor’s degree 108 24 132
Post Graduate 86 9 95
Master’s degree 19 4 23
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
From Table: 4.28 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
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
(technical, professional or functional business skills)
181 | P a g e
Any supplemental, continuing education
or training (technical, professional or
functional business skills)
Total
Yes No
Is this your first
entrepreneurial venture?
YesCount 104 275 379
Expected Count 99.4 279.6 379.0
NoCount 14 57 71
Expected Count 18.6 52.4 71.0
TotalCount 118 332 450
Expected Count 118.0 332.0 450.0
4.28.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining
From Table: 4.28.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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,
Continuing Education or Training
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.843a 1 .175
Continuity Correctionb 1.466 1 .226
Likelihood Ratio 1.938 1 .164
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.839 1 .175
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.62.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
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,
Continuing Education or Training
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .064 .175
Cramer's V .064 .175
Contingency Coefficient .064 .175
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
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
Any supplemental, continuing education or training
(technical, professional or functional business skills)
Total
Yes No
Your highest
educational level
Illiterate 0 2 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 2 8 10
Secondary (8th) 2 26 28
High School (10th) 4 57 61
Intermediate (12th) 20 78 98
Bachelor’s degree 43 89 132
Post Graduate 36 59 95
Master’s degree 11 12 23
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
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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.
118
184 | P a g e
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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.
Yes
No
185 | P a g e
Table: 4.31.1; T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground
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
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.850 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face
environmental problems external to their enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean
is 3.37 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
3) as Test Value, is 10.956 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 a large quantity of small enterprises and a diversity
of economic activity within their geographic area’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.57 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel that there
is a supportive public attitude towards entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.57 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.073 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘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
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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,
is 10.505 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
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
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial
institutions are not willing to finance small entrepreneurs’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.49 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, financial assistance is
available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative
sources of financing on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.599 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘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
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 8.828 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
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
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
allocation/selection and effective and efficient and/or corruption-free
distribution on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against
316 | P a g e
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 7.571 with df (degree of freedom) of
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
the mean is 3.39 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face managerial problems’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 12.896 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to the
governments don’t overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.66 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.487 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘infrastructure
facilities for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are inadequate’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.51 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
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
99% Confidence Interval
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-
financial assistance is available
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
achieved their objectives
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
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
3.32 with Std. Deviation of 1.150.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 strategic planning is 3.00 with Std. Deviation of 1.156
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 strategic planning is 3.47 with
Std. Deviation of 1.076.
319 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 start-up operations is 2.92 with Std. Deviation of 1.275
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 start-up operations is 3.43 with
Std. Deviation of 1.113.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 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.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 finance is 2.90 with Std. Deviation of 1.190 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 finance is 3.51 with Std. Deviation of 1.024.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 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.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
320 | P a g e
management in the feasibility analysis is 3.04 with Std. Deviation of 1.228
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 feasibility analysis is 3.58 with
Std. Deviation of 1.050.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 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 &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis is
3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.133.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 accounting is 2.92 with Std. Deviation of 1.191 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 accounting is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.056.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 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 &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the general management skills is
3.53 with Std. Deviation of .997.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 production is 3.06 with Std. Deviation of 1.214 and mean
rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available & Affordable) for at
321 | P a g e
present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and ability of
your management in the production is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of 1.073.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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 marketing is 2.03 with Std. Deviation of 1.227 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 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
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the strategic planning3.47 450 1.076
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the strategic planning3.00 450 1.156
Pair 3
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the start-up operations3.43 450 1.113
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the start-up operations2.92 450 1.275
Pair 4
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the personnel3.50 450 1.068
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
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
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the finance2.90 450 1.190
Pair 6
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the inventory control / purchasing3.54 450 1.049
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the inventory control / purchasing2.92 450 1.153
Pair 7
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the feasibility analysis3.58 450 1.050
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the feasibility analysis3.04 450 1.228
Pair 8
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis3.49 450 1.133
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis2.82 450 1.228
Pair 9
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the accounting3.52 450 1.056
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the accounting2.92 450 1.191
Pair 10
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the general management skills3.53 450 .997
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the general management skills3.04 450 1.206
Pair 11
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the production3.55 450 1.073
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the production3.06 450 1.214
Pair 12
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the marketing3.49 450 1.131
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
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
99% Confidence Interval
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
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills 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 1.411 .303 .648
Pair 3
At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
.513 1.527 .327 .699
Pair 4
At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
.496 1.464 .317 .674
Pair 5
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
finance - At the time of starting the enterprise,
availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the finance
.607 1.520 .421 .792
324 | P a g e
Pair 6
At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
.622 1.450 .445 .799
Pair 7
At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
.544 1.535 .357 .732
Pair 8
At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
.673 1.458 .495 .851
Pair 9
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills 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 1.462 .419 .776
Pair 10
At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
.496 1.461 .317 .674
Pair 11
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills 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 1.426 .322 .669
Pair 12
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
marketing - At the time of starting the enterprise,
availability of the skills and ability of your
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
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.052 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. 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 developing of a business plan after establishment of
enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .378 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills 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 on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to
5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.148 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
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.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
Test Value, is 7.133 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
326 | P a g e
Level. 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 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.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
Value, is 7.180 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
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 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.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the finance - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the finance on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 8.467 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
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 finance after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .607
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.104 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. 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 inventory control /
purchasing after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .622
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
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
Value, is 7.525 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
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 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.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
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-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.794 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. 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 pro-forma financial analysis after establishment of
enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .673 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the accounting - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
328 | P a g e
management in the accounting on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 8.671 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
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 accounting after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
.598 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
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-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 7.195 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and
affordability of the general management skills after establishment of
enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .496 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills 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 on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.374 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
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 production after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
.496 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the marketing - At the time of
329 | P a g e
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the marketing on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 6.692 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
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 marketing after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
.462 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
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
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
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
At present availability / affordability of assistance 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
.513 7.133 449 .000
Pair 4
At present availability / affordability of assistance 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
.496 7.180 449 .000
Pair 5
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the finance - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the finance
.607 8.467 449 .000
330 | P a g e
Pair 6
At present availability / affordability of assistance 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
.622 9.104 449 .000
Pair 7
At present availability / affordability of assistance 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
.544 7.525 449 .000
Pair 8
At present availability / affordability of assistance 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
.673 9.794 449 .000
Pair 9
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
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
At present availability / affordability of assistance 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
.496 7.195 449 .000
Pair 11
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
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
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the marketing - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability 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
(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
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
(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
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)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
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
(=0/10) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Secondary (8th) educated
entrepreneurs most (=19/28) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)
income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least (=0/28)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs. Among Highschool (10th) passed entrepreneurs most
(=23/61) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
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
(=4/132) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Post Graduate entrepreneurs most
334 | P a g e
(=40/95) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
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
(=4/118) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
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
Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business
skills) * 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
Any supplemental, continuing
education or training
(technical, professional or
functional business skills)
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)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
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)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
up to Rs. 50,000. Among enterprises in Transportation and Public Utilities most
(=15/31) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
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
(=3/85) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among enterprises in Wholesale most
(=11/33) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
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
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
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
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
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
Most available source of funding Total
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
From Table: 4.83 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
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
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
108
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
From Table: 4.83 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
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
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
342
108
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
From Table: 4.83 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
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
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
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
Did enterprise start by self?
YesCount 303 69 372
Expected Count 282.7 89.3 372.0
NoCount 39 39 78
Expected Count 59.3 18.7 78.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
4.83.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprises Started by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.83.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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%
Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
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
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 34.969a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 33.266 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 31.013 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association 34.892 1 .000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.72.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
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’
measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.279),
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
Cramer's V .279 .000
Contingency Coefficient .269 .000
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.84 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as
One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.84 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & 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: 4.84; 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
MaleCount 292 68 360
Expected Count 273.6 86.4 360.0
FemaleCount 50 40 90
Expected Count 68.4 21.6 90.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
343 | P a g e
4.84.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.84.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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%
Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
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
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 25.780a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 24.398 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 23.401 1 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 25.722 1 .000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 21.60.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.84.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having SalesGrowth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.84.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Sex of
entrepreneurs & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives’
measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.239),
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
association is poor.
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
Cramer's V .239 .000
Contingency Coefficient .233 .000
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.85 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise being Entrepreneur’s FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives
From Table: 4.85 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
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
suitable for the data.
