Knowledge sharing in virtual communities

The Internet has transformed the scope, boundaries and dynamics of social and economic interactions. It is argued to have broadened the notion of the community from physical, colocated groups towards collectives that are able to transcend time and space, i.e. virtual communities. Even if virtual communities have been on the academic agenda for a couple of decades, there is still surprisingly little research on knowledge sharing within them. In addition, prior research has largely neglected the complex dynamics between Internet-based communication channels and the surrounding communities in which they are embedded. This thesis aims at building a better understanding of knowledge sharing supported by conversational technologies in intra-organisational virtual communities and external virtual communities supporting relationships with customers. The focus is thus on knowledge sharing in types of virtual communities that seem to be of relevance to business organisations. The study consists of two parts. The first part introduces the research topic and discusses the overall results. The second part comprises seven research publications. Qualitative research methods are used throughout the study. The results of the study indicate that investigation of the processes of knowledge sharing in virtual communities requires a socio-technical perspective, combining the individual, social and technological levels, and understanding the interplay between them. It is claimed that collective knowledge in virtual communities creates the enabling structure for knowledge sharing, and forms the invisible structure of the community on the basis of which it operates. It consists of a shared context, social capital and a unique community culture. The Internet does not inevitably erode social interaction: it seems that supporting social relationships by means of communication technology is a matter of quantity rather than quality. In order to provide access to external knowledge and expertise, firms need to open themselves up to an array of Internet-based conversations, and to consider the relevance of virtual communities to their businesses.

First principles modeling of metallic alloys and alloy surfaces

By alloying metals with other materials, one can modify the metal’s characteristics or compose an alloy which has certain desired characteristics that no pure metal has. The field is vast and complex, and phenomena that govern the behaviour of alloys are numerous. Theories cannot penetrate such complexity, and the scope of experiments is also limited. This is why the relatively new field of ab initio computational methods has much to give to this field. With these methods, one can extend the understanding given by theories, predict how some systems might behave, and be able to obtain information that is not there to see in physical experiments. This thesis pursues to contribute to the collective knowledge of this field in the light of two cases. The first part examines the oxidation of Ag/Cu, namely, the adsorption dynamics and oxygen induced segregation of the surface. Our results demonstrate that the presence of Ag on the Cu(100) surface layer strongly inhibits dissociative adsorption. Our results also confirmed that surface reconstruction does happen, as experiments predicted. Our studies indicate that 0.25 ML of oxygen is enough for Ag to diffuse towards the bulk, under the copper oxide layer. The other part elucidates the complex interplay of various energy and entropy contributions to the phase stability of paramagnetic duplex steel alloys. We were able to produce a phase stability map from first principles, and it agrees with experiments rather well. Our results also show that entropy contributions play a very important role on defining the phase stability. This is, to the author’s knowledge, the first ab initio study upon this subject.

Sivistyksestä sivilisaatioon. Kulttuurikäsitys J. V. Snellmanin historiallisessa ajattelussa

