New venture creation remains under-theorised (Clausen 2020; Hoyte et al. 2019; Shepherd, Sattari & Patzelt 2020; Shepherd & Wiklund 2020; Vogel 2017) despite being an important focus area for entrepreneurship scholarship (Davidsson 2015; Shepherd et al. 2019a). This is partly because of the difficulties of fully investigating nascent stage entrepreneurial action (Dimov 2007b; McCann & Vroom 2015). Not only must multiple layers of activations (Davidsson & Gruenhagen 2021; Selden & Fletcher 2015) be understood, but the framing of new venture concepts (Ding 2019) and the creation of new ventures involves a diverse set of activities and resources (Autio, Dahlander & Frederiksen 2013; McMullen & Dimov 2013).

This study examines new venture idea incubation as a venture-establishment competency: One which, when deliberately executed, advances new business activation (Autio et al. 2013; Moroz & Hindle 2012; Wood & McKelvie 2015; Wood & Williams 2014). Building on work conducted by leading scholars (Davidsson 2015; Dimov 2007a; McCann & Vroom 2015; Vogel 2017) it foregrounds the impact of time on the venture opportunity development journey and reveals a trajectory of activations.

These extend from new venture idea (Dimov 2007b; Vogel 2017) through a period of incubation (McCann & Vroom 2015; Shepherd, Sattari & Patzelt 2020) and opportunity shaping (Keh, Foo & Lim 2002; Welpe et al. 2012), until a prospective venture concept emerges (Ding 2019; Selden & Fletcher 2015). The outcome is a theoretical modelling of phases for new venture formation, commencing with a ‘trigger’ (Vogel 2017:6), an entrepreneurial idea, followed by a period of new venture idea development. Subsequent evaluation of a venture concept as feasible and desirable confirms a market facing opportunity for exploitation.

The research aligns with the view that new venture idea incubation is fundamentally iterative (Autio et al. 2013; Dimov 2007b; McCann & Vroom 2015; Shepherd et al. 2019; Wood & McKelvie 2015). Empirical data were captured from seasoned entrepreneurs (Parker 2013) immersed in the process of incubating ideas for developing new ventures. In describing this early business modelling process (Davidsson & Gruenhagen 2021; Leschke 2013), we provide insight into entrepreneur intentions (Dimov 2018).

By exploring the lived experience of idea incubation in new venture creation from the perspective of the founders themselves, the micro-foundations of the process can be described more vividly (Shepherd et al. 2019).

The activities involved in new venture idea incubation have not been substantiated empirically (Clausen 2020; Shepherd 2015). As a result, the process is under-theorised (Davidsson 2020; Shepherd & Suddaby 2017; Suddaby 2010). So far literature has depicted these as an opportunity evaluation activity that is largely cognitive (Williams & Wood 2015; Wood & McKelvie 2015) and iterative (Hunter 2013).

Many scholars have agreed with Bhave (1994) that venture creation takes place in phases over time (Alvarez et al. 2014; Shepherd et al. 2020). However, there has been limited empirical investigation of the exact characteristics of these phases (Clausen 2020; Hjorth, Holt & Steyaert 2015; Morris & Kuratko 2020; Selden & Fletcher 2015).

In tandem, the evidence relating to opportunity evaluation is contradictory. Some studies view such activity as being concerned with new venture idea transformation (Perry-Smith & Mannucci 2015, 2017; Vogel 2017). Others see it as the assessment of venture concept artefacts during the process of determining the attractiveness of the formulated concept (Ivanova, Treffers & Langerak 2018; Vogel 2017). Clarifying contradictions is important but delicate: Especially in the face of tensions over concept clarity (Davidsson 2017; Dimov 2018; Wood 2017).

Our research was impacted by debate over the character and role of opportunity as a phenomenon in entrepreneurship that continues to gather momentum (Davidsson 2017; Dimov 2018; Wood 2017). While not directly attending to the discussion, we agree with the call for a deeper analysis (Davidsson 2015; Dimov 2018).

As a construct, opportunity has been influential in framing perspectives on new venture idea incubation as examined in this research, underscoring the need for clearer definition. Instead the term ‘new venture idea’ was used, first put forward by Davidsson (2015) both for the sake of theoretical continuity (Dimov 2018) and to clearly identify the period of new venture opportunity development (Vogel 2017). By using the label new venture idea incubation, we link our study to other attempts to define and shape opportunity evaluation (Ardichvili, Cardosa & Ray 2003; Autio et al. 2013; Wood & McKelvie 2015), which is relevant to the goals of this research.