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
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
Total
Yes No
Is this your first
entrepreneurial venture?
YesCount 302 77 379
Expected Count 288.0 91.0 379.0
NoCount 40 31 71
Expected Count 54.0 17.0 71.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
4.85.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprise being Entrepreneur’sFirst Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.85.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.867a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 16.610 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 16.080 1 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 17.828 1 .000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 17.04.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
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
Correlation Coefficient (=.199), Cramer’s V (=.199) and Contingency
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
association is poor.
Table: 4.85.2; Strength of Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as
One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .199 .000
Cramer's V .199 .000
346 | P a g e
Contingency Coefficient .195 .000
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
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
(Up to) Primary (5th) 9 1 10
Secondary (8th) 22 6 28
High School (10th) 48 13 61
Intermediate (12th) 70 28 98
Bachelor’s degree 94 38 132
Post Graduate 77 18 95
Master’s degree 19 4 23
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
From Table: 4.87 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
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
Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business
skills) * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
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
Expected Count 89.7 28.3 118.0
NoCount 263 69 332
Expected Count 252.3 79.7 332.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
4.87.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives
From Table: 4.87.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
Enterprises’ Objectives
Chi-Square Tests
348 | P a g e
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.183a 1 .007
Continuity Correctionb 6.526 1 .011
Likelihood Ratio 6.871 1 .009
Linear-by-Linear Association 7.167 1 .007
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 28.32.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
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
Enterprises’ Objectives
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi -.126 .007
Cramer's V .126 .007
Contingency Coefficient .125 .007
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.88 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & Enterprises’ Type ofIndustry/Business
349 | P a g e
Table: 4.88 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of
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
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
Table: 4.89 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of
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
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
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
Table: 4.90 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of
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
Most available source of funding Total
351 | P a g e
Banks Private
investors
Venture
capitalists
Government
loan programs
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
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
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.009) is
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’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.044) is
more 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
establishment of MSMEs is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the economy
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 1.854 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.174) is
352 | P a g e
more 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 due
to uncertainty about the economy is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in choosing a direction for enterprise
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 16.428 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 are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
choosing a direction for enterprise is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to regulations and paperwork between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 14.224 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 are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to regulations and paperwork is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in time management between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 9.037 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.003) is
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
time management is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
353 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to general management skills
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 57.366 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 are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem
related to general management skills is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in customer needs between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 7.328 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.007) is
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 due
to change in customer needs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in obtaining finances between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 22.930 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 are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
obtaining finances is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
354 | P a g e
Value (.000) is 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 due to uncertainty about the political situation is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
(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 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’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding quality of products / services
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 22.536 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 are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem
regarding quality of products / services is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in economic condition
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 18.492 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 are having and who are not
355 | P a g e
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to change in economic condition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to intense competition between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 19.340 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 are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to intense competition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.035) is more 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 cost control is same’ is
‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in educating the workforce between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 1.711 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.192) is
more 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
educating the workforce is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in attracting quality workers between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
356 | P a g e
objectives of their enterprises, is 7.438 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.007) is
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
attracting quality workers is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to productivity between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is .313 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.576) is
more 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
related to productivity is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.006) is 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 due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in competing globally between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 2.225 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.136) is
more 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
357 | P a g e
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
competing globally is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in motivating employees between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is .140 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.709) is
more 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
motivating employees is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.183) is more 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 incorporating new / emerging technologies is same’ is
‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
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
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.983) is more 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 marketing problems is same’ is
‘Failed to Reject’.