From Bildung to Civilisation. Conception of Culture in J. V. Snellman’s Historical Thinking The research explores Johan Vilhelm Snellman’s (1806–1881) conception of culture in the context of his historical thinking. Snellman was a Finnish, Swedish-speaking journalist, teacher and thinker, who held a central position in the Finnish national discourse during the nineteenth century. He has been considered as one of the leading theorists of a Finnish nation, writing widely about the themes such as the advancement of the national education, Finnish language and culture. Snellman is already a widely studied person in Finnish intellectual history, often characterised as a follower of G. W. F. Hegel’s philosophical system. My own research introduces a new kind of approach on Snellman’s texts, emphasising the conceptual level of his thought. With this approach, my aim is to broaden the Finnish research tradition on conceptual history. I consider my study as a cultural history of concepts, belonging also to the field of intellectual history. My focus is on one hand on the close reading of Snellman’s texts and on the other hand on contextualising his texts to the European intellectual tradition of the time. A key concept of Snellman’s theoretical thinking is his concept of bildning, which can be considered as a Swedish counterpart of the German concept of Bildung. The Swedish word incorporated all the main elements of the German concept. It could mean education or the so-called high culture, but most fundamentally it was about the self-formation of the individual. This is also the context in which Snellman’s concept of bildning has often been interpreted. In the study, I use the concept of bildning as a starting point of my research but I broaden my focus on the cognate concepts such as culture (kultur), spirit (anda) and civilisation. The purpose of my study is thus to illustrate how Snellman used and modified these concepts and from these observations to draw a conclusion about the nature of his conception of culture. Snellman was an early Finnish philosopher of history but also interested in the practice of the writing of history. He did not write any historical presentations himself but followed the publications in the field of history and introduced European historical writing to the Finnish, Swedish-speaking reading audience in his newspapers. The primary source material consists of different types of Snellman’s texts, including philosophical writings, lecture material, newspaper articles and private letters. I’m reading Snellman’s texts in the context of other texts produced both by his Finnish predecessors and contemporaries and by Swedish, German and French writers. Snellman’s principal philosophical works, Versuch einer spekulativen Entwicklung der Idee der Persönlichkeit (1841) and Läran om staten (1842), were both written abroad. Both of the works were contributions to contemporary debates on the international level, especially in Germany and Sweden. During the 1840s and 1850s Snellman had two newspapers of his own, Saima and Litteraturblad, which were directed towards the Swedish-speaking educated class. Both of the newspapers were very popular and their circulations were among the largest of their day in Finland. The topics of his articles and reviews covered literature, poetry, philosophy and education as well as issues concerning the economic, industrial and technical development in Finland. In his newspapers Snellman not only brought forth his own ideas but also spread the knowledge of European events and ideas to his readers. He followed very carefully the cultural and political situation in Western Europe. He also followed European magazines and newspapers and was well acquainted with German, French and also English literature – and of course Swedish literature to with which he had the closest ties. In his newspapers Snellman wrote countless number of literary reviews and critics, introducing his readers to European literature. The study consists of three main chapters in which I explore my research question in three different, yet overlapping contexts. In the first of these chapters, I analyse Snellman’n theoretical thinking and his concepts of bildning, kultur, anda and civilisation in the context of earlier cultural discourse in Finland as well as the tradition of German idealistic philosophy and neo-humanism. With the Finnish cultural discourse I refer to the early cultural discussion in Finland, which emerged after the year 1809, when Finland became an autonomous entity of its own as a Grand Duchy of Russia. Scholars of the Academy of Turku opened a discussion on the themes such as the state of national consciousness, the need for national education and the development of the Finnish language as a national language of Finland. Many of these academics were also Snellman’s teachers in the early years of his academic career and Snellman clearly formulated his own ideas in the footsteps of these Finnish predecessors. In his theoretical thinking Snellman was a collectivist; according to him an individual should always be understood in connection with the society, its values and manners, as well as to the traditions of a culture where an individual belongs to. In his philosophy of the human spirit Snellman was in many ways a Hegelian but his notion of education or ‘bildning’ includes also elements that connect him with the wider tradition of German intellectual history, namely the neo-humanist tradition and, at least to some extent, to the terminology of J. G. Herder or J. G. Fichte, for example. In this chapter, I also explore Snellman’s theory of history. In his historical thinking Snellman was an idealist, believing in the historical development of the human spirit (Geist in German language). One can characterise his theory of history by stating that it