Description
In such a brief description related to entrepreneurial training curriculum assessment the case of new venture creation.
504 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINING CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT:
THE CASE OF NEW VENTURE CREATION LEARNERSHIPS
Marius Pretorius and Thomasz Wlodarczyk
Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria
Abstract
This paper joins the debate about how best to assess entrepreneurial training interventions, using
a case-study. Contextual secondary literature about the structure and content of such interventions
is briefly reviewed. Based on this review, a framework is developed and applied to the Provincial
Skills Development Pilot Project’s current New Venture Creation Learnership programme. This
in-depth case study uses an evaluation instrument based on the entrepreneurial assessment model
proposed by Pretorius (2001: 264). Results show that the chosen programme exhibits certain
limitations, which restricts its success in developing entrepreneurs in line with the National Skills
Development Strategy. However, the programme possesses many strengths and its limitations
are easily remedied. The proposed assessment method successfully identifies the strengths and
weaknesses of the programme.
JEL L26, M53
1
Introduction
In 2004 South Africa’s total entrepreneurial
activity (TEA) rate was estimated at 5.4 per
cent, against a total average of 9.4 per cent
amongst all countries participating in the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
programme (Orford, Herrington & Wood,
2004: 3). Considering that the average TEA rate
for developing countries is 21 per cent, South
Africa is one of the least “entrepreneurially
active” nations among its peers. In recognition
of this, the South African government has
instituted the National Skills Development
Strategy (NSDS) to improve the labour force’s
level of skills through training interventions
and learnership programmes. This strategy
has raised expectations as to the development
of individuals capable of creating sustainable
entrepreneurial ventures. Among the guiding
principles of the NSDS (Department of
Labour, 2005: 2) are supporting employment
creation and poverty reduction. Increasing
employment is in line with the government’s
strategy to develop small business, which has
highlighted the small business sector as an
important force to generate such employment
and more equitable income distribution, and
to stimulate economic development (Republic
of South Africa, 1995: 2). Consequently, the
NSDS has developed ambitious expectations
of the New Venture Creation Learnership
(NVCL) programme in assisting to close this
gap.
This study is aims to aid developing countries
that are seeking guidelines and answers as they
increasingly turn toward entrepreneurship
as a viable vehicle for promoting economic
development (Hood & Young, 1993: 1).
Current government intervention efforts to
develop entrepreneurship do not seem to be
making much headway. According to Davies
(2002: 7), the “government is on record for
admitting that, despite the huge investment in
support structures and training, there is little
appreciable positive impact evident in the
SMME sector.” Consequently, the National
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 505
Skills Development Strategy is concerned
with the development of new ventures, with
a target of 7000 new ventures created by
2010. Within this context, the NSD strategy
specifically focuses on the pre-founding
(incubation) and infancy stages of the life cycle
of entrepreneurial ventures.
As an alternative to standard education,
learnership is a learning programme that leads
to an occupational qualification. A typical
learnership consists of:
• an institutional learning component
amounting to approximately 30 per cent of
the total learning time and
• a workplace-learning component where the
learner is placed with an employer for the
remainder of the learning period.
The entrepreneurship development approach of
the NVC programme is built on the principles
of outcomes-based education (OBE). As Pooe
(2002: 4) explains, OBE is not about what the
tuition system provides and teachers teach, but
about what students actually learn and what they
are able to do at the end of a learning experience.
Since the aim of the NVC intervention is the
tangible establishment of new ventures, the very
concept of entrepreneurship education and
training in itself is inherently outcomes-based.
The learnership process imparts knowledge
through formal teaching and develops tangible
skills through experiential learning activities, which
include behavioural and emotional components
that are difficult to incorporate within a traditional
classroom setting (Pooe, 2002: 11). Theoretical
knowledge is important for developing skills
in systematic innovation, risk reduction and
management (Amos & Maas, 2001: 7), and
enables students to anticipate the future instead
of relying on luck or intuition (Alberti, Sciascia
& Poli, 2004: 13). Timmons (1994) states that
inclusion of training materials should:
• convince the student to become actively
involved in entrepreneurship;
• facilitate an understanding of the dynamic
nature of the world of entrepreneurship;
and
• slow down the reality shock of the real world
by means of formal or informal tuition.
It follows that, in order to facilitate meaningful
experiential learning, the relevant theoretical
knowledge base must first be imparted to the
learner, and that the content of the formal
teaching must be appropriately developed
in accordance with the envisaged learning
outcomes. Thereafter, the approach of
training delivery is important in motivating the
prospective entrepreneur to pursue this field,
and simulating the experiences he or she is likely
to encounter in the real world.
This paper briefly explains the NVCL
programme and its context, and reviews
the key literature on entrepreneurship
training principles. It focuses on the question
of how to assess entrepreneurial training
interventions, and evaluates the NVCL based
on the literature, reports the assessment results
following the application of the entrepreneurial
education assessment tool, and finally provides
conclusions.
2
Research questions
The content and level of entrepreneurship
courses vary significantly depending on the
objectives of the training (Pretorius 2000: 5).
The key considerations that guide the choice
of learnership instructional content therefore
centre around matching the tuition with the
expectations of the NSDS and the structure of
the learnership process, the actual needs of the
learners, the realities of running a business in the
South African environment and fundamental
entrepreneurship and business theory concepts.
Therefore, the key research questions for this
study of the teaching curriculum of the NVC
qualification are:
• What is the context of the NSDS initiative,
and what are the resulting expectations of
the NVC learnership?
• Is the tuition curriculum "appropriate" in
light of the expected outcomes and targets
of the NSDS?
• Does the tuition content of the NVC
learnership process follow recommended
best practice standards as supported by
academic research?
506 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
• Does the learnership programme balance
theoretical fundamentals with the dynamic
nature of entrepreneurship and the realities
of running a business in South Africa?
• Does the learnership programme meet the
specific needs of the learners, and inspire
students to become actively involved in
entrepreneurship?
These questions are explored in this paper.
The answers should contribute to an improved
understanding of this significant government
intervention, and may guide developers of
entrepreneurship training programmes.
3
Why learnerships?
According to the Department of Labour (2005:
15), the formal sector is not creating enough
jobs for all the young people entering the labour
market annually, and the potential exists for
some young people to become entrepreneurs
if assisted to do so. As illustrated by the NSDS
targets for new venture creation, the government
has high expectations for the performance of
the NVC learnership in offering this assistance.
Of course, the creation of a sustainable new
venture depends on various factors, not least
of which is the entrepreneur him or herself.
Wickham (2004: 134) defines the entrepreneur
as the individual who lies at the heart of the
entrepreneurial process, the person who drives
the whole process forward.
What really matters as an outcome in any
entrepreneurial training programme is a change
in behaviour to engage in the start-up process.
This is known as the “start-up edge” required for
venture start-up success (Pretorius & Maartens,
2001: 13). In the case of young individuals, such
as those targeted by the NSDS, this challenge
is exceptionally demanding. Le Roux (2004: 12)
outlines the NVC learnership model, which aims
to provide a holistic intervention for fostering
and enabling new business start-ups. The salient
elements of the NVC model are:
• A selection process aimed at identifying
individuals who possess an inherent
entrepreneurial awareness;
• An institutional learning component leading
to the development and submission of a
business plan; and
• A practical business development phase,
which includes the facilitation of access to
markets and sources of finance.
The NVC learnership training aims funda-
mentally to provoke behavioural change in
learners (Davies, 2002: 16). This model’s
philosophy is that learning must include
knowledge transfer, as it combines components
of education and training in order to facilitate the
attainment of knowledge, comprehension, skill
and mastery of execution through experiences
that lead to relatively permanent changes
in behaviour (Pretorius, 2000: 3). Pretorius
(2000: 4) hypothesises that if a training process
is “improved to be more applicable and
practical by becoming a learning-process, more
entrepreneurs will enter, succeed and contribute
to the economic growth so desperately needed.”
The highest level of learning a learner can
achieve is thus to start his or her own venture,
while the least effective form of learning, in
terms of bringing about behavioural change,
is probably listening to a lecture. This holistic
approach is required to assist persons who
have embarked on entrepreneurial activities
in nurturing their enterprise, and to support
them with the skills and knowledge needed to
run a business in a formal manner (Le Roux,
2004: 2).
This study focuses on the tuition component,
which consists of content material and the
facilitation of the training curriculum. The
learnership training unit standards have been
reviewed and updated since the publication
of the initial NVC qualification in 2002, and it
is now generally accepted that course content
alone cannot create sustainable business
ventures, nor can training in isolation “rectify
a critical situation” (Van Vuuren & Antonites,
2001: 1). Davies (2002: 5) highlights the fact that
acquiring skills specific to small, medium and
micro enterprises (SMMEs) is seldom achieved
through structured learning, but rather through
the processes of skills formation. Therefore,
the design and establishment of the NVC
learnership must aim to:
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 507
• Develop appropriate skills and knowledge
required for enterprise development (start-
ups);
• Support job creation rather than quali-
fications as a priority; and
• Address the economic, administrative and
social barriers that contribute to failures in
starting and developing the enterprise.
It follows that the training curriculum should
embody the same philosophy of purpose
and outcomes as that which supports the
learnership approach as a whole. Therefore,
the development of instructional content should
be geared towards tangible creation of new
ventures. However, though this experiential
approach is the fundamental tenet of the
learnership programme, certain knowledge
and theory, as Amos and Maas (2001: 7)
acknowledge, is required by individuals to
be successful as entrepreneurs. According to
Alberti et al. (2004: 13), entrepreneurship theory
is a set of empirical generalisations about how
entrepreneurs should behave that allows for
predictions of true outcomes. Theory must
be taught to aspiring entrepreneurs because
nothing is more practical than understanding
the consequences of committing resources
to launch a venture. Drucker (2001: 26) also
highlights the need for theory, pointing out that
“entrepreneurship is risky mainly because so few
of the so-called entrepreneurs know what they
are doing. They lack the methodology. They
violate elementary and well-known rules.”
4
Research objectives and
propositions
The key objectives of this study are thus to find
a methodology for assessing entrepreneurial
interventions and apply it. An overview of
the academic literature is used to develop a
guideline for evaluating the training curriculum
that has been compiled to support the NVC
learnership. Since the outcomes of the training
should be geared towards the NSDS targets,
the specific context of the NSDS must first be
understood. Topics for inclusion in the course
content should be selected to meet the specific
training needs of potential entrepreneurs at
various stages of the person’s entrepreneurial
development (Watson & Boshoff, 1995: 18).
Consequently, a high-level profile of the typical
learnership delegate must be proposed, and
the particular entrepreneurial venture stage/s
covered by the learnership defined. The study
therefore has the following objectives:
• To explain the context of the NSDS and
NVC learnership objectives: this includes
a definition of the SMME life-cycle stage/s
pertinent for development, and a profile of
the typical learnership delegate;
• To develop, based on a review of relevant
academic literature sources, an under-
standing of the recommended best practice
standards for entrepreneurship content and
training approach that should be included
in a training programme: this will serve as
the basis for determining whether the NVC
learnership curriculum is appropriate within
the context of the NSDS;
• To evaluate the NVC learnership case in
depth against the standards defined within
academic research literature; and
• To investigate whether the NVC learnership
process has the potential to inspire new
entrants into entrepreneurship, while
exposing them to the dynamic nature
of entrepreneurship and the realities of
running a business in South Africa.
The qualification outline for the National
Certificate in NVC cites various international
academic references in support of its conceptual
framework (South African Qualifications
Authority, 2002: 4). Among these references,
Van Vuuren and Antonites (2001: 1) highlight the
inconsistency in viewpoints regarding the content
of entrepreneurship training programmes within
local and international secondary data. This is a
major constraint to the development of specific
guidelines for entrepreneurship training content
and delivery. Consequently, this study uses the
entrepreneurial performance education model
proposed by Pretorius, Nieman and Van Vuuren
(2005: 420) as the basis for curriculum research
and evaluation. This model gives broad coverage
of the factors effecting entrepreneurship
education (i.e. business skills, entrepreneurial
508 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
skills, achievement motivation, entrepreneurial
success factors, approaches to business learning,
application of the business plan, facilitator skill,
and the overall context of the intervention),
and so provides a practical focal point for
discussing curriculum content and delivery.
The paper therefore focuses on the following
propositions:
P1: The curriculum structure of the NVC
learnership resembles recommended
guidelines within academic literature,
as evaluated in accordance with the
entrepreneurial performance education
model
If this is true, then
P2: The training delivery of the NVC learnership
is appropriate for the development of
entrepreneurs as required by the NSDS
strategy.
5
Methodology
The research design is a formal, ex post facto case
study using secondary data on entrepreneurial
education and then assessing the NVCL as an
example case. Data was gathered using in-depth
interviews with key role players (i.e. the project
manager, the learnership coordinator and
facilitators), and an analysis of the materials,
content, delivery process and facilitation of the
course. The aim was never to statistically prove
differences but rather to execute a meaningful
assessment of the programme. The investigation
covers both the assessment tool and the
programme under investigation.
To ensure contextual specificity, the literature
study was based primarily on the South
African context, with articles obtained from
academic journals, conference proceedings
and government sources such as the South
African Qualification Authority (SAQA), the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and
Department of Labour. International reference
sources were included to establish a basis of
support for the model, and to make the study
more broadly applicable.