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
Within Groups 376.173 448 .840
Total 379.611 449
Uncertainly about the economy
Between Groups 1.662 1 1.662 1.854 .174
Within Groups 401.618 448 .896
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
Taxes, tax laws (including mandated
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
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
14for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
Flexibility in work / family is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
15for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
independence is not an important cause oftheir entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
16for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
learning and personal growth is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
17for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshtest their own ideas is not an important cause
of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
18for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshmoney and wealth is not an important cause
of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
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
21for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
satisfying work relationships is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
22for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
career security is not an important cause oftheir entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
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
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of status and prestige is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
25
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of economic necessity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
26
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of flexibility in work/family is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
27
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of independence is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
28
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
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
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of money and wealth is same’
F Test&
ANOVA.061
Failed toReject
31
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of opportunity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
32
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of recognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.002 Rejected
33
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of satisfying work relationship is same
F Test&
ANOVA.009 Rejected
34
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
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
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of importance of flexibility inwork/family is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
39
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
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
44for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of recognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.006 Rejected
45
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
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
47for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
outside funding / financing is not availablewhen they start the enterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
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
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.282
Failed toReject
50
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of economic necessity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.009 Rejected
51
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of flexibility in work/family is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.909
Failed toReject
52
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of independence is same
F Test&
ANOVA.013 Failed to
Reject
53
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of learning and professional
growth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.006 Rejected
54
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of testing of entrepreneurs’ own
ideas is same
F Test&
ANOVA.162
Failed toReject
55
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of money and wealth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.002 Rejected
56
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of opportunity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.002 Rejected
57
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of recognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.048
Failed toReject
58
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
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
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
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
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of economicnecessity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.003 Rejected
63
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of flexibilityin work/family is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
64
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
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
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of money andwealth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
68
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance ofopportunity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
69
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance ofrecognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.015
Failed toReject
367 | P a g e
70
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
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
T Test .000 Rejected
73entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
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
T Test .000 Rejected
76entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t participate in professional / tradeassociations
T Test .000 Rejected
77entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have business applications of personalcontacts
T Test .000 Rejected
78
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t push themselves and don’t feel realsatisfaction when their work is among the
best
T Test .000 Rejected
79
happenings in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh arenot affected more by entrepreneurs’ abilities,
control and guidance than by externalinfluences
T Test .000 Rejected
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
81entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t respect rules and establishedprocedures as they guide them
T Test .000 Rejected
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
86entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
generally don’t have modest and easilyachievable goals and ambitions
T Test .000 Rejected
87entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not particularly inventive or creative
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
89entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t believe that nothing that life can offer isa substitute for great achievement
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
92entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t get a sense of pride andaccomplishment from their work
T Test .000 Rejected
93entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t get excited creating their own businessopportunities
T Test .000 Rejected
94entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t enter in entrepreneurship by choice butby obligation to ensure livelihood
T Test .000 Rejected
95
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not willing to risk their personal and
family’s material well being for the sake oftheir enterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
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
97for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
an opportunity to beat a competitor in abusiness deal is not a personal thrill
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
100entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
can’t control most situations they findthemselves in
T Test .000 Rejected
101
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think that it’s important to continually
look for new way to do things in theenterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
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)
T Test .000 Rejected
104entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t often approach business tasks in uniqueways
T Test .000 Rejected
105entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t buy insurance every time they travel T Test .000 Rejected
106entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
enjoy being the catalyst for change inbusiness affairs
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
370 | P a g e
109entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t find that they can think better when theyhave guidance and advice from others
T Test .000 Rejected
110
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have doubts frequently about
themselves or their abilities when makingbusiness proposals
T Test .000 Rejected
111entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
are not in total control of their destinyT Test .000 Rejected
112entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t worry about what their businessassociates think about them
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
116entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t thrive in situations which encourage
and reward their creativityT Test .000 Rejected
117entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t need to know the answer before they aska question
T Test .000 Rejected
118
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t judge their work by considering
whether that meets the minimum requirementsfor the task
T Test .000 Rejected
119entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t start their enterprises for doing the kindof work they want to do
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
123
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave not become competent entrepreneur to
achieve long term objectives of theirenterprises in effective and efficient manner
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
125entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in
dealing with their competitors, typicallyresponds to actions which competitors initiate
T Test .000 Rejected
126
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are seldom the firstbusiness to introduce new products or
services, administrative techniques, operatingtechnologies etc.