is a mixture of a Hegelian triumph of the spirit and Herderian emphasis on humanity (Humanität) and the relative nature of ‘Bildung’. For Snellman, the process of ‘bildning’ or ‘Bildung’ is being realised in historical development through the actions of human beings. Snellman believed in the historical development of the human civilization. Still Snellman himself considered that he had abandoned Hegel’s idea about the process of world history. Snellman – rightly or wrongly – criticised Hegel of emphasising the universal end of history (the realisation of the freedom of spirit) at the expense of the historical plurality and the freedom of each historical era. Snellman accused Hegel of neglecting the value and independency of different historical cultures and periods by imposing the abstract norm, the fulfilment of the freedom of spirit, as the ultimate goal of history. The historicist in Snellman believed in the individuality of each historical period; each historical era or culture had values, traditions and modes of thought of its own. This historicist in Snellman could not accept the talk about one measure or the end of history. On the other hand Snellman was also a universalist. He believed that mankind had a common task and that task was the development of ‘Bildung’, freedom or humanity. The second main chapter consists of two parts. In the first part, I explore the Finnish nationalistic discourse from the cultural point of view by analysing the notions such as a nation, national spirit or national language and showing how Snellman formulated his own ideas in a dialogic situation, participating in the Finnish discourse but also reacting to international discussions on the themes of the nation and nationality. For Snellman nationality was to a great extent the collective knowledge and customs or practices of the nation. Snellman stated that nationality is to be considered as a form of ‘bildning’. This could be seen not simply as affection for the fatherland but also for the mental identity of the nation, its ways of thinking, its practices, national language, customs and laws, the history of the nation. The simplest definition of nationality that Snellman gives is that nationality is the social life of the people. In the second part of the chapter I exam Snellman’s historical thinking and his understanding about historical development, interaction between different nations and cultures in the course of history, as well as the question of historical change; how do cultures or civilisations develop and who are the creators of culture? Snellman did not believe in one dominating culture but understood the course of history as a dialogue between different cultures. On the other hand, his views are very Eurocentric – here he follows the ideas of Hegel or for example the French historian François Guizot – for Snellman Europe represented the virtue of pluralism; in Europe one could see the diversity of cultures which, on the other hand, were fundamentally based on a common Christian tradition. In the third main chapter, my focus is on the writing of history, more precisely on Snellman’s ideas on the nature of history as a science and on the proper way of writing historical presentations. Snellman wrote critics on the works of history and introduced his readers to the writing of history especially in France, Sweden and German-speaking area – in some extend also in Britain. Snellman’s collectivistic view becomes evident also in his reviews on historical writing. For Snellman history was not about the actions of the states and their heads, nor about the records of ruling families and battles fought. He repeatedly stressed that history is a discipline that seeks to provide a total view of a phenomenon. A historian should not only collect information on historical events, since this information touches only the surface of a certain epoch or civilisation; he has to understand an epoch as totality. This required an understanding about the major contours in history, connections between civilisations and an awareness of significant turning points in historical development. In addition, it required a holistic understanding about a certain culture or historical era, including also the so-called inner life of a specific nation, a common people and their ways of life. Snellman wrote explicitly about ‘cultural history’ in his texts, referring to this kind of broad understanding of a society. In historical writing Snellman found this kind of broader view from the works of the French historians such as François Guizot and Jules Michelet. In all of these chapters, I elaborate the conceptual dimension of Snellman’s historical thinking. In my study I argue that Snellman not only adopted the German concepts of Bildung or Kultur in his own thinking but also developed the Swedish concepts in a way that include personal and innovative aspects. Snellman’s concept of bildning is not only a translation from ‘Bildung’ but he uses the Swedish concept in a versatile way that includes both the moral aspect of human development and social dimension of a human life. Along with ‘bildning’ Snellman used also the terms ‘kultur’ and ‘civilisation’ when referring to the totality of a certain nation or historical era, including both the so-called high culture (arts, science, religion) and the modes of thought as well as ways of life of the people as a whole. Unlike many of his Finnish contemporaries, Snellman did not use civilisation as a negative concept, lacking the moral essence of German term ‘Bildung’ or ‘Kultur’. Instead, for Snellman civilisation was a neutral term and here he comes close to the French tradition of using the term. In the study I argue that Snellman’s conception of culture in fact includes a synthesis of the German tradition of ‘Bildung’ and the French tradition of ‘civilisation’.