Firstly, government secondary data sources
were consulted to build an overview of the
context of the NSDS and NVC learnership
initiatives. Then a review of the academic
literature was undertaken to decide on the
main themes that could be used as a point
of departure for developing guidelines for
assessing the NVC learnership. The status
of available information and the level of
academic consensus regarding the curriculum
requirements for entrepreneurship courses
were evaluated. Based on this analysis, and the
relative lack of agreement among scholars about
the content and structure of entrepreneurship,
as mentioned above, the entrepreneurial
performance education model proposed by
Pretorius et al. (2005: 420) was selected as the
base framework for programme evaluation. This
model was found to contain many constructs
relevant to entrepreneurship education, as will
be outlined in the literature review in section 6
of this paper.
The literature findings were synthesised into a
contextual guideline for a qualitative assessment
of the content and delivery of the training
curriculum supporting the NVC learnership.
The evaluation consisted of two parts, namely
a course content analysis and an examination of
the training delivery.
• The course content was evaluated according
to the multiplicative model proposed by Van
Vuuren and Antonites (2001: 2):
EP = M [(ES × BS)]
where EP is entrepreneurial performance,
M is motivation, ES is entrepreneurial skills
and BS is business skills. This model is an
integral part of the overall entrepreneurial
performance education model selected
for our evaluation. The NVC qualification
outcomes and assessment criteria for each
of the core unit standards were evaluated
against these content guidelines.
• The training delivery and overall perceptions
of the programme were evaluated by
gathering qualitative feedback from NVCL
practitioners by means of a questionnaire
founded on the entrepreneurial training
model proposed by Pretorius (2001:
264). This specific assessment tool was
chosen because it is an integral part of
the overall entrepreneurial performance
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 509
education model and so was already pre-
developed according to the constructs of the
model. Also, the assessment tool has been
successfully applied in the evaluation of other
entrepreneurship programmes (Pretorius,
2001: 202; Pretorius & Maartens, 2001: 10).
This evaluation process was an opportunity for
the practical application of the entrepreneurial
performance education model within a real
training scenario.
The questionnaire includes of a series of
questions grouped according to the constructs
outlined in Pretorius’ model, and feedback is
collected via a seven-point scale. Participants are
asked to evaluate the extent to which they agree
with each of the statements in the questionnaire
about the programme under evaluation. The
seven-point scale assists in outlining any
positive or negative deviations from the median.
Anything above or below the median value
of four highlights strengths and weaknesses,
respectively, in the programme, as perceived
by the respondents. Significant strengths and
weaknesses were noted and discussed.
6
Literature review
6.1 Academic consensus about training
standards
A suitable training curriculum for the NVC
learnership is not easy to specify. At present
there is no consensus among scholars of
the field of entrepreneurship as to the basic
content of such training interventions that aim
to improve entrepreneurial performance (Van
Vuuren & Antonites, 2001: 2), and the training
of entrepreneurs in South Africa is still in a
very early developmental phase. In their review
of entrepreneurship education and training
programmes, Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994: 3)
found that there is a lack of accepted paradigms
or theories of entrepreneurship education and
training. Alberti et al. (2004: 12) mention that
too many different courses show a chaotic and
“undisciplined discipline”, but believe that this
divergence will decrease as soon as the field
reaches its maturity.
Van Vuuren and Antonites (2001: 11) assess
the academic consensus on the importance
of various competencies implied within their
multiplicative model, mentioned in section 5.
Their findings support the general view already
stated, that consensus amongst academics as to
the appropriate content for entrepreneurship
courses is lacking. Certain competencies
however, are mentioned more consistently in
the literature, namely: performance motivation,
creati vi ty and i nnovati on, opportuni ty
identification, business plans, financial skills,
marketing skills and general management skills
(including organising, planning, control, co-
ordination, strategic process, decision making
and basic business management principles). In
a ten-year literature review, Gorman, Hanlon
and King (1997: 14) echo these points. They
also stress the problems associated with the
variety of approaches and directions taken by
academics in this field, but similarly outline
a number of consistent themes, such as the
need to distinguish between entrepreneurship,
enterprise and small business management
education and to differentiate each of these
from traditional approaches to management
education. Furthermore, they report consensus
on the components of an ideal structure, namely:
“a focus on attributes and skills as well as tasks,
an element of concrete experience derived from
active participation through projects and the
like, and content directed to stage of venture
development and emphasising functional
integration”.
Most importantly, perhaps, the literature
review revealed that there is significant
consensus that entrepreneurship can be
taught, and that entrepreneurship courses
can enhance a student’s propensity towards
business endeavours and effect their decisions
accordingly (Ronstadt, 1987: 39; Van Clouse,
1990: 51; Ivancevich, 1991: 5; Hood & Young,
1993: 133; Gorman et al., 1997: 15).
6.2 Content of entrepreneurial training
programmes
Gibb (1987: 42) defines the entrepreneur and
the enterprising person in terms of attributes
and the small-business person in terms of
510 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
tasks, maintaining that this should guide the
development of training programmes for
enterprise as opposed to training for small
business owners. In their research into the
distinction between entrepreneurship and
small business curricula, Fregetto and Fry
(2002: 11) highlight the current level of overlap
between entrepreneurship and small business
management courses. However, they outline
clear distinctions for certain topics: the small
business stream often includes many traditional
management topics such as supervision,
product management, human relations and
procurement, while an entrepreneurship course
may often include topics such as venture capital,
incubators, creativity, acquisition and start-up
and opportunity recognition. Nevertheless,
there is a broad grey area of topic overlap, to
which academic and professional experience
does not provide sufficient guidance (Fregetto
& Fry, 2002: 15). Vesper and McMullan (1988:
9) emphasise two core differences between an
entrepreneurship programme and the traditional
management programme, namely: the ability
to detect and exploit business opportunities
more quickly, and the ability to project a more
extensive sequence of actions for entering
business. Ronstadt (1987: 45) agrees, stressing
that entrepreneurial training is distinct from
management education because time is vital to
start-up, since it directly impacts on opportunity
recognition, investigation and development,
not only before but also after commencement
of the venture.
In an in-depth survey of expert opinion, Hills
(1988: 1) establishes that the most important
educational objective of entrepreneurship
programmes is to increase the learners’
awareness of the processes involved in initiating
and managing a new business enterprise. Other
important objectives included attention to
entrepreneurship as a career option, reflection
on the characteristics of the entrepreneur,
and understanding of functional business
inter-relationships. Timmons and Spinelli
(2003: xiii) promote this concept of integration
between business functional areas within an
entrepreneurship curriculum, and base their
teaching approach on the Timmons model
of the entrepreneurial process. They outline
(2003: 56) the central themes or driving forces
of the dynamic entrepreneurial process. This
process is:
• opportunity driven,
• guided by a lead entrepreneur and an
entrepreneurial team,
• economical with resources but still creative,
• dependent on the fit and balance among
the three key constructs within the
model, i.e. opportunity, resources and the
entrepreneurial team, and
• integrated and holistic.
This integrated approach is key to the
development of training interventions for
entrepreneurship, since it is significantly
more organic than the content approach
often associated with traditional management
education. Interestingly, a survey conducted by
Hood and Young (1993) of 100 chief executives in
entrepreneurial firms loosely reflects Timmons’
theoretical basis. Respondents were asked to
identify significant skills in the four primary
areas for entrepreneurial development; they
mentioned leadership, communication and
human relations as the most critical skill areas of
knowledge, creativity and opportunistic thinking
as the most important mental skill areas, self-
motivation and risk-taking as the prominent
personality factors, and finance/accounting/cash-
management and marketing/sales (along with
core technical/occupational skills) as the most
important content areas of knowledge (Hood
& Young, 1993: 124). Thus, entrepreneurship
development requires an element of skill-building
in addition to knowledge-based courses focusing
on entrepreneurship. An entrepreneurial
training programme must include elements
such as communication skills, negotiation skills,
leadership and creative thinking, authentic
involvement in entrepreneurial activities,
developing a portfolio of business plans, practice
in opportunity identification, and exposure to
entrepreneurial role models and new product
development (McMullan & Long, 1987: 268;
Vesper & McMullan, 1988: 11).
Labuschagne, Nieuwenhuizen and Kroon
(2001: 18) identify the primary factors that
contribute to the success of small and medium
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 511
enterprises in South Africa, stating that the
training of entrepreneurs should focus on
the development of those skills and abilities
identified as success factors of entrepreneurs
(divided into factors directly related to personal
characteristics, and those directly related to
functional management skills). Empirical analysis
conducted by Nieuwenhuizen and Kroon (2002:
6) shows that there is a strong relation between
the success of a business and entrepreneurial
success factors such as creativity and innovation,
financial management, willingness to take risks,
knowledge of competitors and business planning.
Consequently, a training programme must focus
on these entrepreneurial success factors.
6.3 Entrepreneurship training qualifiers
The theoretical content, and to some degree the
approach, of entrepreneurial training should
be checked according to certain qualifiers that
optimise the programme to its specific context.
These qualifiers can include, but are not limited
to, the specific life cycle of the business for which
the training is intended, and real-life factors
such as common problems experienced by
entrepreneurship practitioners. These qualifiers
influence the specifics of the training content and
the level at which it is presented. For instance,
at a pre-entrepreneurial stage of the business,
the entrepreneur as a person must be stressed,
but at later stages of the life cycle the macro-
internal aspects of new venture creation and the
organizational creation process must be given
more attention (Watson & Boshoff, 1995: 19).
Theorists advise that entrepreneurship training
be clearly distinguished from management
training based on its teaching of the stage of
venture development (McMullan & Long, 1987:
268; Plaschka & Welsch, 1990: 65). Venture
development should also define the specific
course structure, second only to the requirements
of the specific audience (Brockhaus, 1993: 4).
According to Jordaan (2002: 15), any attempt
to develop entrepreneurship skills must take
into account the central role of the venture life
cycle, as well as of creativity and managerial
competencies. The different stages of a venture
are characterised by different variables which
can act as moderators of the programme,
determining the content and extent of any
development intervention (Jordaan, 2002: 17).
In the start-up phase of a venture, the problems
encountered tend not to be one-dimensional
but highly integrated, incapable of being solved
by a single expert. It is in these situations that
entrepreneurial skills are demanded, to work
across boundaries on complex, interrelated
problems requiring the ability to take a holistic
view and exercise skills of analysis and synthesis
(Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994: 5).
Viviers, Van Eeden and Venter (2001: 2)
suggest that due to the risks associated with
starting a business, educators should enhance
the trainees’ chances of success by directing
teaching and course development towards
addressing specific problem areas, so as to
prepare students to better understand and
anticipate the problems they will meet when
entering a venture. Ligthelm and Cant (2003:
17) conducted a survey among South African
owners or managers of small businesses and
compiled a list of problems or issues that these
practitioners view as negatively influencing the
success of their small business. Table 1 contains
a summary of the problems that should be
considered when planning entrepreneurship
training programmes.
Table 1
Problems experienced by practitioners
Human resource issues
• New labour laws
• Inability to attract and maintain suitable staff
• Low labour productivity
• Poorly trained employees
• High labour turnover
Marketing-related issues
• Increased competition (market overtrading)
• Limited market size
• Ineffective marketing
• Lack of knowledge of competitors
• Poor location
512 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
Management functions
• Adapting to changing business environment
• Time management
• Delegation and cooperative management
• Planning and prioritising
• Effective control
Macro-environmental issues
• Crime and corruption
• Inflation
• Unemployment (limited market)
• Interest rates
• Exchange rates
Financial issues
• Difficulty in obtaining finance/credit
• Heavy operating expenses
• Management of consumer credit
• Poor cash flow management
• Lack of financial planning
Source: Ligthelm and Cant, (2003)
6.4 Approach to training delivery
Entrepreneurship as a subject is globally seen as
an applied science. It therefore requires a more
practical training approach than traditional
teaching methods usually offer (Antonites
& Van Vuuren, 2004: 4). Nieuwenhuizen
and Groenewald (2004: 4) suggest a training
methodology based on brain preference. By
their very nature, individuals who express
entrepreneurial intentions tend to show
psychological traits that differ from those
of non-entrepreneurs, and therefore tend
to prefer active learning styles. In a similar
vein, Ulrich and Cole (1987: 35) examine the
importance of learning style preferences in
enhancing trainees’ learning experience and
entrepreneurial propensity, and conclude that
entrepreneurial learning style preferences
tend toward active experimentation with some
balance between concrete experience and
abstract conceptualisation.
Pretorius (2000: 3) proposes the concept of
an entrepreneurial-directed learning approach,
which aims to deliver the highest level of
knowledge transfer and mastery of execution
through experiences that lead to relatively
permanent changes in behavior. Amos and Maas
(2001: 1) support this view that the emphasis
in education should be on what entrepreneurs
need to do and not on the characteristics
that describe what they are. These scholars
stipulate that educators need to understand
the requirements of entrepreneurial success,
and thereby develop a complex understanding
within learners by exposing them to the world
of business, and developing their ability to deal
with ill-structured problems. Klandt (1993: 43)
further proposes that within the constructs
of the entrepreneurial personality and the
entrepreneurial task, consulting activities,
working with entrepreneurs and business
simulations are very useful teaching and learning
methods for the entrepreneurship education
target audience. Although it is important to
facilitate theoretical knowledge acquisition and
retention, the necessary cognitive skills must
also be developed to enable a learner to start
up and manage a business organisation. The
ideal entrepreneurial-directed approach is one
requiring the instructor to become a learning
facilitator. Such an approach entails extensive
use of learning exercises such as role playing,
management simulations, structured exercises
of focused learning and feedback situations in
which the participant must take an active role
(Nieuwenhuizen & Groenewald, 2004: 5).
