Facilitating first year students’ engagement with planning education : utilising student affinity for technology to increase cohort cohesion and decrease attrition

First year students overwhelmingly indicate that a strong interest in a field of study prompts them to enrol in university (McInnis et al 2000), yet over a quarter indicate that they have seriously considered dropping out of studies during their first year, with boredom most frequently cited by those domestic students who do depart before graduation (Coates and Ransom 2011). While it may be comforting to write off such withdrawals to the presumed apathy of youth, student “disquiet (in) their first year on campus may be a result of courses and institutions that do not match their needs and objectives, rather than any uncertainty or lack of purpose on their part” (James et al 1999). Voting with their mouse clicks, The current research investigate two conceptualized types of student participation in online discussion forums to increase understanding of student affinity for technology and its potential for fostering social network development amongst first year students.

Business planning, idea change, flexibility and performance: the best of both worlds?

The relationships between business planning and performance have divided the entrepreneurship research community for decades (Brinckmann et al, 2010). One side of this debate is the assumption that business plans may lock the firm in a specific direction early on, impede the firm to adapt to the changing market conditions (Dencker et al., 2009) and eventually, cause escalation of commitments by introducing rigidity (Vesper, 1993). Conversely, feedback received from the production and presentation of business plans may also lead the firm to take corrective actions. However, the mechanisms underlying the relationships between changes in business ideas, business plans and the performance of nascent firms are still largely unknown. While too many business idea changes may confuse stakeholders, exhaust the firm’s resources and hinder the undergoing legitimization process, some flexibility during the early stages of the venture may be beneficial to cope with the uncertainties surrounding new venture creation (Knight, 1921; March, 1982; Stinchcombe, 1965; Weick, 1979). Previous research has emphasized adaptability and flexibility as key success factors through effectual logic and interaction with the market (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2007) or improvisation and trial-and-error (Miner et al, 2001). However, those studies did not specifically investigate the role of business planning. Our objective is to reconcile those seemingly opposing views (flexibility versus rigidity) by undertaking a more fine-grained analysis at the relationships between business planning and changes in business ideas on a large longitudinal sample of nascent firms.

The underlying rationale for planning: do nascent and young firms do what they say they do?

Previous studies investigating the relationships between business planning and performance have led to inconclusive results (Brinckmann et al., 2010; Delmar & Shane, 2003; Frese, 2009; Gruber, 2007; Honig & Karlsson, 2004). Institutional theory argues that firms develop business plans as an answer to external and internal pressures to gain legitimization (Delmar & Shane, 2004) and funding from different stakeholders (Karlsson & Honig, 2009). Action theory suggests that planning will pave the new venture creation journey by providing milestones and a program to implement (Frese, 2009). However, studies with an institutional perspective imply that nascent firms are either conforming to or looking for the benefits of these external or internal pressures (Karlsson & Honig, 2009) while action theory assumes that the plans will be implemented (Frese, 2009). This paper attempts to (i) investigate if the intended uses of the business plans provided by nascent and young firms match their actual uses during their venture creation process and (ii) to examine how the types of uses of business plans impact the firms’ outcomes over three years.