Building organizational creativity – a multitheory and multilevel approach for understanding and stimulating organizational creativity

Organizational creativity is increasingly important for organizations aiming to survive and thrive in complex and unexpectedly changing environments. It is precondition of innovation and a driver of an organization’s performance success. Whereas innovation research increasingly promotes high-involvement and participatory innovation, the models of organizational creativity are still mainly based on an individual-creativity view. Likewise, the definitions of organizational creativity and innovation are somewhat equal, and they are used as interchangeable constructs, while on the other hand they are seen as different constructs. Creativity is seen as generation of novel and useful ideas, whereas innovation is seen as the implementation of these ideas. The research streams of innovation and organizational creativity seem to be advancing somewhat separately, although together they could provide many synergy advantages. Thereby, this study addresses three main research gaps. First, as the knowledge and knowing is being increasingly expertized and distributed in organizations, the conceptualization of organizational creativity needs to face that perspective, rather than relying on the individual-creativity view. Thus, the conceptualization of organizational creativity needs clarification, especially as an organizational-level phenomenon (i.e., creativity by an organization). Second, approaches to consciously build organizational creativity to increase the capacity of an organization to demonstrate novelty in its knowledgeable actions are rare. The current creativity techniques are mainly based on individual-creativity views, and they mainly focus on the occasional problem-solving cases among a limited number of individuals, whereas, the development of collective creativity and creativity by the organization lacks approaches. Third, in terms of organizational creativity as a collective phenomenon, the engagement, contributions, and participation of organizational members into activities of common meaning creation are more important than the individualcreativity skills. Therefore, the development approaches to foster creativity as social, emerging, embodied, and collective creativity are needed to complement the current creativity techniques. To address these gaps, the study takes a multiparadigm perspective to face the following three objectives. The first objective of this study is to clarify and extend the conceptualization of organizational creativity. The second is to study the development of organizational creativity. The third is to explore how an improvisational theater based approach fosters organizational creativity. The study consists of two parts comprising the introductory part (part I) and six publications (part II). Each publication addresses the research questions of the thesis through detailed subquestions. The study makes three main contributions to the research of organizational creativity. First, it contributes toward the conceptualization of organizational creativity by extending the current view of organizational creativity. This study views organizational creativity as a multilevel construct constituting both of individual and collective (group and organizational) creativity. In contrast to current views of organizational creativity, this study bases on organizational (collective) knowledge that is based on and demonstrated through the knowledgeable actions of an organization as a whole. The study defines organizational creativity as an overall ability of an organization to demonstrate novelty in its knowledgeable actions (through what it does and how it does what it does).Second, this study contributes toward the development of organizational creativity as multi-level phenomena, introducing developmental approaches that face two or more of these levels simultaneously. More specifically, the study presents the cross-level approaches to building organizational creativity, by using an approach based in improvisational theater and considering assessment of organizational renewal capability. Third, the study contributes on development of organizational creativity using an improvisational theater based approach as twofold meaning. First, it fosters individual and collective creativity simultaneously and builds space for creativity to occur. Second, it models collective and distributed creativity processes, thereby, contributing to the conceptualization of organizational creativity.

Kun vaan rehtori on korvat auki. Koulun kehittämisellä pedagogista hyvinvointia

Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on tutkia perusopetuksen rehtoreiden käsityksiä siitä, miten rehtori johtaa opettajakuntaansa ja koulua oppivan organisaation suuntaan. Tutkimus etsii vastauksia koulun kehittämisen ja pedagogisen hyvinvoinnin yhtymäkohtiin. Tutkimus on perusopetuksen rehtoreiden keskuudessa Salossa tehty tapaustutkimus, jonka tiedonkeruu ajoittui vuosille 2008–2011. Tutkimuksen ensimmäinen osa oli tulevaisuusverstas (n=14). Verstaan pohjalta tutkimukselle syntyi teoreettinen viitekehys ja aineiston keräämistä jatkettiin puolistrukturoidulla teemahaastattelulla (n=14). Tulokset toimitettiin nettiportaaliin, jossa haastatteluun osallistuneilla rehtoreilla oli mahdollisuus kommentoida analyysia. Kun teoriaohjaava analyysi oli saatettu käsitekarttojen muotoon, rehtorit osallistuivat palauteverstaaseen, missä ryhmäkeskustelujen avulla validoitiin tutkimustuloksia. Tutkimuksen taustafilosofia on fenomenologia: se tutkii rehtoreiden havaintoihin ja kokemuksiin perustuvia käsityksiä tutkimusalueesta. Rehtoreiden käsitykset oman koulunsa osaamisen tasosta perustuivat kokemusperäiseen tunteeseen, joka syntyy oman joukon tuntemisesta. Rehtorit eivät pystyneet järjestelmällisesti selvittämään, millaista osaamista ja osaamisen tarvetta koulussa on. Omaan toimintatapaansa rehtorit liittivät tunneälyn, jonka avulla he kokivat voimaannuttavansa opettajakuntaansa opettajien itsensä ja koko kouluorganisaation kehittämisen suuntaan. Tutkimukseen osallistuneilla kouluilla ei ollut kirjoitettuja kehittämis-suunnitelmia ja -tavoitteita, mutta rehtorit sanoivat sellaisten olevan selvillä heillä itsellään. Rehtorit totesivat, että opettajien täydennyskouluttautuminen on lähinnä opettajien omista motivaatioista lähtöisin eikä se yksittäisenä tapahtumana kehitä koulun kollektiivista osaamista ja oppivan organisaation syntymistä. Varsinaisia toimenpiteitä oppivan organisaation kehittämiseksi ei tehty. Rehtorit kuitenkin katsoivat pedagogisen hyvinvoinnin kokemuksen kehittyvän koulussa. Rehtoreiden käsitysten mukaan esimiehen tuki sekä osaamisen kokemus vahvistavat hallinnan tunnetta, joka toimii hyvinvoinnin kokemuksen lähtökohtana. Pedagogisen hyvinvoinnin kokemukseen liittyy turvallinen ja avoin toimintakulttuuri. Rehtorit kuvailivat toimivansa eri opettajien kanssa eri tavoin. Rehtoreiden mukaan osaaminen, hallinnan tunne ja pedagoginen hyvinvointi muodostavat kolmikannan, mikä noudattaa myös aiempia DCS-teoriaan pohjautuvia tutkimustuloksia hallinnan tunteen ja hyvinvoinnin yhteydestä.