An empirical study conducted by Antonites
and Van Vuuren (2004: 1) illustrates the
effectiveness of an action learning approach
applied to training in creativity, innovation and
opportunity identification. Action learning is the
result of a combination of experiential learning,
creative problem solving, acquisition of relevant
knowledge and co-learner group support.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 513
Gartner and Vesper (1994: 185) conducted
a survey into experimental approaches to
entrepreneurship education, and report as
failures those processes that require students
to engage in introspective or reflective activities
or to develop case-lets, and as highly successful
exercises such as the development of business
plans for products. Similarly, a survey by Hills
(1988: 2) of expert opinion established that
course features considered most important are
the development of a business plan project and
entrepreneurs as speakers and role models.
6.5 The entrepreneurial performance
education model
As mentioned above, Van Vuuren and Nieman
(1999: 3) propose a multiplicative training model:
EP = M (ES × BS)
also referred to as the entrepreneurial per-
formance education model (Pretorius, Nieman &
Van Vuuren, 2005: 420). This model differs from
the typical “small business management” approach
to entrepreneurship training, which generally
focuses primarily on business skills (BS), by
introducing entrepreneurship skills (ES) (such as
creativity, opportunity identification, ability to take
risks etc.) and motivation development (M).
The positive effects of achievement motivation
training on entrepreneurial activity are well
recorded (McClelland, 1965b; Timmons,
1971; Miron & McClelland, 1979), although a
definitive link between achievement motivation
and entrepreneurial success has not been
established (Johnson, 1990: 1). However,
achievement motivation is seen as perhaps the
only person-based variable whose association
with new venture creation still appears to be
convincing (Shaver & Scott, 1992: 9). Motivation
plays a strong role in an individual’s taking
action (McClelland & Winter, 1971: 234), and
so is extremely relevant to any training initiative
which aims to create new businesses, since no
amount of training effort or student intent can
be successful without meaningful action towards
implementation.
Pretorius (2000: 5) proposes a training metho-
dology which he calls the entrepreneurship
education model (EE model), which is based on:
• a framework of known entrepreneurial
success factors,
• other content pertaining to business
knowledge and skills, approaches to
business learning, the business plan and
the facilitator, and
• the overall context of the programme.
The focus of this EE model is increasing the
number of new business start-ups (Pretorius et
al., 2005: 423). The business knowledge content
must include a range of entrepreneurship and
business-related knowledge, as dictated by the
needs of the target audience or situation. The
three foundations of the model come together
in the business plan, which is the integration of
all the elements that determine the likelihood
of future business success. According to Botha
(2006), no meaningful business training can be
effected without involvement in the creation of a
business plan. Of course, the successful delivery
of the training depends on the facilitator’s
particular approach to facilitation and learning,
and on his/her ability and level of real-world
entrepreneurship experience.
Although Van Vuuren and Nieman’s EP
model (1999) and Pretorius’s EE model (2000)
contribute greatly towards our model’s paradigm
of entrepreneurship training, they both have
certain shortcomings. The motivation element is
absent from the EE model, while the EP model
does not factor in the facilitator’s approach to
training, the role of the facilitator, the context of
the training or the use of a business plan (although
this is arguably included in the BS factor).
Thus to correct these limitations, Pretorius et
al. (2005: 422) propose a model that integrates the
aspects of the two philosophies, education and
entrepreneurial performance. This integrated
model called the educate for entrepreneurial
performance (E for EP) model, can be expressed
as follows:
E for EP = ƒ [aF × bM (cES × dBS) × (eA
+ fBP)]
where:
E for EP = education for improved entre-
preneurial performance
F = facilitators ability, skills and
experience
514 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
M = motivation
ES = entrepreneurial skills
BS = business skills and knowledge
A = approaches of learning used
BP = use of a business plan as a training
approach
a - f = constants (0 > constant < 1)
This integrated model aims to lead to real
behavioural and attitudinal change within
the participants who complete the training
programme. In addition to key theoretical and
motivational training content, this model’s
unique contribution is its inclusion of the type
of training approach used by the facilitator as
dictated by the specific context of the programme,
and of the overall skill and experience level of
the facilitator (Pretorius et al., 2005: 422). The
training approaches that are most successful
are practical programmes involving the actual
starting of new ventures or creation of business
plans, simulations and case studies.
6.6 Relevance to South Africa and
other developing countries
Developing countries face enormous challenges.
High unemployment levels, poor education
and low literacy rates, critical skills deficits,
and a large divide between rich and poor are
but a few of these. Improving the quality of life
of previously disadvantaged communities is
intimately associated with enabling individuals
to take control of their circumstances on the
one hand, and raising their employability on the
other (Maminza et al., 2001). Entrepreneurship
underpins both of these effects, and the drive
by the government and local municipalities
to raise the quality of life for disadvantaged
communities is increasingly centred on the
development of entrepreneurship orientation
and skills, and building an enabling environment
to facilitate entrepreneurial activity. McClelland
and Winter (1971: 28) indicate that where the
level of entrepreneurship is low, development
programme officers may be driven to such
extraordinary costs in providing incentives
that programmes may be jeopardised. If the
structure of the response is inappropriate, any
manipulation of incentives will incur enormous
waste. The situation can be significantly improved
if incentive programmes are accompanied by
appropriate training initiatives.
McMullan and Long (1987: 1) view entre-
preneurship education as an essential part of
job creation, since this education is an integral
component of a community’s venture-support
infrastructure along with incubators, innovation
centres, technology transfer offices, science
parks and venture capital operations. Since
success in a new business endeavour is ultimately
dependent on the level of entrepreneurial
knowledge, experience and self-confidence of
the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship education
may be the most promising of all current
economic development mechanisms, although
arguably the most difficult to implement. For
this reason, efforts to better understand the tools
and mechanisms of effective entrepreneurship
training can usefully facilitate targeted training
interventions and the implementation of
appropriate economic development policies.
7
Case programme evaluation
7.1 Context of the NVCL training
programme
Subject knowledge elements are required in
an entrepreneurship curriculum, and the level
of complexity at which they can be presented
is determined by the context of the training
programme (Pretorius, 2001). The context
elements that should be included, from the field
of small business entrepreneurship, are:
• previous experience level of participants at
the start of training,
• educational level of participants,
• outcomes to be achieved on completion
of the training (start-up vs knowledge for
example),
• reason for participation in the training
and
• needs of the target group undergoing the
training
The NVCL strategy specifically mentions that
the learnership programme aims to develop
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 515
young people (Department of Labour, 2005:
17). Davies (2002: 15) describes the profile of
the learnership candidates and their latent level
of skills and experience as follows:
Given that all applicants for the Venture
Creation Learnership programme will
be mature and will probably have had
business exposure (as employees), the
assumption exists that their technical skills
base would be reasonably well developed;
that their business skills base will be
higher than for a group of pre-employed
candidates; and that their educational
fundamentals (given that most candidates
in this programme would have at least 9
years of schooling) would be reasonably
high. It could be equally assumed that in
terms of self-knowledge and attitudinal
disposition towards entrepreneurship, the
level of exposure and knowledge would be
low, requiring a good deal of attention in
the programme to changing the mindset
of learners.
It is important to stress that pre-employment
does not disqualify currently unemployed
people, a demographic which is a key target
of the learnership intervention (Davies, 2000:
1). However, the selection process must assess
their level of education, underlying skills base
and level of life-skills as fundamental entry
criteria. Timmons and Spinelli (2003: 259) refer
to a pattern of experience often seen among
successful entrepreneurs, which resembles an
apprenticeship; this experience encompassing
experience, know-how, contacts and market
knowledge, and is acquired gradually over a long
period. Applicants for the learnerships, whether
currently employed or unemployed, who lack
fundamental educational, literacy-related, life or
vocational skills will face significant challenges
in new venture creation, and are viewed as
unsuitable candidates for the learnership or
other such interventions. If the measured
outcome of an intervention is tangible business
creation, a learner selection strategy that ignores
these factors will jeopardise the programme’s
overall performance.
Accordingly, a screening process must be used
in the selection of candidates, to make sure
that those selected possess the requisite degree
of life experience and vocational skills and
experience. The focus of the NVC curriculum
should therefore primarily be geared towards
the development of an entrepreneurial mindset
and associated entrepreneurship and business
skill sets, not vocational skills or fundamental
education elements such as literacy and numeric
skills. Vocational/technical training cannot
feasibly form part of an entrepreneurship
course, since trainees will be involved in a
wide range of industries and fields, all of which
cannot be covered in one course. In cases
where learners need to develop business ideas
that are dependant on technical skills they do
not possess, development in these areas can be
provided via links with colleges and specialist
private institutions.
7.2 Assessment framework
Ladzani and Van Vuuren (2002: 156) illustrate
the application of the EP model as a basis
for assessing training programmes offered by
various training service providers. In their study,
the fundamental elements of entrepreneurship
training highlighted are Management Skills,
Opportunity Identification, Business Plan, and
Need for Achievement. In our E for EP model,
these same fundamental elements are also the
basis for assessment, although the context of
each individual training intervention will dictate
the inclusion of various other elements outlined
in the EP model.
To assess Proposition 1, we use a framework
designed to assess the NVCL course content.
Table 2 outlines this framework, which is based
on various literature sources and shaped by the
factors highlighted in the EP model, i.e. M, ES
and BS. The NVC qualification unit standards,
which consist of fundamental, core, and elective
modules, were evaluated against these content
guidelines. The fundamental modules, which
deal with English literacy and basic numeracy,
were excluded from the analysis, for reasons
outlined above in our discussion on the context of
the NVCL initiative and the appropriate learner
profile for the programme. Elective modules
are viewed as supplementary components
and not core teaching on entrepreneurship
fundamentals, and so also excluded from the
516 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
assessment. Thus only the core modules were
selected for assessment against the evaluation
framework. Proposition 2 was assessed according
to the criteria outlined in Table 3, as explained
in the methodology section.
Table 2
Training content components
Motivation Entrepreneurial skills Business skills
Need for achievement
• Achievement imagery
• Achievement goals
• Language of achievement
• Cognitive supports
• Group supports
Creativity
• Techniques
• Critical vs creative thinking
• Personal attributes and
actions that facilitate creativity
• Intuitive ability
Management/Leadership
• Planning
• Organising
• Leadership
• Control
Ability to inspire Innovation Business plans
Expectations of the high
achiever
• Thoughts on probability of
personal success
• Expectation of success
• Fear of failure
• Motivation to excel
Ability to take risks
• Financial
• Career-related
• Family- and social-related
• Psychological
• Tolerance for risk and
ambiguity
Financial skills (for pre-venture
and infancy stages)
• Start-up planning
• Cash flow budget
• Break-even analysis
• Short-term planning
• Working capital management
• Sources of finance
• Record keeping.
Obstacles or blocks
• Awareness of personal
obstacles
• Awareness of obstacles in the
environment
Ability to identify opportunities
• Generation of ideas
• Prioritisation of ideas
• Opportunity delineation
• Opportunity evaluation
Marketing skills
• Understanding the customer
• Market size
• Competition awareness
• Pricing and sales tactics
Help
• Towards reaching the
achievement goal
• Thinking beyond obstacles
Ability to have a vision for
growth
• Commitment to growth
Operational skills
• Methods enhancing
productivity (product or
service business)
Reaction to success or failure
• Response to feelings of failure
(seen as a reason to try again)
Interpret successful
entrepreneurial role models
• Entrepreneurial characteristics
Human resource skills
• Planning
• Compensation
• Training
• Management
Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren and Nieman (1999); Ladzani and Van Vuuren (2002);
McClelland (1965a); Pretorius, Nieman and Van Vuuren (2005)
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 517
Table 3
Constructs pertaining to training execution
Factor Considerations
Context of the
programme
• Previous experience of the participants
• Minimum educational level of the participants
• Outcomes of the programme after participation
• Needs of the target group who participate in the programme
• Reasons for participating in the programme
Business knowledge
and skills
• Perceiving an opportunity and developing a business concept
• Starting a business venture from the business plan
• Growing the business venture after start-up
• Competing in a mature market through effective and efficient strategies
• Exiting the market in a decline phase through successful divestment strategies
Facilitator
• Developing entrepreneurial thinking patterns
• Reinforcing entrepreneurial ways of being and behaving
• Apprenticeship and mentoring through venture establishment
• Application of a holistic and multi-disciplinary approach
• Own level of practical experience with start-ups
Approaches used to
transfer knowledge
and skills
• Use of appropriate approaches, techniques and methods that enhance learning
• Optimal participation of the learner in the learning process
• Incorporation of real-life problems and obstacles in the learning process
Business plan
utilisation
• Preparation of a business plan
• Presentation of the business plan to peers, facilitators and potential funding
institutions
• Opportunity to defend the main principles and assumptions underlying the plan
against critical evaluation
• Execution of the business plan under real circumstances
Source: Pretorius (2001).