Separately, evaluation is conceived as a continuum (Greene & Caracelli 1997). In one sense it is concerned with cognitively construed linkages (Wood & Williams 2014) subjectively framed between and across phenomena (Keh et al. 2002). Primarily driven by personal judgement, these are unique to individuals and coloured by personal idiosyncrasies (Haynie, Shepherd & McMullen 2009; Hsu et al. 2019). An alternate view is that evaluating is a structured process that leads to factually qualified judgements over the characteristics of elements (Ardichvili et al. 2003; Ivanova et al. 2018).

We argue that such elasticity in meaning clouds debate among scholars (Dimov 2018; Shepherd & Suddaby 2017). In navigating this challenge, our stance aligns with scholars who embrace the term new venture idea incubation (Autio et al. 2013; George et al. 2016; Vogel 2017; Wood & McKelvie 2015) to describe iterative activities during the nascent phase of new venture development as a distinctive phase. This approach lends clarity of distinction to this stage from that of venture concept opportunity evaluation, which subsequently ensues (Ardichvili et al. 2003; Vogel 2017).

The main research question that guided this study was: How do entrepreneurs incubate new venture ideas to conceive prospective venture concepts?

The new venture ideas pursued by respondents in this study were diverse. Of the case study entrepreneurs, one was pursuing a shift from consulting marketing tangible products. Another wanted to train and coach aspirant artists to develop entrepreneurial ventures in the arts. The third had a vision for a boutique marketing consulting offering for African firms. The exact nature of product offering and target clients was yet to emerge (Morris & Kuratko 2020). Aspirations founded on perceived opportunity for impactful contribution were the driver of behaviours (Kier & McMullen 2018):

In instances, prior experience-based knowledge influenced choices; for others, interests were captured by professions outside their formal qualifications despite prospects of steep learning curves. As examples, an engineer was intent on film production; an economist on computer gaming while an architect was keen to stimulate small-scale organic vegetable gardening. All had visions of framing viable business models. The instrumental role played by a new venture idea in the formative stages of incubation was evident (Frederiks et al. 2019; Perry-Smith & Mannucci 2017).

Seasoned entrepreneurs (Parker 2013) demonstrated similarities and differences in the enactment of new venture idea incubation (Wood & Mckelvie 2015). The decision to transform a new venture idea into a new venture concept triggers the incubation process (Vogel 2017). The trajectory of the process in progress (Ding 2019; Selden & Fletcher 2015) is marked by emerging artefacts (Davidsson 2020). By making intangible elements more concrete, the entrepreneur builds confidence and assurance in that which is emerging:

Examining the lived experience of new venture idea incubation revealed that respondents engage in activities iteratively examining and re-examining opinions. Multiple techniques were employed. Iteration was expected, planned for and enacted:

Outcomes were expected to be and treated as fluid. The entrepreneurial actor was noticed to be receptive to the opportunity to question and rethink even those aspects that appeared to have been confirmed. This insight led to a first proposition pertinent to this study:

A range of selection behaviours, tools and events drive the entrepreneur’s sense-making of incubation activities:

Actions included frequent engagements with purposefully chosen individuals that could add value in synthesising information and connections. This approach had the effect of drawing in third-party opinion and widening access to others’ lived experiences. There was a certain discipline exercised in documenting ideas and progressions. Drawings, pictures and written notes on paper, digital platforms as well as white boards helped to maintain record. Regular reference to an expanding, tangible record of progress helped to stimulate new thoughts, identify gaps to be filled and even motivate excitement over the incubated idea. The findings informed perspective that new venture idea incubation manifests as an evolving process; a second proposition: a second proposition:

Evaluation of actors engaged in evolving new venture ideas into venture concepts revealed a series of micro processes (Dimov 2018; Hjorth et al. 2015; Shepherd & Suddaby 2017). Entrepreneurs were noticed to weave through different phases that shaped, validated, interpreted and refined activities; progressively evolving new venture ideas into venture concepts. The discussion expands on this finding by describing the character of the nascent phase activations, illustrating how a venture concept emerged as an artefact.

The experienced entrepreneurs examined for this study demonstrated a diversity of practical operations. These included identifying options; thinking out scenarios and discussing the idea in segments and as a whole, verifying perspective. These actions towards shaping artefacts comprised one of two enactments that Vogel (2017) highlights in his framework. Vogel (2017) recognises a period or ‘stage’ (p. 6) within which various processes occur including ‘shaping and refining’ (p. 12).