Applying collective intelligence to idea evaluation at the front end of innovation

The study focuses on the front end of innovation process. Due to changes in innovation policies and paradigms customers, users and shopfloor employees are becoming increasingly important sources of knowledge. New methods are needed for processing information and ideas coming from multiple sources more effectively. The aim of this study is to develop an idea evaluation tool suitable for the front end of innovation process and capable of utilizing collective intelligence. The study is carried out as a case study research using constructive research approach. The chosen approach suits well for the purposes of the study. The constructive approach focuses on designing new constructs and testing them in real life applications. In this study a tool for evaluating ideas emerging from the course of everyday work is developed and tested in a case organization. Development of the tool is based on current scientific literature on knowledge creation, innovation management and collective intelligence and it is tested in LUT Lahti School of Innovation. Results are encouraging. The idea evaluation tool manages to improve performance at the front end of innovation process and it is accepted in use in the case organization. This study provides insights on what kind of a tool is required for facilitating collective intelligence at the front end of innovation process.

Creating possibilities for collective creativity : Brokerage Functions in Practice-Based Innovation

In the network era, creative achievements like innovations are more and more often created in interaction among different actors. The complexity of today‘s problems transcends the individual human mind, requiring not only individual but also collective creativity. In collective creativity, it is impossible to trace the source of new ideas to an individual. Instead, creative activity emerges from the collaboration and contribution of many individuals, thereby blurring the contribution of specific individuals in creating ideas. Collective creativity is often associated with diversity of knowledge, skills, experiences and perspectives. Collaboration between diverse actors thus triggers creativity and gives possibilities for collective creativity. This dissertation investigates collective creativity in the context of practice-based innovation. Practice-based innovation processes are triggered by problem setting in a practical context and conducted in non-linear processes utilising scientific and practical knowledge production and creation in cross-disciplinary innovation networks. In these networks diversity or distances between innovation actors are essential. Innovation potential may be found in exploiting different kinds of distances. This dissertation presents different kinds of distances, such as cognitive, functional and organisational which could be considered as sources of creativity and thus innovation. However, formation and functioning of these kinds of innovation networks can be problematic. Distances between innovating actors may be so great that a special interpretation function is needed – that is, brokerage. This dissertation defines factors that enhance collective creativity in practice-based innovation and especially in the fuzzy front end phase of innovation processes. The first objective of this dissertation is to study individual and collective creativity at the employee level and identify those factors that support individual and collective creativity in the organisation. The second objective is to study how organisations use external knowledge to support collective creativity in their innovation processes in open multi-actor innovation. The third objective is to define how brokerage functions create possibilities for collective creativity especially in the context of practice-based innovation. The research objectives have been studied through five substudies using a case-study strategy. Each substudy highlights various aspects of creativity and collective creativity. The empirical data consist of materials from innovation projects arranged in the Lahti region, Finland, or materials from the development of innovation methods in the Lahti region. The Lahti region has been chosen as the research context because the innovation policy of the region emphasises especially the promotion of practice-based innovations. The results of this dissertation indicate that all possibilities of collective creativity are not utilised in internal operations of organisations. The dissertation introduces several factors that could support collective creativity in organisations. However, creativity as a social construct is understood and experienced differently in different organisations, and these differences should be taken into account when supporting creativity in organisations. The increasing complexity of most potential innovations requires collaborative creative efforts that often exceed the boundaries of the organisation and call for the involvement of external expertise. In practice-based innovation different distances are considered as sources of creativity. This dissertation gives practical implications on how it is possible to exploit different kinds of distances knowingly. It underlines especially the importance of brokerage functions in open, practice-based innovation in order to create possibilities for collective creativity. As a contribution of this dissertation, a model of brokerage functions in practice-based innovation is formulated. According to the model, the results and success of brokerage functions are based on the context of brokerage as well as the roles, tasks, skills and capabilities of brokers. The brokerage functions in practice-based innovation are also possible to divide into social and cognitive brokerage.