8
Findings and discussion
Currently, there is no standard approach to the
facilitation of NVC learnerships among those
service providers involved in the initiative.
Furthermore, apart from the guidelines provided
by SAQA for the required outcomes of the
learnership, very little literature is available
which outlines possible approaches for providers
in enough detail to make assessment worthwhile
for the purposes of this study. For these reasons,
our analysis is restricted to the activities and
achievements of a single programme, the
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project
Phase II, which is presented by the Support
to Education and Skills Development (SESD)
initiative.
Phase II of the Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project began in 2000. Its objective is
the implementation of learnerships and skills
programmes aimed at people with the potential
to start, manage and grow their own businesses.
According to Davies (2000: 1), the Pilot Project
aims to support the Department of Labour in
securing employment for people from vulnerable
groups through:
• developing their employable competencies,
518 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
• making recommendations on guidelines and
procedures for nation-wide implementation
of learnerships and skills programmes as
instruments for assisting the unemployed to
become entrepreneurs in the South African
sector of small and micro enterprises,
and
• building capacity in the Provincial Office
of the Department of Labour (and among
training and service providers) to implement
such strategies.
A key focus area is the establishment of
small- and micro-enterprise employment for
unemployed, newly retrenched, or soon-to-be
retrenched persons with entrepreneurial skills,
as part of the Department of Labour’s response
to Social Plans, by means of an integrated
learnership approach.
8.1 Assessment findings for proposition 1:
the course content of the NVCL
The NVC qualification outcomes were analysed
against the criteria stipulated in the evaluation
framework for curriculum content. In particular,
the outcome statements and the assessment
criteria for each core unit standard were
examined, to understand the prospective content
of each module. Since all learnership activities
should be guided by these unit standards, the
actual teaching materials used by facilitators were
assumed to have been developed in accordance
with these standards and so were not themselves
assessed. The evaluation was conducted by
means of a comparison template, which included
each of the business-, entrepreneurial- and
motivational-skill areas outlined in table 2,
compared with the unit standard titles, outcome
statements and assessment criteria (refer to
example in table 4). The assessment criteria
provided the richest source of information about
the intent of each training component, since
they stipulate the manner in which the eventual
learner competencies must be assessed.
Table 4
Example of the comparison template
Entrepreneurial
skill:
Ability to identify
opportunities
Associated Unit Standard:
Research the viability of new venture ideas/opportunities
Suggested content Specific outcomes Assessment criteria
Generation of ideas SPECIFIC OUTCOME 1
Identify and assess own
business ideas/opportunities for
a new venture
4 assessment criteria e.g.
• Sources and methods of access to general and
commercial business information are identified
for proposed business venture.
Prioritisation of
ideas
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 2
Analyse the viability of a
selected idea/opportunity against
specific screening variables
4 assessment criteria e.g.
• Access to relevant technology and other
resources needed for the new venture is
analysed to aid a decision on the viability of
the new venture.
Opportunity
delineation
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 3
Research the potential of a
particular idea/opportunity as a
new venture
5 assessment criteria e.g.
• Market research is conducted including
analysis of demand for the product/service and
competitor analysis.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 519
Opportunity
evaluation
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 4
Analyse a range of risks
associated with a new venture
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 5
Evaluate new venture ideas/
opportunities based on research
findings
5 assessment criteria e.g.
• The potential risks and factors that may
threaten the new venture are identified and
analysed with a view to eliminating and/or
minimising them.
2 Assessment criteria e.g.
• A preliminary evaluation of the proposed new
venture is produced in the form of a written
report, using the identified criteria.
The findings can be summarised as follows:
• The curriculum covers the fundamental
business skills very well. All business
skills outlined within the framework are
represented, and the fundamental business
skill elements highlighted by Ladzani and
Van Vuuren (2002: 158), i.e. managerial
skills and the business plan, are well covered.
The programme also covers other business
skills not represented in the evaluation
framework, such as ethics, quality policies,
time management, mobilising resources,
negotiation and tendering procedures.
These skills reflect the programme’s unique
contextual requirements.
• Similarly, the entrepreneurial skills are
covered relatively well, with separate
unit standards focusing on Creativity and
Innovation and Opportunity Identification.
The Entrepreneurial Profile is discussed,
with reference to the characteristics of
a successful entrepreneur, and learners
assess their individual entrepreneurial
characteristics with the aim of improving
these. Some reasons for business failure
are identified and discussed with the
aid of examples. However, these only
include business risks, and no discussion or
evaluation of personal propensity towards
risk taking is covered.
• Achievement motivation is poorly repre-
sented in the curriculum. Although goal
setting is mentioned, it is not explicitly
linked to achievement motivation. Cognitive
and psychological factors such as personal
mental obstacles, achievement imagery and
goals, and reaction to success or failure are
not covered at all. Since the likelihood of
new venture initiation is heavily dependent
on the ambition and cognitive state of the
prospective entrepreneur, the relative
absence of achievement development is the
foremost shortcoming of this curriculum.
• The present structure of the curriculum’s
content suggests that the programme
is geared towards the growth stage of a
venture’s life cycle, instead of the pre-start
and start-up phases. This is best illustrated
by the curriculum’s treatment of financial
content, which is relatively complex. Other
assessment standards focus on advanced
control methods such as quality assurance
and productivity optimisation, which are
also suited to the growth stage. We would
thus suggest that this content be postponed
to a second phase of training, once the new
venture has been established and nurtured
through its infancy stage. However, these
unit standards do have a place within
this specific programme, since it aims to
provide a holistic view of small business
development, not just start up.
• Although real-life problems are not covered
explicitly in the assessment criteria, all of the
problems mentioned in section 6.3 of this
study are included indirectly in discussions
of related content. Future revisions of unit
standards could include specific references
to the problems commonly faced by small
businesses.
8.2 Assessment findings for
proposition 2: training delivery
Training delivery was evaluated using a
questionnaire based on the entrepreneurial
training (EE) model proposed by Pretorius
(2001: 264). An additional element was included
in addition to the learning approach focus of
520 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
this model, to evaluate the treatment of real-
life problems within the programme being
investigated. The results of this qualitative
evaluation are presented as radar diagrams,
with each of the elements within a construct
represented by a node on the diagram. The
average value of the results for each element
in the feedback from the questionnaire is
represented on the scale for that element node.
Any significant deviations from the scale median
value of 4 represent either positive or negative
aspects of the programme. Important deviations
are discussed.
8.2.1 Key issues concerning the context of the
learning programme
Figure 1 illustrates the results of the in-depth
evaluation of the learning programme. Although
the selection requirements are clearly stated in
the programme’s selection criteria (Department
of Labour, 2003: 4), they do not seem to be
applied in practice, since the target group’s
previous experience levels, needs and reasons
for participation seem to be specific problem
areas, with all three elements scoring below the
median. An inconsistency is evident between the
context of the NVCL programme (as outlined
earlier) and aspects of the selection process. A
review of candidate characteristics and opinion
reveals that some candidates were recruited
directly following secondary school (e.g. almost
30 per cent of KZN candidates), and only 34
per cent of all candidates could cite specific
examples of previous experience in running
a business (Prodigy, 2005: 5). Furthermore,
approximately half of the candidates reported
that they would prefer formal employment, or
would prefer gaining more work experience
before starting their own business (Prodigy,
2005: 7). These points indicate that the candidate
selection may not have targeted the right type of
individual in some cases.
Figure 1
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the context fit of the NVCL
compared to the midpoint
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 521
Two possible reasons for this can be suggested:
• In some cases, limited practical business
experience among selectors, and consequent
inexperience in identifying entrepreneurial
potential results in circumvention of
selection requirements. Thus, some learners
are granted admission to the programme
who are not suited to the demands of the
NVC initiative.
• Secondly, for some learners, the allowances
are more than they are accustomed to having
in their hands (New Venture Africa, 2005:
25). This generates the problem of learners
becoming reliant on such monies, or entering
the programme primarily because of the
allowance rather than because they want to
establish a business. Hence, the selection
process must place greater emphasis on
targeting and correctly identifying candidates
with the right entrepreneurial attributes,
and ensuring that their motivation is not
driven by the monetary incentives of learner
allowances.
8.2.2 Key issues in the entrepreneurial success
themes construct
As Figure 2 illustrates, the elements of this
construct are covered relatively well, especially
within the instructional unit standards. However,
the programme struggles to instil tolerance for
calculated risks, management of stress and conflict,
and the ability to deal with uncertainties.
It was highlighted that though the programme
covers these aspects in the innovation and
entrepreneurial profile modules, they are not
addressed as a salient facet of the programme.
The respondents suggested that focus on these
factors largely depended on the individual
facilitator’s practical business experience
and specific approach to training. These
characteristics are thus least well developed
among students trained by facilitators with a
purely theoretical background.
Figure 2
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the entrepreneurial success
construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
522 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
8.2.3 Key issues in the business knowledge
and skills construct
Since the focus of the programme is on business
start-ups, the development and start-up phases
of a project’s life cycle are covered well. The
technical skills of running a business are also
covered in great detail within the instructional
unit standards. Figure 3 highlights a shortfall
in skills required for bridging the gap between
start-up and maturity, i.e. the ability to grow
a business. The theory of business growth is
covered in the “Developing your business”
module, but significant growth development
falls outside the intervention frame, i.e. the
initiative is aimed at start-up and early growth.
Further development instruction is not provided
in the learning materials, but should be offered
through continued mentoring support and an
ongoing relationship with the training providers.
However, this bridging infrastructure is no longer
in place, and only lending institutions provide
assistance to recipients of formal loans.
The results are consistent with the context
of the NVCL programme (i.e. fostering entre-
preneurial intent among candidates, and
starting-up of new ventures), and with its focus
on the start-up phase of the life cycle as a content
qualifier. Therefore, the strong emphasis on the
development and start-up phases is a positive
attribute of this programme.
The decline phase is not formally covered
in the programme, but this is not considered a
serious limitation for a course whose primary
objective is business initiation and development.
However, knowledge about failure would
enhance the learners’ understanding of
the direct environment in which ventures
operate.
Figure 3
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the business knowledge and
skills construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
8.2.4 Key issues in the learning approaches
construct
The programme is experiential in nature, and
uses the development of a tangible business as
the learning medium. The assessment criteria
for the institutional learning component
frequently refer to evidence of skills application
within the learner’s own venture. The learning
process also incorporates mentorship and access
to markets for viable business plans (Le Roux,
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 523
2004: 14). The creation of a new venture as
an exercise in entrepreneurship is arguably
the most powerful possible training approach,
which is also in line with the strategic intent
of the NSDS. However, Figure 4 clearly
shows that the programme lacks appropriate
techniques for effectively preparing learners
for creating their own ventures, techniques
such as simulations, case studies and decision-
making models. As outlined in the literature
review, the emphasis in education should
be on what entrepreneurs need to do and
not on the characteristics that describe what
they are. An approach lacking in practical
(or simulated) application and experiential
learning may significantly limit the success of
the programme.
This limitation is largely due to the nature
of the learning materials used by the training
providers. The initial set of materials (which
has subsequently been rewritten) provided no
clear direction for the learning path, and no
module linkages to unit standards or outcomes
to be achieved. Instead, the materials focused
on theory, with limited opportunities for
practical exercises and experiential learning.
Such limitations can of course be overcome
by improvisation on the part of the individual
facilitator, but a lack of business experience limits
this in some cases. Ideally, the theoretical and
practical elements should run concurrently, with
candidates assimilating theoretical knowledge
while conducting research and compiling
business plans related to their own business.
Figure 4
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the learning approaches
construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
8.2.5 Key issues in the business plan utilisation
construct
As outlined in Figure 5, all aspects are covered
well and actually using a business plan is a key
focus of the training executed in the programme.
This is a critical element, as we discussed in the
literature review, since no meaningful business
training can be effected without students’ being
involved in creation a business plan (Botha,
2006).
524 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
Figure 5
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the business plan utilisation
construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
The focus of the institutional learning component
is the development and submission of the
business plan. Learners are assessed against the
viability of their business plans, and have to leave
the programme if their business plans are not
approved (Le Roux, 2004: 12). A notable finding
was that while many learners start with grand
but unfeasible visions for potential businesses
(e.g. involving extensively high leverage,
limited markets etc.), the business planning
process effectively helps them to narrow these
aspirations down to more workable and realistic
business models.
8.2.6 Key issues in the facilitator construct
The results indicate that, in general, the
facilitators are suitably experienced and able
to present the training in a manner that brings
about actual change in the learners’ ability to
start successful business ventures (see Figure
6). A notable exception is those facilitators with
little practical business experience who rely on
a purely theoretical approach; their students
are less inclined to initiate businesses on their
own. In some cases intervention was needed to
prompt students towards business activities, and
allow them to make the crucial links between
theory and business practice.
This poses a challenge to entrepreneurship
devel opment programmes, the success
of which is dependent on the approach,
delivery and real-world entrepreneurship
experience of its facilitators, as discussed
in the literature review. Unfortunately, it
is not always easy to find entrepreneurially
inclined and/or experienced individuals who
are prepared to facilitate such courses. The
situation may be improved by developing well
structured facilitator guides for facilitators
who lack experience. These could be checked
by experienced entrepreneurs, and should
include detailed experiential activities and
course delivery guidelines.
