IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sol/wpaper/2013-92208.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Financial Backers Expect from Business Plans: Effectual Versus Causal Logic

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier Daxhelet
  • Olivier Witmeur

Abstract

Aim of the Paper For years, business planning (BP) has played a central role in the teaching and practice of new venture creation. However, existing research has provided us with mixed results about its usefulness. Part of the argument against BP is that it relies on top-down logic while emerging bottom-up logic may be more relevant. Sarasvathy (2001) proposed that successful entrepreneurs tend to be effectual rather than causal. Sarasvathy & Wiltbank (2002) also suggested that business angels (BA) and venture capitalists (VC) tend to be more effectual than causal and should then pay less attention to BP. This paper has two objectives. It first checks to what extent different kinds of financial backers (i.e. BA, VC, and bankers) are generally causal or effectual in their thinking when they analyze new ventures. It then clarifies how greatly the content of the business plan prepared by an entrepreneur differs from one type of financial backer. Contribution to the literature This paper advances the literature on the use of BP, especially when entrepreneurs are searching for financial backing. It contributes to a better understanding of the expectations of different financial backers. This paper also clarifies under which conditions a traditional business plan is relevant to achieve financing and defines the type of critical information that must be included in the plan. Methodology The research in this paper is qualitative. We relied on in-depth structured interviews of eight Belgian financial backers: three commercial bankers, three VC, and two BA. The interviews followed a systematic and replicable model, which included the “venturing experience” developed by Sarasvathy & al. (2001). Results and Implications The three different types of financial backers, commercial bankers, venture capitalists (VC), and business angels (BA), all have clear distinctions that separate them from each other. Bas are more effectual than VCs, whereas commercial bankers are more causal. In addition, the content of the expected business plan usually differs between financial backers. BA and VC pay more attention to the entrepreneur, while commercial bankers pay more attention to financials and the plan itself. From a theoretical point of view, the research confirms the importance of adopting a contingent approach when analyzing the expectations and behavior of financial backers and what they mean by BP. For practitioners, the research contributes to the discussion about the usefulness of BP and confirms that it is not the time to ‘burn business plans’ since all financial backers are still willing to receive one. However, the results indicate that the time has come for the content of business plans to evolve in order to remain relevant.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier Daxhelet & Olivier Witmeur, 2011. "What Financial Backers Expect from Business Plans: Effectual Versus Causal Logic," Working Papers CEB 11-029, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:sol:wpaper:2013/92208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/92208/1/wp11029.pdf
    File Function: wp11029
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ardichvili, Alexander & Cardozo, Richard & Ray, Sourav, 2003. "A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 105-123, January.
    2. J. Scott Armstrong, 1982. "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of empirical research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 197-211, July.
    3. J. Scott Armstrong, 1986. "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Reply," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 183-185, March.
    4. Peter J. Brews & Michelle R. Hunt, 1999. "Learning to plan and planning to learn: resolving the planning school/learning school debate," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(10), pages 889-913, October.
    5. David Kirsch & Brent Goldfarb & Azi Gera, 2009. "Form or substance: the role of business plans in venture capital decision making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 487-515, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mayer-Haug, Katrin & Read, Stuart & Brinckmann, Jan & Dew, Nicholas & Grichnik, Dietmar, 2013. "Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance: A meta-analytic investigation of SMEs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1251-1273.
    2. Brinckmann, Jan & Grichnik, Dietmar & Kapsa, Diana, 2010. "Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance relationship in small firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 24-40, January.
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott & Reibstein, David J., 1985. "Evidence on the Value of Strategic Planning in Marketing: How Much Planning Should a Marketing Planner Plan?," MPRA Paper 81680, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Gregory A. Baker & Joel K. Leidecker, 2001. "Does it pay to plan?: Strategic planning and financial performance," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 355-364.
    5. Gruber, Marc, 2007. "Uncovering the value of planning in new venture creation: A process and contingency perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 782-807, November.
    6. Giovanna Mariani & Davide Morelli & Leonardo Bartoloni, 2019. "Managing uncertainty in the start-up environment. Is a business plan an incentive or a limitation?," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(1), pages 73-96.
    7. Phillips, Jon C. & Peterson, H. Christopher, 1999. "Strategic Planning And Firm Performance: A Proposed Theoretical Model For Small Agribusiness Firms," Staff Paper Series 11685, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    8. Armstrong, J. Scott, 1983. "Strategic Planning and Forecasting Fundamentals," MPRA Paper 81682, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Juita-Elena Yusuf, 2012. "A tale of two exits: nascent entrepreneur learning activities and disengagement from start-up," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 783-799, October.
    10. Christian Hopp & Francis J. Greene & Benson Honig & Tomas Karlsson & Mikael Samuelsson, 2018. "Revisiting the influence of institutional forces on the written business plan: a replication study," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 361-398, November.
    11. Titus Jr., Varkey K. & Covin, Jeffrey G. & Slevin, Dennis P., 2011. "Aligning strategic processes in pursuit of firm growth," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(5), pages 446-453, May.
    12. Armstrong, J. Scott, 1991. "Strategic Planning Improves Manufacturing Performance," MPRA Paper 81677, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Stefanie De Bruyckere & Patricia Everaert, 2021. "The Role of the External Accountant in Business Planning for Starters: Perspective of the Self-Determination Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-24, March.
    14. Dibrell, Clay & Craig, Justin B. & Neubaum, Donald O., 2014. "Linking the formal strategic planning process, planning flexibility, and innovativeness to firm performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 2000-2007.
    15. Stevenson, Regan M. & Ciuchta, Michael P. & Letwin, Chaim & Dinger, Jenni M. & Vancouver, Jeffrey B., 2019. "Out of control or right on the money? Funder self-efficacy and crowd bias in equity crowdfunding," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 348-367.
    16. Magdalena Markowska & Dietmar Grichnik & Jan Brinckmann & Diana Kapsa, 2019. "Strategic orientations of nascent entrepreneurs: antecedents of prediction and risk orientation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 859-878, December.
    17. Ferdinand Thies & Sören Wallbach & Michael Wessel & Markus Besler & Alexander Benlian, 2022. "Initial coin offerings and the cryptocurrency hype - the moderating role of exogenous and endogenous signals," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1691-1705, September.
    18. Antje Schmitt & Kathrin Rosing & Stephen X. Zhang & Michael Leatherbee, 2018. "A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Uncertainty and Business Opportunity Identification: Exploration as a Mediator and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as a Moderator," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 42(6), pages 835-859, November.
    19. Wei, Lihong & Zhang, Xiaosan & Yang, Muhan & Lin, Liming, 2024. "Understanding the relationship between entrepreneur courage quotient and enterprises' sustainable growth," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Krane, Ronja & Eulerich, Marc, 2020. "Going global: Factors influencing the internationalization of the internal audit function," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sol:wpaper:2013/92208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cebulbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.