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
131entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have competitive advantage in serving adistinct and unique market niche
T Test .000 Rejected
132entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have competitive advantage in access tothe market (e.g. location)
T Test .000 Rejected
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
135entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have competitive advantage in offeringlower price than the competition
T Test .000 Rejected
136
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in
providing significantly higher quality than thecompetition
T Test .000 Rejected
137
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in offering
broad product / service lines providingcustomer convenience
T Test .000 Rejected
138
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in
significantly higher levels of customer serviceand support
T Test .000 Rejected
139entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have current, comprehensive anddetailed business plan
T Test .000 Rejected
140entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have detailed job descriptions for any
positionT Test .000 Rejected
141entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have operating procedures in place formost processes within the enterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
146in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands andconsumer tastes are fairly easy to forecast
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
148entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in registration of MSMEsin Uttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
149entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in establishment ofMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
150entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties for their enterprises due
to uncertainty about the economyT Test .000 Rejected
151entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in choosing a direction forenterprise for their enterprises
T Test .000 Rejected
152entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties for their enterprises due
to regulations and paperworkT Test .000 Rejected
153entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in time managementT Test .000 Rejected
154entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding generalmanagement skills
T Test .000 Rejected
155entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties due to change in customerneeds
T Test .000 Rejected
156entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in obtaining finances
T Test .000 Rejected
157entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties due to uncertainty aboutthe political situation
T Test .000 Rejected
158entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties regarding taxes & tax
lawsT Test .000 Rejected
159entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in maintaining quality ofproducts / services
T Test .000 Rejected
160entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding change ineconomic conditions
T Test .000 Rejected
374 | P a g e
161entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding intensecompetition
T Test .000 Rejected
162entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in cost controlT Test .000 Rejected
163entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in educating theworkforce
T Test .000 Rejected
164entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in attracting qualityworkers
T Test .000 Rejected
165entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in maintainingproductivity
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
168entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in motivating employees
T Test .000 Rejected
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
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
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
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
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
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem regarding quality ofproducts / services is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
183
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to change ineconomic condition is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
184
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to intensecompetition is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.004
Rejected
185for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in cost control is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
186
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in educating theworkforce is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
376 | P a g e
187
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
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
193for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
204for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
financial institutions are not willing tofinance small entrepreneurs
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
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
T Test .000 Rejected
208entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
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
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
212
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the strategic planning after establishment
of their enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
213
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the start-up operations after establishment
of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
214
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the personnel after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
215
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the finance after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
216
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the inventory control / purchasing after
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
217
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the feasibility analysis after establishment
of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
218
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the pro-forma financial analysis after
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
219
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the accounting after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
220
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of thegeneral management skills after
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
379 | P a g e
221
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the production after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
222
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the marketing after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
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
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 inestablishment of MSMEs is same
F Test&
ANOVA.044
Failed toReject
229
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 due touncertainty about the economy is same
F Test&
ANOVA.174
Failed toReject
230
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 inchoosing a direction for enterprise is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
380 | P a g e
231
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 due toregulations and paperwork is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
232
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 in timemanagement is same
F Test&
ANOVA.003 Rejected
233
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 relatedto general management skills is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
234
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 due tochange in customer needs is same
F Test&
ANOVA.007 Rejected
235
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 inobtaining finances is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
236
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 due touncertainty about the political situation is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
237
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 problemregarding taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits) is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
238
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 problemregarding quality of products / services is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
239
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 due tochange in economic condition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
381 | P a g e
240
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 due tointense competition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
241
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 in costcontrol is same
F Test&
ANOVA.035 Failed to
Reject
242
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 ineducating the workforce is same
F Test&
ANOVA.192 Failed to
Reject
243
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 inattracting quality workers is same
F Test&
ANOVA.007 Rejected
244
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 relatedto productivity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.576
Failed toReject
245
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 due tolack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same
F Test&
ANOVA.006 Rejected
246
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 incompeting globally is same
F Test&
ANOVA.136
Failed toReject
247
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 inmotivating employees is same
F Test&
ANOVA.709
Failed toReject
248
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 inincorporating new / emerging technologies is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.183
Failed toReject
382 | P a g e
249
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 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
2. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and sex of entrepreneurs
3. There is no significant relationship between the category 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
any supplemental, continuing education or training
7. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and starting enterprise by self
8. There is no significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and
any supplemental, continuing education or training
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
important cause of their entrepreneurship
12. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh status and prestige is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
383 | P a g e
13. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh economic necessity is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
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
important cause of their entrepreneurship
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
important cause of their entrepreneurship
18. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh money and wealth is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
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
important cause of their entrepreneurship
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 not same
24. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of status and prestige is
not same
25. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of economic necessity is
not same
26. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of flexibility in
work/family is not same
384 | P a g e
27. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of independence is not
same
28. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of learning and personal
growth is same
29. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of testing entrepreneurs’
own ideas is same
30. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of money and wealth is
same
31. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of opportunity is not
same
32. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of recognition is not
same
33. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of satisfying work
relationship is not same
34. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of career security is not
same
35. 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 not 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 not same
37. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of economic necessity is not same
38. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of flexibility in work/family is not same
385 | P a g e
39. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of independence is not same
40. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level
of importance of learning and personal growth is not same
41. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level
of importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is not same
42. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
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
44. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of recognition is not same
45. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of satisfying work relationships is not
same
46. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
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
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 not same
49. 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
50. 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 not same
51. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
flexibility in work/family is same
52. 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 same
386 | P a g e
53. 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 not same
54. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar 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
55. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
money and wealth is not same
56. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
opportunity is not same
57. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
recognition is same
58. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
satisfying work relationships is same
59. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
career security is same
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 not 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 not same
62. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of economic necessity
is not same
63. For 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 not same
387 | P a g e
64. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of independence is not
same
65. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of learning and
personal growth is not same
66. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of testing
entrepreneurs’ own ideas is not same
67. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of money and wealth
is not same
68. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of opportunity is not
same
69. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of recognition is same
70. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of satisfying work
relationships is not same
71. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most
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
132. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
access to the market (e.g. Location)
133. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
unique technology of product
134. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
unique technology process or production
135. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
offering lower price than the competition
136. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
providing significantly higher quality than the competition
137. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
offering broad product / service lines providing customer convenience
138. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
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
160. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding
change in economic conditions
161. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding
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
170. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding
marketing problems
171. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in registration of MSMEs is not same
172. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in establishment of MSMEs is not same
173. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the economy is not
same
394 | P a g e
174. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is not
same
175. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to regulations and paperwork is not same
176. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in time management is not same
177. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem related to general management skills is not
same
178. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in customer needs is not same
179. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in obtaining finances is not same
180. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the political
situation is not same
181. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits) is not same
182. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem regarding quality of products / services is not
same
183. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in economic condition is not
same
184. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to intense competition is not same
185. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in cost control is not same
186. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in educating the workforce is not same
187. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in attracting quality workers is not same
395 | P a g e
188. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem related to productivity is not same
189. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers
is not same
190. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in competing globally is not same
191. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in motivating employees is same
192. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging
technologies is not same
193. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
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
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 been
achieved their objectives
207. There is 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 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
212. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the strategic planning after
establishment of their enterprises
213. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the start-up operations after
establishment of enterprises
214. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the personnel after
establishment of enterprises
397 | P a g e
215. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the finance after
establishment of enterprises
216. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the inventory control /
purchasing after establishment of enterprises
217. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the feasibility analysis after
establishment of enterprises
218. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the pro-forma financial
analysis after establishment of enterprises
219. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the accounting after
establishment of enterprises
220. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of the general management skills after
establishment of enterprises
221. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the production after
establishment of enterprises
222. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the marketing after
establishment of enterprises
223. There is significant relationship between the enterprises started by self and
having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives
224. There is significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and
having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives
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
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 not same
228. 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 establishment of MSMEs is same
229. 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 economy is same
230. 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 choosing a direction for enterprise is not same
231. 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 regulations and paperwork is not same
232. 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 time management is not same
233. 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 related to general management skills is not same
234. 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 change in customer needs is not same
235. 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 obtaining finances is not same
236. 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 not same
237. 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 not
same
399 | P a g e
238. 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 quality of products / services is not same
239. 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 change in economic condition is not same
240. 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 intense competition is not same
241. 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
242. 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 educating the workforce is same
243. 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 attracting quality workers is not same
244. 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 related to productivity is same
245. 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 lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is not same
246. 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 competing globally is same
247. 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 motivating employees is same
248. 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 incorporating new / emerging technologies is same
400 | P a g e
249. 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
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
Business Management, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 21-29.
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
Venturing, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 275-91.
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.
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 557-90.
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
Business Review, pp. 74-84.
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
Venturing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 403-19.
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