8.2.7 Overall programme evaluation
The results in Figure 7 reflect a generally
positive perception among NVC learnership
practitioners of the various aspects of the
programme. However, the context fit and
business knowledge and skills constructs show
up as the weaker areas of the programme, with
scores of 3.7 and 4.1 respectively.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 525
Figure 6
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the facilitator construct of the
NVCL compared to the midpoint
Figure 7
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the overall NVC learnership programme of the
NVCL compared to the midpoint
526 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
The content and training approach of the SESD
initiative is thus found generally to be achieving
the outcomes set by the NSD strategy. The
initiative’s experiential approach to training is
a very strong characteristic of the programme.
Involving the actual start-up of a real business
venture in the learning process is in line with the
strategic intent of the NSDS.
A key weakness of the programme is the high
learner attrition rate, with a drop of 33 per cent
from 85 to 57 learners between November 2004
and November 2005 (Prodigy, 2005: 7). This
may be partly due to the mismatch between
programme context and learner selection, as we
have discussed. Of those learners that remain,
42 per cent have decided on their businesses
and 58 per cent have either clients on board
and are generating income and/or have started
employing staff (Prodigy, 2005: 55).
Apart from the curriculum and training
delivery limitations we have discussed, the
programme shows some administrative and
logistical shortcoming; these however fall
outside our evaluation here. The programme
also shows certain limitations when evaluated
against the evaluation framework. The most
important of these limitations are:
• the omission of achievement motivation
development from the course,
• the compromising of suitable training
approaches by inadequate training materials
and inexperience of facilitators in certain
cases,
• the mismatch between the context of the
programme and actual learner selection,
which jeopardises the programme’s overall
performance potential.
Consequently, our two propositions are
disproved. The curriculum structure of the
NVC learnership cannot be said to fully match
the recommendations found in academic
literature, and the training delivery does not
unproblematically develop entrepreneurs, as
required by the NSDS strategy. However, the
results also suggest that the programme has
many strengths, which contribute to achieving
the goals of the NSDS, and that the limitations
outlined above can be remedied with relative
ease. Therefore, the initiative is a very
positive step towards achieving the objectives
of the NSDS and better understanding and
facilitating the entrepreneurial development
process.
9
Conclusions
This study took relevant constructs from
secondary literature about the content
and execution of entrepreneurial training
programmes, and synthesised them into a
concise assessment framework. This framework
we then used to evaluate the NVC learnership as
presented by the Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project of the Department of Labour
and the Danish Government. Our evaluation
finds that this training programme exhibits
many of the necessary characteristics outlined
in the evaluation framework. The major
strength of the programme is its experiential
approach, which requires that learners create
tangible new ventures. The project impact
evaluation report (Prodigy, 2005) shows that
the programme has successfully prompted some
business creation (i.e. tangible business activity
among the 58 per cent of participants who
remain in the programme). However, certain
limitations were also found, which prevent
the programme from satisfactorily achieving
the NSDS’s objectives for the development of
entrepreneurs. The sustainability of the newly
created ventures, which is the real measure of
the programme’s success, can only be measured
though longitudinal study. Overall, we can
say that the programme exhibits tremendous
promise, but must address its limitations if it
hopes to meet the ambitious targets set by the
NSDS.
Importantly, the ideal learner profile for
such a learnership programme is a candidate
with some previous business experience, not a
recently graduated high school student with very
limited technical and life skills. It is possible that,
in trying to achieve the target number of learners
set by the NSDS, selectors for the programme
circumvent the stricter requirements of the
candidate screening procedure. However this
is a short-term solution, since it will in the long
term result in more learners dropping out of
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 527
the programme, and so limit the success of the
learnership process. Thus the NVCL programme
output can be enhanced by improving the
selection of learners for the programme.
Administrators have to learn to correctly identify
early entrepreneurial potential.
Finally, the degree of agreement between the
quantitative assessment and the results from
the questionnaires suggests that the assessment
model developed here based on Pretorius
(2001) is a successful evaluation model for
entrepreneurial interventions.
10
Limitations and future research
The basic shortcoming of this study, which is
shared by all attempts to assess entrepreneurial
interventions, is the lack of empirical methods
for evaluating the assessment framework.
Consequentially, the evaluation of the programme
is subjective, based on an understanding of the
specific programme obtained from secondary
sources. Including qualitative input from
the respondents (practitioners via interview
questionnaires) does mitigate this problem
somewhat, and improves the validity of the
findings.
Bias is also a limitation, both in the
questionnaire and the secondary literature
used for the evaluation. The study did not use
a representative sample of respondents for
the questionnaire , so some bias is possible;
however this appears not to have influenced
the assessment outcome as both positive
and negative aspects were identified in the
questionnaires. The impartiality of the authors
of the secondary literature is more difficult to
assess; this thus constitutes a limitation of our
study.
Future research should definitely empirically
investigate the impact of an individual facilitator’s
knowledge and experience on the overall
outcomes of the programme. A longitudinal
assessment of the eventual sustainability of the
new ventures created through the programme
is also needed.
References
1 ALBERTI, F.; SCIASCIA, S. & POLI, A. (2004)
“Entrepreneurship education: Notes on an
ongoing debate”. Proceedings of the 14th Annual
IntEnt Conference 4–7 July 2004, University of
Napoli Federico II, Italy.
2 AMOS, T.L. & MAAS, G. (2001) “Developing
entrepreneurial students: a proposal of the what
and how”, Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-
Conference 2–4 July 2001, Kruger National Park,
South Africa. Rhodes University: Grahamstown.
3 ANTONITES A.J. & VAN VUUREN, J.J. (2004)
“An action learning approach to entrepreneurial
creativity, innovation and opportunity finding”,
Proceedings of the 14th Global IntEnt-Conference,
4–7 July 2004, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy.
4 BOTHA, M. (2006) “Measuring the effectiveness
of women entrepreneurship programme, as
a training intervention, on potential, start-up
and established women entrepreneurs in South
Africa”, Unpublished DComm thesis. University of
Pretoria: Pretoria.
5 BROCKHAUS, R.H. (1993) “Entrepreneurship
education: A research agenda”, In Klant, H.
& Muller-Boling, D. (eds.) Internationalizing
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, IntEnt92:
Dortmund: 3–7.
6 DAVIES, T.A. (2000) “Opportunity scan to
identify the viability and focus areas of possible
new ventures that could be established in the
micro enterprise sector in the larger Durban
Metropolitan area”, New Venture Creation
Replication Guide (Electronic CD) Department of
Labour: Pretoria.
7 DAVIES, T.A. (2002) New Venture Creation: A
Unique Learnership Model for the Unemployed,
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project Phase II.
New Venture Creation Replication Guide (Electronic
CD) Department of Labour: Pretoria.
8 DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, (2003)
“Background information and outline of format
proposals for lead service providers.” New Venture
Creation Replication Guide, Provincial Skills
Development Pilot Project Phase II. (Electronic CD)
Department of Labour: Pretoria.
9 DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, (2005) National
Skills Development Strategy 1 April 2005 - 31 March
2010.http://www.labour.gov.za/useful_docs/doc_
display.jsp?id=9976. (Accessed 16 May 2005.)
10 DRUCKER, P.F. (2001) Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. Butterworth-Heinemann.
11 FREGETTO, E. & FRY, F. (2002) “Identifying
boundaries: delineating overlaps in teaching small
528 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
business management and entrepreneurship
courses”, 2002 USASBE (United States Association
for Small Business and Entrepreneurship) Annual
National Conference Proceedings. Reno, Nevada,
17-20 January 2002.
12 GARAVAN, T.N. & O’CINNEIDE, B. (1994)
“Entrepreneurship education and training
programs: a review and evaluation, part 1”, Journal
of European Industrial Training, 18(8): 3–12.
13. GARTNER, W.B. & VESPER, K.H.
(1994) “Executive forum: Experiments in
entrepreneurship education, success and failures”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3): 179–187.
14 GIBB, A.A. (1987) “Education for enterprise:
Training for small business initiation – some
contrasts”, Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 4(3): 42–47.
15 GORMAN, G.; HANLON, D & KING, W. (1997)
“Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, enterprise education and education for
small business management: A ten-year literature
review”, International Small Business Journal,
15(3): 56–78.
16 HILLS, G.E. (1988) “Variations in university
entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of
an evolving field”, Journal of Business Venturing, 3:
109–122.
17 HOOD, J.N. & YOUNG, J.E. (1993)
“Entrepreneurship’s requisite areas of
development: A survey of top executives in
successful entrepreneurial firms”, Journal of
Business Venturing, 8(2): 115–135.
18 IVANCEVICH, J.M. (1991) “A traditional faculty
member’s perspective on entrepreneurship”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1): 1–7.
19 JOHNSON, B. (1990) “Toward a multidimensional
model of entrepreneurship: The case of
achievement motivation and the entrepreneur”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3): 39–54.
20 JORDAAN, J.W. (2002) “A multi-dimensional
conceptual framework as an aid to assist in
entrepreneurship development”, Proceedings of
the 12th Global IntEnt-Conference, 8–10 July 2002,
Johore Bahru, Malaysia.
21 KLANDT, H. (1993) “Methods of teaching:
what is useful for entrepreneurship education?”
Proceedings of the Conference Internationalizing
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Vienna
(Austria), July 5–7, 1993.
22 LABUSCHAGNE, M.; NIEUWENHUIZEN,
C. & KROON, J. (2001) “A multidisciplinary
approach to the development of training programs
and qualifications for entrepreneurship”,
Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-Conference,
2-4 July 2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
23 LADZANI, W.M. & VAN VUUREN, J.J.
(2002) “Entrepreneurship training for emerging
entrepreneurs in South Africa”, Journal of Small
Business Management, 40(2): 154–161.
24 LE ROUX, F.A.S. (2004) “Entrepreneurial
training and development: A holistic approach
to new venture creation in the Republic of South
Africa”, Proceedings of the 14th Global IntEnt-
Conference, University of Napoli Federico II (Italy),
4–7 July 2004.
25 LIGTHELM, A.A. & CANT, M.C. (2003) “Small
Business Problems in South Africa: Priorities
for Entrepreneurial Education.” Proceedings
of the 13th global IntEnt-Conference, 8th–10th
September Grenoble/France.
26 MAMINZA P.M.; MARAIS H.C.; MTHETHWA
B.A.; MBUYANE E.M.; NKOSI A.E. &
SHABANGU A.I. (2001) “The need for and
effects of entrepreneurship and technical training
in deep-rural areas”, International Conference for
Entrepreneurship Education and Training 2–4 July
2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
27 McCLELLAND, D.C. (1965a) “Achievement
motivation can be developed”, Harvard Business
Review, 43: 6–25.
28 McCLELLAND, D.C. (1965b) “Achievement and
entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4): 389–392.
29 McCLELLAND, D.C. & WINTER, D. (1971)
Motivating Economic Achievement, Free Press:
New York.
30 McMULLAN, W.E. & LONG, W.A. (1987)
“Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3): 261–275.
31 MIRON, D. & McCLELLAND, D.C. (1979) “The
impact of achievement motivation training on
small businesses”, California Management Review,
21(4): 13–28.
32 NEW VENTURE AFRICA (2005) A Model for
the Business Development Phase of the New Venture
Creation Learnership: Report Prepared for DANIDA
and SESD by New Venture Africa, Department of
Labour: Pretoria.
33 NIEUWENHUIZEN, C. & KROON, J. (2002)
“Identification of entrepreneurial success factors
to determine the content of entrepreneurship
subjects”, South African Journal of Higher
Education. 16(3).
34 NIEUWENHUIZEN, C. & GROENWALD, D.
(2004) “Entrepreneurship training and education
needs as determined by the brain preference
profiles of successful, established entrepreneurs”,
Proceedings of the 14th Global IntEnt-Conference,
4–7 July 2004, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 529
35 ORFORD, J.; HERRINGTON, M. & WOOD,
E. (2004) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2004:
South African Report. UCT Centre for Innovation
and Entrepreneurship, Graduate School of
Business, University of Cape Town.
36 PLASCHKA, G.R. & WELSCH, H.P. (1990)
“Emerging structures in entrepreneurship
education: curricular designs and strategies”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(3): 55–71.
37 POOE, R, (2002) “Outcomes-based education
as a vehicle to entrepreneurship education and
training”, Proceedings of the 12th Global IntEnt
Conference, July 8–10, 2002 Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
38 PRETORIUS, M. (2000) “Evaluation of a
proposed training methodology to enhance micro
and small business start-ups in South Africa”,
Proceedings: ICSB World Conference. Brisbane.
Australia.
39 PRETORIUS, M. (2001) “A training model
to enhance micro and small business start-ups
in South Africa”, Unpublished DTech thesis.
Transvaal University of Technology: Pretoria.
40 PRETORIUS, M. & MAARTENS, W.P. (2001)
“Application of a proposed evaluation instrument
to evaluate venture start-up training programmes”,
Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-Conference,
2–4 July 2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
41 PRETORIUS, M.; NIEMAN, G. & VAN
VUUREN, J.J. (2005) “Critical evaluation of two
models for entrepreneurial education: an
improved model through integration,” International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(5): 413–
427.
42 PRODIGY (2005) DOL/SESD NVC Programme:
Impact Evaluation Report Compiled By Prodigy
Business Services, November 2005. Department of
Labour: Pretoria.
