People often confuses knowledge and information. Knowledge is highly structured network of information. When the structure is changed, we shift to the state of new knowledge. A short common article in a news paper can well change the knowledge of a person.

Innovation is often connected to on-the-edge technology, but innovations are possible in the field where there is no new technical development. Of course, in a matured industry, it becomes difficult to realize an innovation but it is still possible.

Entrepreneurship is based on the new combination of exisiting knowledge,i.e. to find gaps in the market. Knowledge creation and learning is much more connected to managerial intelligence, i.e. to convert and create knowledge into economic value.

entrepreneurship and innovation and knowledge are three different topical circles which have a very strong common interface. Each topic depends very much on the other(s) and vice versa !

If we look what is needed for successful innovation and successful entrepreneurship, it is definitely the knowledge. For innovation: kbowledge of supply/demand gap, how to give "life" to you idea; for entrepreneur: gow to run a business...I think accidental success, without knowledge background is quite rare. You can analyze it from a success rate difference between opportunity and neccesity entrepreneurs.

I agree with Stephen's answer!

Back to my previous posts Brian, entrepreneurship is about taking risks to create a new firm. Innovation does not necessarily depend on entrepreneurship, although if you accept Schumpeterian theory that new venture creation plays a role in increasing productivity through a Darwinian process, then entrepreneurship is the way innovation is brought to market.

You can think of the role of knowledge in all this as a factor endowment along with risk accepting (i.e., counter-rational) behavior.

Interesting topic! Following

Interesting discussion. Following.

Entrepreneurship seems to be an attitude rather than knowledge.

Entrepreneurial attitude is a state of mind that seeks to find a chance (of profit making), take risk, and venture into unknown affairs. A child grown up in a merchant family has this attitude more frequently than a child grown up in a family of an employee or a public servant. Having capital to invest helps a person to start his or her business and gives him or her a better chance to be an entrepreneur.

If you have the entrepreneurial attitude and a small amount of capital to start your business, it is much easier to be a successful entrepreneur than those who know much more than you. Hints to start a business can be a very common information that we read ordinarily in the newspaper. The same information can be a hint for a person who have the entrepreneurial attitude.

In general, Stephen I. Ternyik hit the spot.

Obviously, distinctions must be made.

In the country where I live, entrepreneurship is not based on the flow and transfer of knowledge, but on direct contact with those who manage funding for public subsidies.

The entrepreneur who can directly access this "knowledge" sends the business forward; those who do not have access to such "knowledge" ... cannot be an entrepreneur.

Gioacchino is completely wrong in thinking that entrepreneurs are only people who obtain illegally or legally diverted money. There may be some cases but majority of successful entrepreneurs succeeded by their ingenuity in finding business chances that are not clear for most of ordinary people.

Even if what Gioacchino tells is true, what we should do is to decrease such chances and promote real entrepreneurial activities among ordinary people, without which no real economic development is expected.

Of course, entrepreneurs are not necessarily people close to illegal actions but they may be so. See e.g. the famous and well cited paper by William J. Baumol (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive, in: Journal of Political Economy, 1990, Vol. 98 (5), pp. 893-921.

Stephen I. Ternyik , your answer seems to depict "the new combination of exisiting knowledge" to be different than "Knowledge creation and learning".

Dieter Bögenhold and Mirna Leko-Šimić seem to link knowledge and (strong/ extensive) innovation via knowledge.

Greg Olsen points out both camps.

if would reinterpret the entrepreneurial attitude of Yoshinori Shiozawa as entrepreneurial profession. then, he is much in the same boat/ camp as Stephen.

Gioacchino de Candia is referring to power, and knowledge as one of the sources of power. he also seems to argue for the application of knowledge, rather than the creation of knowledge. still, entrepreneurship as power is an interesting thought.

from the above, i deduce another entrepreneurship dichotomy to add to Dieter's bins/ boxes of entrepreneurship: knowledge application versus knowledge creation, (and degree of learning).

i would have thought that the application/ recombination of knowledge implies learning too, but i now think it is of a lesser degree and different type - must more leaning towards experience building perhaps.

hence, the entrepreneur may be depicted as either the artisan, 'engineer' (metaphorical), or 'professional'/ tradesman, utilizing his existing knowledge and experience, much like any other professional, just in a different way; or more the inventor or creator.

Innovation is something that push beyond the knowledge. Knowledge is necessary but not suficient. It is more important creative way of thinking, finding new unexplored solutions. Entrepreneurship is another stage and his main objective is monetizing, getting profit of innovation. It derive from innovation ( idea and maybe prototipe ) but include testing business process in order to survive on the market.

People often confuses knowledge and information. Knowledge is highly structured network of information. When the structure is changed, we shift to the state of new knowledge. A short common article in a news paper can well change the knowledge of a person.

Innovation is often connected to on-the-edge technology, but innovations are possible in the field where there is no new technical development. Of course, in a matured industry, it becomes difficult to realize an innovation but it is still possible.