This enquiry concurs that the term shaping depicts the progression in articulation of an emerging venture concept:

This finding also aligns with the established perspective that a critical aspect of new venture idea incubation is to initiate the journey to make a nascent concept tangible (McCann & Vroom 2015; Shepherd et al. 2019; Vogel 2017). This serves multiple purposes. Firstly, organising minds-eye thoughts motivates the entrepreneur to start to see an idea in physical form. Secondly, respondents reported important effects in galvanising interest towards potential venture development advancements. Clarity of form emerges progressively, substantiating the potential in an idea that could be pursued as a venture (Fisher et al. 2020; Morris & Kuratko 2020). As one respondent pointed out:

A third effect was to centralise focus on a set of specific elements that constitute one’s early impressions of possibility. Although there was recognition that any nascent form is by nature fluid and evolving, this first phase of commitment serves to establish markers of the venture concept under consideration:

The data analysis outcomes of our study revealed a period of validating as new insight into activity pertinent to this phase of new venture idea incubation. This captures activities deliberately pursued to seek out external sources for advice and reassurance. These third-party influences consisted of individuals who had strong connectivity with the entrepreneur and the idea, as well as those with weak ties.

This community was noticed to include: (1) established players in the target field of interest, (2) technical experts, (3) future customers and even (4) individuals for possible collaboration. An important part of these interactions was the scheduling and attending of meetings with a diverse network of contacts. Respondents spoke of actively selecting and pursuing valuable informants to enhance ideas:

Captured data must be absorbed and organised into insights of relevance. Community-related issues can yield large volumes of data that are challenging to synthesise. Interactions with close-tie supporters, expert consultants and even target beneficiaries themselves were pragmatic sources of assistance and often expedite typically hesitant and protracted processing by an entrepreneurial individual acting alone.

Extensive external engagement bolsters the capability to frame sustainable solutions. Respondents pointed out that new solutions ought to be specified with a target beneficiary in mind: individuals most likely to identify with the entrepreneur’s intent. Seeking interaction went as far as setting up events to attract a diversity of prospective stakeholders to participate in discussions and activities that interrogate intentions. The result was an iterative cycle of reviewing and refining perceived propositions incorporating own and others’ views:

As additional validation of accumulated information, entrepreneurs sought out trusted associates to help digest and synthesise insights. These collaborations were prioritised and served to build confidence in new know-how into options for execution and advancement. Incorporating diverse experiences accessible from close-tie relationships, highlights pathways to construct solutions and builds confidence to advance. In all cases, entrepreneurs revealed the need to maintain an open mind and welcome the opportunity to interrogate burgeoning perceptions and vision. However, this process must culminate in decisive judgements to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty.

While they lead and dominate the process, it was clear that seasoned entrepreneurs did not consider venture concept construction to be an individual cognition-dominant activity (Morris & Kuratko 2020). Effective development demands that entrepreneurs engage in contexts, information and others’ perspectives from a diverse range of sources (Seyb et al. 2019a; Shepherd et al. 2020).

Among the top 10 qualities required for effective entrepreneurial activations is ‘flexibility and informality’ (Lau et al. 2012:677). The authors found that associated cognitions from others were as essential as an individual’s personal competencies. Interestingly, particular behavioural competencies are required to capitalise on these. Entrepreneurs must be able to self-regulate and suppress personal egos (Tumasjan & Braun 2012) as well as to capture and respond to what might be contrary feedback.

In this study there was strong evidence to indicate that finding and co-opting potential collaborators for the purpose of testing thinking was a central activity for seasoned entrepreneurs, although different strategies were used (Mugadza 2020):

Apart from the recommendations of external network members, each new venture idea is unique to a particular individual. While underlying incubation processes strongly influence the venture concept outcome, they are equally persuaded by the motivations and personal context of the entrepreneur. The diversity of guidance captured and incorporated by the entrepreneur during new venture idea incubation was not accounted for by the Vogel (2017) framework. This, together with the need to acknowledge reflexivity over personal fit with the new venture concept, is a useful addition to the literature (Mugadza 2020).

Distinctively, incubation activity is characterised by engagement that is coloured by the internal milieu of the engaged actor. Driving motivations, previous experiences, knowledge and personal circumstances all impact the development and form of the venture concept. Significantly, these influences are not always connected to the context of the market. The ways in which insight was prioritised were not consistent or predictable from one entrepreneur to the next:

As endorsed by other scholars (e.g. Hunter 2013), this study confirmed that the early stages of the venture-development process are characterised by personal engagement and consequently personal bias. The idiosyncratic characteristics and context of the individual leaves an indelible mark on the early development of the venture (McMullen & Shepherd 2006; Morris & Kuratko 2020). Personal influence was evident through aspects such as motivations (Fayolle et al. 2014); prioritising venture partnership needs (MacLean et al. 2009); acquiring knowledge competencies from others (Hoyte et al. 2019; Spigel 2017) and even access to resources (Zahra, Sapienza & Davidsson 2006):

The empirical insights from this study revealed that persistent investment of attentions advanced clearer visioning of a desirable venture. With the passage of time, the entrepreneur was able to give a more tangible description of concept artefacts such as a product solution, key resoures and capabilities that would be required to advance:

Vogel (2017) also identified this process of refining. Conscious adaptability and responsiveness in seeking out and incorporating multiple world views is required to embrace change and dynamic contexts (Hunter & Lerner 2018). Notably, iterative assessments of the emergent concept activate deliberate engagement to confirm retained and discarded choices (Gemmell et al. 2011).