43 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (1995) “White
paper on national strategy for the development
and promotion of small business in South Africa”,
Government Gazette. 28 March, 357(16317)
44 RONSTADT, R. (1987) “The educated
entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial
education is beginning,” American Journal of Small
Business, 11(4): 37–53.
45 SHAVER, K. & SCOTT, L. (1992) “Person,
process and choice: the psychology of new venture
creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16:
23–45.
46 SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS
AUTHORITY (2002) National Certificate: New
Venture Creation (SMME) SAQA Registered
Qualification.
47 TIMMONS, J.A. (1971) “Black is beautiful: Is it
bountiful?” Harvard Business Review, 49: 81–94.
48 TIMMONS, J.A. (1994) New Venture Creation:
Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century. Irwin: Burr
Ridge.
49 TIMMONS, J.A. & SPINELLI, S. (2003) New
Venture Creation, Entrepreneurship for the 21st
Century. McGraw Hill.
50 ULRICH, T.A. & COLE, G.S. (1987) “Toward
more effective training of future entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Small Business Management, 25(4):
32–39.
51 VAN CLOUSE, G.H. (1990) “A controlled
experiment relating entrepreneurial education
to students’ start-up decisions”, Journal of Small
Business Management, 28(2): 45–53.
52 VAN VUUREN, J.J. & ANTONITES, A.J.
(2001) “Recent developments regarding content
of entrepreneurship training programmes”,
Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-Conference,
2-4 July 2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
53 VAN VUUREN, J.J. & NIEMAN, G. (1999)
“Entrepreneurship education and training: a
model for syllabi/curriculum development”, 44th
ICSB World Conference Proceedings.
54 VESPER, K.H. & McMULLAN, W.E. (1988)
“Entrepreneurship: today courses, tomorrow
degrees?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
13(1): 7–13.
55 VIVIERS, S.; VAN EEDEN, S. & VENTER,
D. (2001) “Identifying small business problems
in the South African context for proactive
entrepreneurial education”, Proceedings of the 11th
Global IntEnt-Conference 2–4 July 2001, Kruger
National Park, South Africa.
56 WATSON, C.H. & BOSHOFF, A.B. (1995)
“Applying the entrepreneurship life-cycle
framework to the identification of topic areas for
teaching”, Proceedings of the Int Ent Conference,
Bunbury, Australia, 25–28 July 1995.
57 WICKHAM, P.A. (2004) Strategic Entrepreneurship
(3
rd
ed.) Financial Times/Pitman Publishing:
London.
doc_807062871.pdf
In such a brief description related to entrepreneurial training curriculum assessment the case of new venture creation.
504 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINING CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT:
THE CASE OF NEW VENTURE CREATION LEARNERSHIPS
Marius Pretorius and Thomasz Wlodarczyk
Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria
Abstract
This paper joins the debate about how best to assess entrepreneurial training interventions, using
a case-study. Contextual secondary literature about the structure and content of such interventions
is briefly reviewed. Based on this review, a framework is developed and applied to the Provincial
Skills Development Pilot Project’s current New Venture Creation Learnership programme. This
in-depth case study uses an evaluation instrument based on the entrepreneurial assessment model
proposed by Pretorius (2001: 264). Results show that the chosen programme exhibits certain
limitations, which restricts its success in developing entrepreneurs in line with the National Skills
Development Strategy. However, the programme possesses many strengths and its limitations
are easily remedied. The proposed assessment method successfully identifies the strengths and
weaknesses of the programme.
JEL L26, M53
1
Introduction
In 2004 South Africa’s total entrepreneurial
activity (TEA) rate was estimated at 5.4 per
cent, against a total average of 9.4 per cent
amongst all countries participating in the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
programme (Orford, Herrington & Wood,
2004: 3). Considering that the average TEA rate
for developing countries is 21 per cent, South
Africa is one of the least “entrepreneurially
active” nations among its peers. In recognition
of this, the South African government has
instituted the National Skills Development
Strategy (NSDS) to improve the labour force’s
level of skills through training interventions
and learnership programmes. This strategy
has raised expectations as to the development
of individuals capable of creating sustainable
entrepreneurial ventures. Among the guiding
principles of the NSDS (Department of
Labour, 2005: 2) are supporting employment
creation and poverty reduction. Increasing
employment is in line with the government’s
strategy to develop small business, which has
highlighted the small business sector as an
important force to generate such employment
and more equitable income distribution, and
to stimulate economic development (Republic
of South Africa, 1995: 2). Consequently, the
NSDS has developed ambitious expectations
of the New Venture Creation Learnership
(NVCL) programme in assisting to close this
gap.
This study is aims to aid developing countries
that are seeking guidelines and answers as they
increasingly turn toward entrepreneurship
as a viable vehicle for promoting economic
development (Hood & Young, 1993: 1).
Current government intervention efforts to
develop entrepreneurship do not seem to be
making much headway. According to Davies
(2002: 7), the “government is on record for
admitting that, despite the huge investment in
support structures and training, there is little
appreciable positive impact evident in the
SMME sector.” Consequently, the National
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 505
Skills Development Strategy is concerned
with the development of new ventures, with
a target of 7000 new ventures created by
2010. Within this context, the NSD strategy
specifically focuses on the pre-founding
(incubation) and infancy stages of the life cycle
of entrepreneurial ventures.
As an alternative to standard education,
learnership is a learning programme that leads
to an occupational qualification. A typical
learnership consists of:
• an institutional learning component
amounting to approximately 30 per cent of
the total learning time and
• a workplace-learning component where the
learner is placed with an employer for the
remainder of the learning period.
The entrepreneurship development approach of
the NVC programme is built on the principles
of outcomes-based education (OBE). As Pooe
(2002: 4) explains, OBE is not about what the
tuition system provides and teachers teach, but
about what students actually learn and what they
are able to do at the end of a learning experience.
Since the aim of the NVC intervention is the
tangible establishment of new ventures, the very
concept of entrepreneurship education and
training in itself is inherently outcomes-based.
The learnership process imparts knowledge
through formal teaching and develops tangible
skills through experiential learning activities, which
include behavioural and emotional components
that are difficult to incorporate within a traditional
classroom setting (Pooe, 2002: 11). Theoretical
knowledge is important for developing skills
in systematic innovation, risk reduction and
management (Amos & Maas, 2001: 7), and
enables students to anticipate the future instead
of relying on luck or intuition (Alberti, Sciascia
& Poli, 2004: 13). Timmons (1994) states that
inclusion of training materials should:
• convince the student to become actively
involved in entrepreneurship;
• facilitate an understanding of the dynamic
nature of the world of entrepreneurship;
and
• slow down the reality shock of the real world
by means of formal or informal tuition.
It follows that, in order to facilitate meaningful
experiential learning, the relevant theoretical
knowledge base must first be imparted to the
learner, and that the content of the formal
teaching must be appropriately developed
in accordance with the envisaged learning
outcomes. Thereafter, the approach of
training delivery is important in motivating the
prospective entrepreneur to pursue this field,
and simulating the experiences he or she is likely
to encounter in the real world.
This paper briefly explains the NVCL
programme and its context, and reviews
the key literature on entrepreneurship
training principles. It focuses on the question
of how to assess entrepreneurial training
interventions, and evaluates the NVCL based
on the literature, reports the assessment results
following the application of the entrepreneurial
education assessment tool, and finally provides
conclusions.
2
Research questions
The content and level of entrepreneurship
courses vary significantly depending on the
objectives of the training (Pretorius 2000: 5).
The key considerations that guide the choice
of learnership instructional content therefore
centre around matching the tuition with the
expectations of the NSDS and the structure of
the learnership process, the actual needs of the
learners, the realities of running a business in the
South African environment and fundamental
entrepreneurship and business theory concepts.
Therefore, the key research questions for this
study of the teaching curriculum of the NVC
qualification are:
• What is the context of the NSDS initiative,
and what are the resulting expectations of
the NVC learnership?
• Is the tuition curriculum "appropriate" in
light of the expected outcomes and targets
of the NSDS?
• Does the tuition content of the NVC
learnership process follow recommended
best practice standards as supported by
academic research?
506 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
• Does the learnership programme balance
theoretical fundamentals with the dynamic
nature of entrepreneurship and the realities
of running a business in South Africa?
• Does the learnership programme meet the
specific needs of the learners, and inspire
students to become actively involved in
entrepreneurship?
These questions are explored in this paper.
The answers should contribute to an improved
understanding of this significant government
intervention, and may guide developers of
entrepreneurship training programmes.
3
Why learnerships?
According to the Department of Labour (2005:
15), the formal sector is not creating enough
jobs for all the young people entering the labour
market annually, and the potential exists for
some young people to become entrepreneurs
if assisted to do so. As illustrated by the NSDS
targets for new venture creation, the government
has high expectations for the performance of
the NVC learnership in offering this assistance.
Of course, the creation of a sustainable new
venture depends on various factors, not least
of which is the entrepreneur him or herself.
Wickham (2004: 134) defines the entrepreneur
as the individual who lies at the heart of the
entrepreneurial process, the person who drives
the whole process forward.
What really matters as an outcome in any
entrepreneurial training programme is a change
in behaviour to engage in the start-up process.
This is known as the “start-up edge” required for
venture start-up success (Pretorius & Maartens,
2001: 13). In the case of young individuals, such
as those targeted by the NSDS, this challenge
is exceptionally demanding. Le Roux (2004: 12)
outlines the NVC learnership model, which aims
to provide a holistic intervention for fostering
and enabling new business start-ups. The salient
elements of the NVC model are:
• A selection process aimed at identifying
individuals who possess an inherent
entrepreneurial awareness;
• An institutional learning component leading
to the development and submission of a
business plan; and
• A practical business development phase,
which includes the facilitation of access to
markets and sources of finance.
The NVC learnership training aims funda-
mentally to provoke behavioural change in
learners (Davies, 2002: 16). This model’s
philosophy is that learning must include
knowledge transfer, as it combines components
of education and training in order to facilitate the
attainment of knowledge, comprehension, skill
and mastery of execution through experiences
that lead to relatively permanent changes
in behaviour (Pretorius, 2000: 3). Pretorius
(2000: 4) hypothesises that if a training process
is “improved to be more applicable and
practical by becoming a learning-process, more
entrepreneurs will enter, succeed and contribute
to the economic growth so desperately needed.”
The highest level of learning a learner can
achieve is thus to start his or her own venture,
while the least effective form of learning, in
terms of bringing about behavioural change,
is probably listening to a lecture. This holistic
approach is required to assist persons who
have embarked on entrepreneurial activities
in nurturing their enterprise, and to support
them with the skills and knowledge needed to
run a business in a formal manner (Le Roux,
2004: 2).
This study focuses on the tuition component,
which consists of content material and the
facilitation of the training curriculum. The
learnership training unit standards have been
reviewed and updated since the publication
of the initial NVC qualification in 2002, and it
is now generally accepted that course content
alone cannot create sustainable business
ventures, nor can training in isolation “rectify
a critical situation” (Van Vuuren & Antonites,
2001: 1). Davies (2002: 5) highlights the fact that
acquiring skills specific to small, medium and
micro enterprises (SMMEs) is seldom achieved
through structured learning, but rather through
the processes of skills formation. Therefore,
the design and establishment of the NVC
learnership must aim to:
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 507
• Develop appropriate skills and knowledge
required for enterprise development (start-
ups);
• Support job creation rather than quali-
fications as a priority; and
• Address the economic, administrative and
social barriers that contribute to failures in
starting and developing the enterprise.
It follows that the training curriculum should
embody the same philosophy of purpose
and outcomes as that which supports the
learnership approach as a whole. Therefore,
the development of instructional content should
be geared towards tangible creation of new
ventures. However, though this experiential
approach is the fundamental tenet of the
learnership programme, certain knowledge
and theory, as Amos and Maas (2001: 7)
acknowledge, is required by individuals to
be successful as entrepreneurs. According to
Alberti et al. (2004: 13), entrepreneurship theory
is a set of empirical generalisations about how
entrepreneurs should behave that allows for
predictions of true outcomes. Theory must
be taught to aspiring entrepreneurs because
nothing is more practical than understanding
the consequences of committing resources
to launch a venture. Drucker (2001: 26) also
highlights the need for theory, pointing out that
“entrepreneurship is risky mainly because so few
of the so-called entrepreneurs know what they
are doing. They lack the methodology. They
violate elementary and well-known rules.”
4
Research objectives and
propositions
The key objectives of this study are thus to find
a methodology for assessing entrepreneurial
interventions and apply it. An overview of
the academic literature is used to develop a
guideline for evaluating the training curriculum
that has been compiled to support the NVC
learnership. Since the outcomes of the training
should be geared towards the NSDS targets,
the specific context of the NSDS must first be
understood. Topics for inclusion in the course
content should be selected to meet the specific
training needs of potential entrepreneurs at
various stages of the person’s entrepreneurial
development (Watson & Boshoff, 1995: 18).
Consequently, a high-level profile of the typical
learnership delegate must be proposed, and
the particular entrepreneurial venture stage/s
covered by the learnership defined. The study
therefore has the following objectives:
• To explain the context of the NSDS and
NVC learnership objectives: this includes
a definition of the SMME life-cycle stage/s
pertinent for development, and a profile of
the typical learnership delegate;
• To develop, based on a review of relevant
academic literature sources, an under-
standing of the recommended best practice
standards for entrepreneurship content and
training approach that should be included
in a training programme: this will serve as
the basis for determining whether the NVC
learnership curriculum is appropriate within
the context of the NSDS;
• To evaluate the NVC learnership case in
depth against the standards defined within
academic research literature; and
• To investigate whether the NVC learnership
process has the potential to inspire new
entrants into entrepreneurship, while
exposing them to the dynamic nature
of entrepreneurship and the realities of
running a business in South Africa.