Yoshinori Shiozawa , very good answer, and very true. yet, very difficult to place.

if an individual's knowledge base or structure is changed, externally, or that easily (reading a newspaper), did the person actively set out to create knowledge?

i almost want to call this 'luck'. yet, 'luck' is also rather common in entrepreneurship. i think one should also consider the common knowledge base or structure. each haphazard or chance advancement thereof reduces the chance of the next such encounter, such that i would not depend or rely on it. hence, some effortfull knowledge creation is important. also, such instances likely builds on an existing knowledge base or structure - it was relevant due to the person's existing knowledge base or structure.

one can then attach an effort factor to knowledge and knowledge creation to better contextualize it.

This is becoming a very interesting discussion. I wonder why there are we are not more innovative if the new knowledge is created so easily. How to apply new knowledge into innovation?

Knowledge could be personal and general ( humanity ). Personal knowledge is structured but global is less structured. Innovation appear when is restructuring personal knowledge.

A lot of opportunities of innovation will be when global information ( knowledge ) will be structured by AI.

Brian Barnard to me >> did the person actively set out to create knowledge?

Yes, knowledge changes its landscape by a very small trigger. Of course, this does not happen for many people who lives with knowledge given from society or his or her intimate neighbors. The person who can change his or her knowledge must be prepared for the sudden change of his or her knowledge. As I have argued, a good entrepreneur can change his or her knowledge landscape and can find a new meaning or prospectus for new enterprise. For such a person, no on-the -edge technology is not necessary to inaugurate a successful business in a field thought to be already well matured.

Open access to newly created knowledge and innovation is still a missing link for many small entrepreneurs to get involved into the innovation value chain. This is important both for innovation creators and knowledge transmitters. But this is easier said then done.

Nevenka Čučković ,

"Open access to newly created knowledge and innovation"

this implies knowledge application more than knowledge creation.

Mirna Leko-Šimić ,

"I wonder why there are we are not more innovative if the new knowledge is created so easily."

i still think there is a difference in potential between mere knowledge application and knowledge creation. the latter should have far more potential. therefore, one can look at how radical the new knowledge is.

" How to apply new knowledge into innovation?"

i think knowledge created/ creation should be done with the objective of innovation, and with innovation in mind - knowledge creation should be linked to innovation, and should be for innovation. i.e. creating knowledge to innovate. this also implies inquiring and learning, rather than merely stumbling upon (reading the newspaper).

in entrepreneurship, there is the distinction between discovering ideas and seeking ideas. i think it applies to knowledge too. i think seeking may have more potential than discovering. it likely requires more effort.

Rafael Ciloci ,

"Personal knowledge is structured but global is less structured. "

not entirely sure about this. personal knowledge may very well be unstructured when the individual has no real vision, etc, or is uninformed. i would also see global knowledge as including culture, and social and other structures, which is far more structured. many individuals also get stability from such global structures.

Yoshinori Shiozawa ,

"knowledge changes its landscape by a very small trigger."

i am very familiar with this phenomenon, and many entrepreneurs report it. still i think one should consider the probability thereof, and also the diminishing probability thereof. it also represents one of many types of entrepreneurship, meaning there are alternatives to it.

i think one should bring in a) effort, b) novelty, c) learning, when discussing knowledge creation, and consider the combined effect and worth of this. the entrepreneur may (hopefully) be lucky, and stumble upon an idea (that changes his knowledge base for the good), or he may set out to change his knowledge base, such that he can innovate and venture.

few entrepreneurs stumble upon ideas all the time. i think this possibility exhausts easily.

i wonder how many entrepreneurs can seek opportunities, as opposed to stumbling on opportunities.

How one's knowledge is structured must be very important. In The Analects of Confucius, there is a phrase as this:

子曰、学而不思則罔、思而不学則殆。

(Chapter 2, Paragraph 15)

This may be translated as follows:

The teacher said: Even if you learn a lot but if you do not consider what they mean, your knowledge remains in the dark. Even if you think much but if you do not learn widely, your knowledge is not well founded and has a risk to be wrong.

There are many people who know widely but do not know how to use their knowledge.

very radical or innovative or original - however you want to refer to it - questions or problems would have knowledge gaps that the innovator needs to somehow close and solve. this would be innovation driving knowledge creation in a very focused manner. and would require a lot more effort than mere knowledge application

Yes, you are right, Brian Barnard !

Although I have never been an entrepreneur myself, I know very well as an economics theorist that any innovation needs deep understanding of a problem (or not yet well defined problem), good focus and a deep and long concentration. My theory of international values took me more than 30 years until I get a good formulation of the problem I was pursuing.

A person could be less informed, his knowledge could be even primitive, but still structured guided by personal (fundamental) values.

At the same time, global knowledge, represented by different people with different values and expectations will be also different, even contradictory (ex. global warming). Also global knowlege growing is different fields is less interdisciplinary structured.

You can find some answers in the attached article.

Best regards,

Marco