• A Global comparison of social entrepreneurship

      Justo, Rachida; Lepoutre, Jan; Terjesen, Siri (2010)
    • Economische duurzaamheid en toegevoegde waarde: een eerste aanzet op basis van macro-economische gegevens

      Van Passel, Steven; Lepoutre, Jan; Nevens, Frank; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Mathijs, E. (2004)
    • Effecto: Op weg naar effectief ondernemerschapsonderwijs in Vlaanderen

      Crijns, Hans; Van den Berghe, Wouter; Lepoutre, Jan; Tilleuil, Olivier (Flanders DC, 2009)
      Performance assessment of innovation projects is a central issue in innovation management research. Using existing literature, a model is developed to assess the performance of new product and new service development projects. In this model, project performance is defined as a combination of a formatively indicated operational performance construct and a reflectively indicated product performance construct. The validity of this model is tested based on a sample of 219 innovation projects assessed by innovation managers. Using only the innovation managers' responses, it is, however, not possible to distinguish between operational and product performance. The impact of common method bias and informant bias is subsequently assessed using a subsample of 128 of these 219 innovation projects that are assessed by the innovation manager and the project leader. These latter results show that operational and product performance are two distinct constructs. In addition, the multitrait–multimethod analyses show that especially the more abstract items of performance, such as the perceptions of quality, captured knowledge, competitive advantage, gained reputation, and customer satisfaction, suffer from random error and informant bias. Project leaders appear to be better informed to assess operational performance, while innovation managers are better in assessing product performance. The paper concludes with a qualitative comparison of several alternative performance models: the project performance model as derived from the literature, a similar (misspecified) reflective performance model, two stand-alone models in which operational and product performance are assessed separately, and a mixed model that uses a combination of innovation managers' and project managers' data. Based on this comparison, it is advised to use either the stand-alone models for operational performance and product performance or the mixed model whereby the project leader assesses operational performance and the innovation manager the product performance of an innovation project.
    • Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM): Rapport voor Vlaanderen & België 2008.

      Lepoutre, Jan; Tilleuil, Olivier; Meuleman, Miguel; Crijns, Hans (2009)
    • Global Entrepreneurship Monitor - 2009 Flanders & Belgium report. An integrated overview of entrepreurship and its antecedents

      Crijns, Hans; Lepoutre, Jan; Cobben, Mathias; Tilleuil, Olivier (2010)
      This article responds to the issues Samiee (2010–this issue) raises in his recent comment on Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009). The overall focus of the criticism (Samiee, 2010–this issue) on the missing critical considerations of the study is somewhat surprising. Samiee (2010–this issue) criticizes Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009) not on what they did but on what they did not do. Such criticism would, at least in principle, be justifiable if directed at omissions that are directly relevant to the core construct of Roth and Diamantopoulos' (2009) paper, namely the country image (CoI) construct. However, most of the critical issues Samiee (2010–this issue) raises apply to research on country-of-origin (CoO) effects in general and not to Roth and Diamantopoulos' (2009) study that provides concrete guidelines on how to conceptualize and operationalize CoI in future research. This response first highlights how Roth and Diamantopoulos' (2009) study, centering on the CoI construct, differs from studies on the CoO effect. The article then directly addresses the specific critical issues Samiee (2010–this issue) raises and also discusses the relevance of CoI and CoO research. The paper concludes by suggesting that, while demanding rigor in CoO and CoI research is indeed timely and important, completely rejecting this research stream is both premature and unwise.
    • Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2010 Flanders & Belgium Report

      Lepoutre, Jan; Buysse, Reinout; Crijns, Hans (2011)
    • Het gezond boerenverstand in duurzaam ondernemen in land- en tuinbouw

      Lepoutre, Jan; Nevens, Frank; Mathijs, E.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2005)
    • Indelingen van de Vlaamse land- en tuinbouwbedrijven: een analyse en beleidsaanbevelingen

      Lepoutre, Jan; Mathijs, E.; Nevens, Frank; Van Passel, Steven; Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2004)
    • Stimuleren van ondernemerschap in het secundair onderwijs een verdieping van Effecto

      Vermeire, Jacob; Van den Berghe, Wouter; Meuleman, Miguel; Lepoutre, Jan (Flanders DC, 2012)
    • Zit de nieuwe Steve Jobs in de klas? Naar een betekenisvol stimuleren van ondernemingszin in het basisonderwijs

      Vermeire, Jacob; Lepoutre, Jan; Cools, Eva (Flanders DC, 2012)
      In this paper, an artificial immune system (AIS) algorithm for the resource availability cost problem (RACP) is presented, in which the total cost of the (unlimited) renewable resources required to complete the project by a pre-specified project deadline should be minimized. The AIS algorithm makes use of mechanisms inspired by the vertebrate immune system and includes different algorithmic components, such as a new fitness function, a probability function for the composition of the capacity lists, and a K-means density function in order to avoid premature convergence. All components are explained in detail and computational results for the RACP are presented.