The qualification outline for the National
Certificate in NVC cites various international
academic references in support of its conceptual
framework (South African Qualifications
Authority, 2002: 4). Among these references,
Van Vuuren and Antonites (2001: 1) highlight the
inconsistency in viewpoints regarding the content
of entrepreneurship training programmes within
local and international secondary data. This is a
major constraint to the development of specific
guidelines for entrepreneurship training content
and delivery. Consequently, this study uses the
entrepreneurial performance education model
proposed by Pretorius, Nieman and Van Vuuren
(2005: 420) as the basis for curriculum research
and evaluation. This model gives broad coverage
of the factors effecting entrepreneurship
education (i.e. business skills, entrepreneurial
508 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
skills, achievement motivation, entrepreneurial
success factors, approaches to business learning,
application of the business plan, facilitator skill,
and the overall context of the intervention),
and so provides a practical focal point for
discussing curriculum content and delivery.
The paper therefore focuses on the following
propositions:
P1: The curriculum structure of the NVC
learnership resembles recommended
guidelines within academic literature,
as evaluated in accordance with the
entrepreneurial performance education
model
If this is true, then
P2: The training delivery of the NVC learnership
is appropriate for the development of
entrepreneurs as required by the NSDS
strategy.
5
Methodology
The research design is a formal, ex post facto case
study using secondary data on entrepreneurial
education and then assessing the NVCL as an
example case. Data was gathered using in-depth
interviews with key role players (i.e. the project
manager, the learnership coordinator and
facilitators), and an analysis of the materials,
content, delivery process and facilitation of the
course. The aim was never to statistically prove
differences but rather to execute a meaningful
assessment of the programme. The investigation
covers both the assessment tool and the
programme under investigation.
To ensure contextual specificity, the literature
study was based primarily on the South
African context, with articles obtained from
academic journals, conference proceedings
and government sources such as the South
African Qualification Authority (SAQA), the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and
Department of Labour. International reference
sources were included to establish a basis of
support for the model, and to make the study
more broadly applicable.
Firstly, government secondary data sources
were consulted to build an overview of the
context of the NSDS and NVC learnership
initiatives. Then a review of the academic
literature was undertaken to decide on the
main themes that could be used as a point
of departure for developing guidelines for
assessing the NVC learnership. The status
of available information and the level of
academic consensus regarding the curriculum
requirements for entrepreneurship courses
were evaluated. Based on this analysis, and the
relative lack of agreement among scholars about
the content and structure of entrepreneurship,
as mentioned above, the entrepreneurial
performance education model proposed by
Pretorius et al. (2005: 420) was selected as the
base framework for programme evaluation. This
model was found to contain many constructs
relevant to entrepreneurship education, as will
be outlined in the literature review in section 6
of this paper.
The literature findings were synthesised into a
contextual guideline for a qualitative assessment
of the content and delivery of the training
curriculum supporting the NVC learnership.
The evaluation consisted of two parts, namely
a course content analysis and an examination of
the training delivery.
• The course content was evaluated according
to the multiplicative model proposed by Van
Vuuren and Antonites (2001: 2):
EP = M [(ES × BS)]
where EP is entrepreneurial performance,
M is motivation, ES is entrepreneurial skills
and BS is business skills. This model is an
integral part of the overall entrepreneurial
performance education model selected
for our evaluation. The NVC qualification
outcomes and assessment criteria for each
of the core unit standards were evaluated
against these content guidelines.
• The training delivery and overall perceptions
of the programme were evaluated by
gathering qualitative feedback from NVCL
practitioners by means of a questionnaire
founded on the entrepreneurial training
model proposed by Pretorius (2001:
264). This specific assessment tool was
chosen because it is an integral part of
the overall entrepreneurial performance
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 509
education model and so was already pre-
developed according to the constructs of the
model. Also, the assessment tool has been
successfully applied in the evaluation of other
entrepreneurship programmes (Pretorius,
2001: 202; Pretorius & Maartens, 2001: 10).
This evaluation process was an opportunity for
the practical application of the entrepreneurial
performance education model within a real
training scenario.
The questionnaire includes of a series of
questions grouped according to the constructs
outlined in Pretorius’ model, and feedback is
collected via a seven-point scale. Participants are
asked to evaluate the extent to which they agree
with each of the statements in the questionnaire
about the programme under evaluation. The
seven-point scale assists in outlining any
positive or negative deviations from the median.
Anything above or below the median value
of four highlights strengths and weaknesses,
respectively, in the programme, as perceived
by the respondents. Significant strengths and
weaknesses were noted and discussed.
6
Literature review
6.1 Academic consensus about training
standards
A suitable training curriculum for the NVC
learnership is not easy to specify. At present
there is no consensus among scholars of
the field of entrepreneurship as to the basic
content of such training interventions that aim
to improve entrepreneurial performance (Van
Vuuren & Antonites, 2001: 2), and the training
of entrepreneurs in South Africa is still in a
very early developmental phase. In their review
of entrepreneurship education and training
programmes, Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994: 3)
found that there is a lack of accepted paradigms
or theories of entrepreneurship education and
training. Alberti et al. (2004: 12) mention that
too many different courses show a chaotic and
“undisciplined discipline”, but believe that this
divergence will decrease as soon as the field
reaches its maturity.
Van Vuuren and Antonites (2001: 11) assess
the academic consensus on the importance
of various competencies implied within their
multiplicative model, mentioned in section 5.
Their findings support the general view already
stated, that consensus amongst academics as to
the appropriate content for entrepreneurship
courses is lacking. Certain competencies
however, are mentioned more consistently in
the literature, namely: performance motivation,
creati vi ty and i nnovati on, opportuni ty
identification, business plans, financial skills,
marketing skills and general management skills
(including organising, planning, control, co-
ordination, strategic process, decision making
and basic business management principles). In
a ten-year literature review, Gorman, Hanlon
and King (1997: 14) echo these points. They
also stress the problems associated with the
variety of approaches and directions taken by
academics in this field, but similarly outline
a number of consistent themes, such as the
need to distinguish between entrepreneurship,
enterprise and small business management
education and to differentiate each of these
from traditional approaches to management
education. Furthermore, they report consensus
on the components of an ideal structure, namely:
“a focus on attributes and skills as well as tasks,
an element of concrete experience derived from
active participation through projects and the
like, and content directed to stage of venture
development and emphasising functional
integration”.
Most importantly, perhaps, the literature
review revealed that there is significant
consensus that entrepreneurship can be
taught, and that entrepreneurship courses
can enhance a student’s propensity towards
business endeavours and effect their decisions
accordingly (Ronstadt, 1987: 39; Van Clouse,
1990: 51; Ivancevich, 1991: 5; Hood & Young,
1993: 133; Gorman et al., 1997: 15).
6.2 Content of entrepreneurial training
programmes
Gibb (1987: 42) defines the entrepreneur and
the enterprising person in terms of attributes
and the small-business person in terms of
510 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
tasks, maintaining that this should guide the
development of training programmes for
enterprise as opposed to training for small
business owners. In their research into the
distinction between entrepreneurship and
small business curricula, Fregetto and Fry
(2002: 11) highlight the current level of overlap
between entrepreneurship and small business
management courses. However, they outline
clear distinctions for certain topics: the small
business stream often includes many traditional
management topics such as supervision,
product management, human relations and
procurement, while an entrepreneurship course
may often include topics such as venture capital,
incubators, creativity, acquisition and start-up
and opportunity recognition. Nevertheless,
there is a broad grey area of topic overlap, to
which academic and professional experience
does not provide sufficient guidance (Fregetto
& Fry, 2002: 15). Vesper and McMullan (1988:
9) emphasise two core differences between an
entrepreneurship programme and the traditional
management programme, namely: the ability
to detect and exploit business opportunities
more quickly, and the ability to project a more
extensive sequence of actions for entering
business. Ronstadt (1987: 45) agrees, stressing
that entrepreneurial training is distinct from
management education because time is vital to
start-up, since it directly impacts on opportunity
recognition, investigation and development,
not only before but also after commencement
of the venture.
In an in-depth survey of expert opinion, Hills
(1988: 1) establishes that the most important
educational objective of entrepreneurship
programmes is to increase the learners’
awareness of the processes involved in initiating
and managing a new business enterprise. Other
important objectives included attention to
entrepreneurship as a career option, reflection
on the characteristics of the entrepreneur,
and understanding of functional business
inter-relationships. Timmons and Spinelli
(2003: xiii) promote this concept of integration
between business functional areas within an
entrepreneurship curriculum, and base their
teaching approach on the Timmons model
of the entrepreneurial process. They outline
(2003: 56) the central themes or driving forces
of the dynamic entrepreneurial process. This
process is:
• opportunity driven,
• guided by a lead entrepreneur and an
entrepreneurial team,
• economical with resources but still creative,
• dependent on the fit and balance among
the three key constructs within the
model, i.e. opportunity, resources and the
entrepreneurial team, and
• integrated and holistic.
This integrated approach is key to the
development of training interventions for
entrepreneurship, since it is significantly
more organic than the content approach
often associated with traditional management
education. Interestingly, a survey conducted by
Hood and Young (1993) of 100 chief executives in
entrepreneurial firms loosely reflects Timmons’
theoretical basis. Respondents were asked to
identify significant skills in the four primary
areas for entrepreneurial development; they
mentioned leadership, communication and
human relations as the most critical skill areas of
knowledge, creativity and opportunistic thinking
as the most important mental skill areas, self-
motivation and risk-taking as the prominent
personality factors, and finance/accounting/cash-
management and marketing/sales (along with
core technical/occupational skills) as the most
important content areas of knowledge (Hood
& Young, 1993: 124). Thus, entrepreneurship
development requires an element of skill-building
in addition to knowledge-based courses focusing
on entrepreneurship. An entrepreneurial
training programme must include elements
such as communication skills, negotiation skills,
leadership and creative thinking, authentic
involvement in entrepreneurial activities,
developing a portfolio of business plans, practice
in opportunity identification, and exposure to
entrepreneurial role models and new product
development (McMullan & Long, 1987: 268;
Vesper & McMullan, 1988: 11).
Labuschagne, Nieuwenhuizen and Kroon
(2001: 18) identify the primary factors that
contribute to the success of small and medium
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 511
enterprises in South Africa, stating that the
training of entrepreneurs should focus on
the development of those skills and abilities
identified as success factors of entrepreneurs
(divided into factors directly related to personal
characteristics, and those directly related to
functional management skills). Empirical analysis
conducted by Nieuwenhuizen and Kroon (2002:
6) shows that there is a strong relation between
the success of a business and entrepreneurial
success factors such as creativity and innovation,
financial management, willingness to take risks,
knowledge of competitors and business planning.
Consequently, a training programme must focus
on these entrepreneurial success factors.
6.3 Entrepreneurship training qualifiers
The theoretical content, and to some degree the
approach, of entrepreneurial training should
be checked according to certain qualifiers that
optimise the programme to its specific context.
These qualifiers can include, but are not limited
to, the specific life cycle of the business for which
the training is intended, and real-life factors
such as common problems experienced by
entrepreneurship practitioners. These qualifiers
influence the specifics of the training content and
the level at which it is presented. For instance,
at a pre-entrepreneurial stage of the business,
the entrepreneur as a person must be stressed,
but at later stages of the life cycle the macro-
internal aspects of new venture creation and the
organizational creation process must be given
more attention (Watson & Boshoff, 1995: 19).
Theorists advise that entrepreneurship training
be clearly distinguished from management
training based on its teaching of the stage of
venture development (McMullan & Long, 1987:
268; Plaschka & Welsch, 1990: 65). Venture
development should also define the specific
course structure, second only to the requirements
of the specific audience (Brockhaus, 1993: 4).
According to Jordaan (2002: 15), any attempt
to develop entrepreneurship skills must take
into account the central role of the venture life
cycle, as well as of creativity and managerial
competencies. The different stages of a venture
are characterised by different variables which
can act as moderators of the programme,
determining the content and extent of any
development intervention (Jordaan, 2002: 17).
In the start-up phase of a venture, the problems
encountered tend not to be one-dimensional
but highly integrated, incapable of being solved
by a single expert. It is in these situations that
entrepreneurial skills are demanded, to work
across boundaries on complex, interrelated
problems requiring the ability to take a holistic
view and exercise skills of analysis and synthesis
(Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994: 5).
Viviers, Van Eeden and Venter (2001: 2)
suggest that due to the risks associated with
starting a business, educators should enhance
the trainees’ chances of success by directing
teaching and course development towards
addressing specific problem areas, so as to
prepare students to better understand and
anticipate the problems they will meet when
entering a venture. Ligthelm and Cant (2003:
17) conducted a survey among South African
owners or managers of small businesses and
compiled a list of problems or issues that these
practitioners view as negatively influencing the
success of their small business. Table 1 contains
a summary of the problems that should be
considered when planning entrepreneurship
training programmes.