Again, it is important to the entrperenuerial actor that the perspectives of others are drawn into the process and this includes those closest to the individual and external stakeholder communities that are less directly involved. Effective entrepreneurial action (Fisher et al. 2020), as highlighted by triangulation of the findings (Ngulube 2015; Reay & Jones 2015), requires diversity in awareness of conceptual and behavioural competencies, which assists in clarifying the new venture concept through embracing information in the development of an iterative process (Hunt & Lerner 2018; Perry-Smith & Mannucci 2017):

This study examined new venture idea incubation; the series of interventions that evolve ideas into venture concepts (Hoyte et al. 2019; Shepherd et al. 2020; Vogel 2017). A foundation was laid by the work into entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation (Mcann & Vroom, 2015). It informed conceptualisation of a series of tightly aligned phenomena that characterise new venture idea incubation. Empirical data from lived experiences of engaged actors provided important evidence for key concepts (Mugadza 2020). Figure 1 maps evolving enactments described in this study to characterise new venture idea incubation. Following lived experience of entrepreneurs provided insight into new venture idea incubation to consist of activities to shape, validate, interpret and refine emerging venture format.

The findings reveal a series of micro-processes that are iterative but not repetitive in occurrence. Phases occur and reoccur with each iteration serving a different purpose and yielding new outcomes that influence direction (Mugadza 2020). Multifaceted repeat interaction with a root idea yields steady advancement through phases of occurrence that were as connected as they are independent of one another. The study found that while occurrence can be patterned (Pettigrew 2013), how the concepts are enacted and re-enacted in practice is unique to an entrepreneurial individual and the milieu of contexts and motivations.

This study argues that fresh insights into the phenomenon of new venture idea incubation are possible when the entrepreneurial individual is highlighted as the key focus of analysis. By understanding how entrepreneurs, who are in the process of pursuing new venture ideas, engage in the development process, we present a practical step-by-step approach to new venture incubation. Incubation is revealed as the phase during which new venture ideas are translated into new venture concepts. This conceptualisation, which is grounded in empirical data gathered from experienced entrepreneurs, identifies shaping, validating, interpreting and refining of conceptions as a series of activities that characterise new venture idea incubation (Mugadza 2020).

In making the case for a contribution to the literature, this study confirms the literature that frames the early stages of opportunity development as first-person (Allinson et al. 2000; Wood & McKelvie 2015) and then third-person centred (Franken & Thomsett 2013; Gruber et al. 2015). This foundation was advanced by views promoting convergence (Autio et al. 2013; Williams & Wood 2015). Subsequently, Vogel (2017) foregrounded the effect of time on the new venture development process, and mapped the development of a venture idea into a venture concept through a period of incubation, albeit at a macro-level.

This study complements and extends knowledge by recognising the influential agency of entrepreneurial actors. In so doing, opportunity was created to also expose how social references are woven into evolving idea development activities; aspects previously disguised from detailed appreciation.

The findings in this study are set to advance pedagogy: curriculum content may be enhanced by deeper insight into idea incubation. Student development must navigate between theoretically founded best practice and the practical realities of real-world contexts (Piperopoulos & Dimov 2015). The inclusion of detailed insights, such as those outlined in this study, can enhance the effectiveness of skills development (Mamabolo, Kerrin & Kele 2017).

Empirically informed insight is also important for development of policy. Awareness of essential elements for a conducive ecosystem is essential for fostering entrepreneurial initiatives (Spigel 2019). Exposing the lived experiences of entrepreneurs is important for policy formulation. In addition, the findings of this study are valuable for aspirant entrepreneurs. The findings reveal peer perceptions and experiences – rooted in how thinking and engagement unfold. Practical acumen is of special relevance to individuals grappling with similar challenges.

Future research opportunity lies in substantiating generalisability of these findings by capturing response from a larger population of entrepreneurs. Qualitative research provides diverse descriptions that strengthen appreciation of the character of phenomena (Shepherd et al. 2019). A large-sample exploration confirms the broad-based relevance of findings (Creswell & Garrett 2008).

The findings revealed that knowledge can be further extended by empirical enquiry that explores social cognitions surrounding new venture idea incubation. Examining the external interfaces sought after and encountered by actors will reveal how these affect processes and experiences. Finally, a focus on novice entrepreneurs is set to be a valuable comparison of approach. The process detailed in this study holds the potential to expose granular differences to inform pedagogy. Such an investigation would also expose the mediating effect of hindsight perspective (Azoulay et al. 2020).