Collectiveness within startup teams – Leading the way to initiating and managing collective pursuit of opportunities in organizational contexts

While traditional entrepreneurship literature addresses the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities to a solo entrepreneur, scholars increasingly agree that new ventures are often founded and operated by entrepreneurial teams as collective efforts especially in hightechnology industries. Researchers also suggest that team ventures are more likely to survive and succeed than ventures founded by the individual entrepreneur although specific challenges might relate to multiple individuals being involved in joint entrepreneurial action. In addition to new ventures, entrepreneurial teams are seen central for organizing work in established organizations since the teams are able to create major product and service innovations that drive organizational success. Acknowledgement of the entrepreneurial teams in various organizational contexts has challenged the notion on the individual entrepreneur. However, considering that entrepreneurial teams represent a collective-level phenomenon that bases on interactions between organizational members, entrepreneurial teams may not have been studied as indepth as could be expected from the point of view of the team-level, rather than the individual or the individuals in the team. Many entrepreneurial team studies adopt the individualized view of entrepreneurship and examine the team members’ aggregate characteristics or the role of a lead entrepreneur. The previous understandings might not offer a comprehensive and indepth enough understanding of collectiveness within entrepreneurial teams and team venture performance that often relates to the team-level issues in particular. In addition, as the collective-level of entrepreneurial teams has been approached in various ways in the existing literatures, the phenomenon has been difficult to understand in research and practice. Hence, there is a need to understand entrepreneurial teams at the collective-level through a systematic and comprehensive perspective. This study takes part in the discussions on entrepreneurial teams. The overall objective of this study is to offer a description and understanding of collectiveness within entrepreneurial teams beyond individual(s). The research questions of the study are: 1) what collectiveness within entrepreneurial teams stands for, what constitutes the basic elements of it, and who are included in it, 2) why, how, and when collectiveness emerges or reinforces within entrepreneurial teams, and 3) why collectiveness within entrepreneurial teams matters and how it could be developed or supported. In order to answer the above questions, this study bases on three approaches, two set of empirical data, two analysis techniques, and conceptual study. The first data set consists of 12 qualitative semi-structured interviews with business school students who are seen as prospective entrepreneurs. The data is approached through a social constructionist perspective and analyzed through discourse analysis. The second data set bases on a qualitative multiplecase study approach that aims at theory elaboration. The main data consists of 14 individual and four group semi-structured thematic interviews with members of core entrepreneurial teams of four team startups in high-technology industries. The secondary data includes publicly available documents. This data set is approached through a critical realist perspective and analyzed through systematic thematic analysis. The study is completed through a conceptual study that aims at building a theoretical model of collective-level entrepreneurship drawing from existing literatures on organizational theory and social-psychology. The theoretical work applies a positivist perspective. This study consists of two parts. The first part includes an overview that introduces the research background, knowledge gaps and objectives, research strategy, and key concepts. It also outlines the existing knowledge of entrepreneurial team literature, presents and justifies the choices of paradigms and methods, summarizes the publications, and synthesizes the findings through answering the above mentioned research questions. The second part consists of five publications that address independent research questions but all enable to answer the research questions set for this study as a whole. The findings of this study suggest a map of relevant concepts and their relationships that help grasp collectiveness within entrepreneurial teams. The analyses conducted in the publications suggest that collectiveness within entrepreneurial teams stands for cognitive and affective structures in-between team members including elements of collective entity, collective idea of business, collective effort, collective attitudes and motivations, and collective feelings. Collectiveness within entrepreneurial teams also stands for specific joint entrepreneurial action components in which the structures are constructed. The action components reflect equality and democracy, and open and direct communication in particular. Collectiveness emerges because it is a powerful tool for overcoming individualized barriers to entrepreneurship and due to collectively oriented desire for, collective value orientation to, demand for, and encouragement to team entrepreneurship. Collectiveness emerges and reinforces in processes of joint creation and realization of entrepreneurial opportunities including joint analysis and planning of the opportunities and strategies, decision-making and realization of the opportunities, and evaluation, feedback, and sanctions of entrepreneurial action. Collectiveness matters because it is relevant for potential future entrepreneurs and because it affects the ways collective ventures are initiated and managed. Collectiveness also matters because it is a versatile, dynamic, and malleable phenomenon and the ideas of it can be applied across organizational contexts that require team work in discovering or creating and realizing new opportunities. This study further discusses how the findings add to the existing knowledge of entrepreneurial team literature and how the ideas can be applied in educational, managerial, and policy contexts.