Table 1
Problems experienced by practitioners
Human resource issues
• New labour laws
• Inability to attract and maintain suitable staff
• Low labour productivity
• Poorly trained employees
• High labour turnover
Marketing-related issues
• Increased competition (market overtrading)
• Limited market size
• Ineffective marketing
• Lack of knowledge of competitors
• Poor location
512 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
Management functions
• Adapting to changing business environment
• Time management
• Delegation and cooperative management
• Planning and prioritising
• Effective control
Macro-environmental issues
• Crime and corruption
• Inflation
• Unemployment (limited market)
• Interest rates
• Exchange rates
Financial issues
• Difficulty in obtaining finance/credit
• Heavy operating expenses
• Management of consumer credit
• Poor cash flow management
• Lack of financial planning
Source: Ligthelm and Cant, (2003)
6.4 Approach to training delivery
Entrepreneurship as a subject is globally seen as
an applied science. It therefore requires a more
practical training approach than traditional
teaching methods usually offer (Antonites
& Van Vuuren, 2004: 4). Nieuwenhuizen
and Groenewald (2004: 4) suggest a training
methodology based on brain preference. By
their very nature, individuals who express
entrepreneurial intentions tend to show
psychological traits that differ from those
of non-entrepreneurs, and therefore tend
to prefer active learning styles. In a similar
vein, Ulrich and Cole (1987: 35) examine the
importance of learning style preferences in
enhancing trainees’ learning experience and
entrepreneurial propensity, and conclude that
entrepreneurial learning style preferences
tend toward active experimentation with some
balance between concrete experience and
abstract conceptualisation.
Pretorius (2000: 3) proposes the concept of
an entrepreneurial-directed learning approach,
which aims to deliver the highest level of
knowledge transfer and mastery of execution
through experiences that lead to relatively
permanent changes in behavior. Amos and Maas
(2001: 1) support this view that the emphasis
in education should be on what entrepreneurs
need to do and not on the characteristics
that describe what they are. These scholars
stipulate that educators need to understand
the requirements of entrepreneurial success,
and thereby develop a complex understanding
within learners by exposing them to the world
of business, and developing their ability to deal
with ill-structured problems. Klandt (1993: 43)
further proposes that within the constructs
of the entrepreneurial personality and the
entrepreneurial task, consulting activities,
working with entrepreneurs and business
simulations are very useful teaching and learning
methods for the entrepreneurship education
target audience. Although it is important to
facilitate theoretical knowledge acquisition and
retention, the necessary cognitive skills must
also be developed to enable a learner to start
up and manage a business organisation. The
ideal entrepreneurial-directed approach is one
requiring the instructor to become a learning
facilitator. Such an approach entails extensive
use of learning exercises such as role playing,
management simulations, structured exercises
of focused learning and feedback situations in
which the participant must take an active role
(Nieuwenhuizen & Groenewald, 2004: 5).
An empirical study conducted by Antonites
and Van Vuuren (2004: 1) illustrates the
effectiveness of an action learning approach
applied to training in creativity, innovation and
opportunity identification. Action learning is the
result of a combination of experiential learning,
creative problem solving, acquisition of relevant
knowledge and co-learner group support.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 513
Gartner and Vesper (1994: 185) conducted
a survey into experimental approaches to
entrepreneurship education, and report as
failures those processes that require students
to engage in introspective or reflective activities
or to develop case-lets, and as highly successful
exercises such as the development of business
plans for products. Similarly, a survey by Hills
(1988: 2) of expert opinion established that
course features considered most important are
the development of a business plan project and
entrepreneurs as speakers and role models.
6.5 The entrepreneurial performance
education model
As mentioned above, Van Vuuren and Nieman
(1999: 3) propose a multiplicative training model:
EP = M (ES × BS)
also referred to as the entrepreneurial per-
formance education model (Pretorius, Nieman &
Van Vuuren, 2005: 420). This model differs from
the typical “small business management” approach
to entrepreneurship training, which generally
focuses primarily on business skills (BS), by
introducing entrepreneurship skills (ES) (such as
creativity, opportunity identification, ability to take
risks etc.) and motivation development (M).
The positive effects of achievement motivation
training on entrepreneurial activity are well
recorded (McClelland, 1965b; Timmons,
1971; Miron & McClelland, 1979), although a
definitive link between achievement motivation
and entrepreneurial success has not been
established (Johnson, 1990: 1). However,
achievement motivation is seen as perhaps the
only person-based variable whose association
with new venture creation still appears to be
convincing (Shaver & Scott, 1992: 9). Motivation
plays a strong role in an individual’s taking
action (McClelland & Winter, 1971: 234), and
so is extremely relevant to any training initiative
which aims to create new businesses, since no
amount of training effort or student intent can
be successful without meaningful action towards
implementation.
Pretorius (2000: 5) proposes a training metho-
dology which he calls the entrepreneurship
education model (EE model), which is based on:
• a framework of known entrepreneurial
success factors,
• other content pertaining to business
knowledge and skills, approaches to
business learning, the business plan and
the facilitator, and
• the overall context of the programme.
The focus of this EE model is increasing the
number of new business start-ups (Pretorius et
al., 2005: 423). The business knowledge content
must include a range of entrepreneurship and
business-related knowledge, as dictated by the
needs of the target audience or situation. The
three foundations of the model come together
in the business plan, which is the integration of
all the elements that determine the likelihood
of future business success. According to Botha
(2006), no meaningful business training can be
effected without involvement in the creation of a
business plan. Of course, the successful delivery
of the training depends on the facilitator’s
particular approach to facilitation and learning,
and on his/her ability and level of real-world
entrepreneurship experience.
Although Van Vuuren and Nieman’s EP
model (1999) and Pretorius’s EE model (2000)
contribute greatly towards our model’s paradigm
of entrepreneurship training, they both have
certain shortcomings. The motivation element is
absent from the EE model, while the EP model
does not factor in the facilitator’s approach to
training, the role of the facilitator, the context of
the training or the use of a business plan (although
this is arguably included in the BS factor).
Thus to correct these limitations, Pretorius et
al. (2005: 422) propose a model that integrates the
aspects of the two philosophies, education and
entrepreneurial performance. This integrated
model called the educate for entrepreneurial
performance (E for EP) model, can be expressed
as follows:
E for EP = ƒ [aF × bM (cES × dBS) × (eA
+ fBP)]
where:
E for EP = education for improved entre-
preneurial performance
F = facilitators ability, skills and
experience
514 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
M = motivation
ES = entrepreneurial skills
BS = business skills and knowledge
A = approaches of learning used
BP = use of a business plan as a training
approach
a - f = constants (0 > constant < 1)
This integrated model aims to lead to real
behavioural and attitudinal change within
the participants who complete the training
programme. In addition to key theoretical and
motivational training content, this model’s
unique contribution is its inclusion of the type
of training approach used by the facilitator as
dictated by the specific context of the programme,
and of the overall skill and experience level of
the facilitator (Pretorius et al., 2005: 422). The
training approaches that are most successful
are practical programmes involving the actual
starting of new ventures or creation of business
plans, simulations and case studies.
6.6 Relevance to South Africa and
other developing countries
Developing countries face enormous challenges.
High unemployment levels, poor education
and low literacy rates, critical skills deficits,
and a large divide between rich and poor are
but a few of these. Improving the quality of life
of previously disadvantaged communities is
intimately associated with enabling individuals
to take control of their circumstances on the
one hand, and raising their employability on the
other (Maminza et al., 2001). Entrepreneurship
underpins both of these effects, and the drive
by the government and local municipalities
to raise the quality of life for disadvantaged
communities is increasingly centred on the
development of entrepreneurship orientation
and skills, and building an enabling environment
to facilitate entrepreneurial activity. McClelland
and Winter (1971: 28) indicate that where the
level of entrepreneurship is low, development
programme officers may be driven to such
extraordinary costs in providing incentives
that programmes may be jeopardised. If the
structure of the response is inappropriate, any
manipulation of incentives will incur enormous
waste. The situation can be significantly improved
if incentive programmes are accompanied by
appropriate training initiatives.
McMullan and Long (1987: 1) view entre-
preneurship education as an essential part of
job creation, since this education is an integral
component of a community’s venture-support
infrastructure along with incubators, innovation
centres, technology transfer offices, science
parks and venture capital operations. Since
success in a new business endeavour is ultimately
dependent on the level of entrepreneurial
knowledge, experience and self-confidence of
the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship education
may be the most promising of all current
economic development mechanisms, although
arguably the most difficult to implement. For
this reason, efforts to better understand the tools
and mechanisms of effective entrepreneurship
training can usefully facilitate targeted training
interventions and the implementation of
appropriate economic development policies.
7
Case programme evaluation
7.1 Context of the NVCL training
programme
Subject knowledge elements are required in
an entrepreneurship curriculum, and the level
of complexity at which they can be presented
is determined by the context of the training
programme (Pretorius, 2001). The context
elements that should be included, from the field
of small business entrepreneurship, are:
• previous experience level of participants at
the start of training,
• educational level of participants,
• outcomes to be achieved on completion
of the training (start-up vs knowledge for
example),
• reason for participation in the training
and
• needs of the target group undergoing the
training
The NVCL strategy specifically mentions that
the learnership programme aims to develop
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 515
young people (Department of Labour, 2005:
17). Davies (2002: 15) describes the profile of
the learnership candidates and their latent level
of skills and experience as follows:
Given that all applicants for the Venture
Creation Learnership programme will
be mature and will probably have had
business exposure (as employees), the
assumption exists that their technical skills
base would be reasonably well developed;
that their business skills base will be
higher than for a group of pre-employed
candidates; and that their educational
fundamentals (given that most candidates
in this programme would have at least 9
years of schooling) would be reasonably
high. It could be equally assumed that in
terms of self-knowledge and attitudinal
disposition towards entrepreneurship, the
level of exposure and knowledge would be
low, requiring a good deal of attention in
the programme to changing the mindset
of learners.
It is important to stress that pre-employment
does not disqualify currently unemployed
people, a demographic which is a key target
of the learnership intervention (Davies, 2000:
1). However, the selection process must assess
their level of education, underlying skills base
and level of life-skills as fundamental entry
criteria. Timmons and Spinelli (2003: 259) refer
to a pattern of experience often seen among
successful entrepreneurs, which resembles an
apprenticeship; this experience encompassing
experience, know-how, contacts and market
knowledge, and is acquired gradually over a long
period. Applicants for the learnerships, whether
currently employed or unemployed, who lack
fundamental educational, literacy-related, life or
vocational skills will face significant challenges
in new venture creation, and are viewed as
unsuitable candidates for the learnership or
other such interventions. If the measured
outcome of an intervention is tangible business
creation, a learner selection strategy that ignores
these factors will jeopardise the programme’s
overall performance.
Accordingly, a screening process must be used
in the selection of candidates, to make sure
that those selected possess the requisite degree
of life experience and vocational skills and
experience. The focus of the NVC curriculum
should therefore primarily be geared towards
the development of an entrepreneurial mindset
and associated entrepreneurship and business
skill sets, not vocational skills or fundamental
education elements such as literacy and numeric
skills. Vocational/technical training cannot
feasibly form part of an entrepreneurship
course, since trainees will be involved in a
wide range of industries and fields, all of which
cannot be covered in one course. In cases
where learners need to develop business ideas
that are dependant on technical skills they do
not possess, development in these areas can be
provided via links with colleges and specialist
private institutions.
7.2 Assessment framework
Ladzani and Van Vuuren (2002: 156) illustrate
the application of the EP model as a basis
for assessing training programmes offered by
various training service providers. In their study,
the fundamental elements of entrepreneurship
training highlighted are Management Skills,
Opportunity Identification, Business Plan, and
Need for Achievement. In our E for EP model,
these same fundamental elements are also the
basis for assessment, although the context of
each individual training intervention will dictate
the inclusion of various other elements outlined
in the EP model.
To assess Proposition 1, we use a framework
designed to assess the NVCL course content.
Table 2 outlines this framework, which is based
on various literature sources and shaped by the
factors highlighted in the EP model, i.e. M, ES
and BS. The NVC qualification unit standards,
which consist of fundamental, core, and elective
modules, were evaluated against these content
guidelines. The fundamental modules, which
deal with English literacy and basic numeracy,
were excluded from the analysis, for reasons
outlined above in our discussion on the context of
the NVCL initiative and the appropriate learner
profile for the programme. Elective modules
are viewed as supplementary components
and not core teaching on entrepreneurship
fundamentals, and so also excluded from the
516 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
assessment. Thus only the core modules were
selected for assessment against the evaluation
framework. Proposition 2 was assessed according
to the criteria outlined in Table 3, as explained
in the methodology section.
Table 2
Training content components
Motivation Entrepreneurial skills Business skills
Need for achievement
• Achievement imagery
• Achievement goals
• Language of achievement
• Cognitive supports
• Group supports
Creativity
• Techniques
• Critical vs creative thinking
• Personal attributes and
actions that facilitate creativity
• Intuitive ability
Management/Leadership
• Planning
• Organising
• Leadership
• Control
Ability to inspire Innovation Business plans
Expectations of the high
achiever
• Thoughts on probability of
personal success
• Expectation of success
• Fear of failure
• Motivation to excel
Ability to take risks
• Financial
• Career-related
• Family- and social-related
• Psychological
• Tolerance for risk and
ambiguity
Financial skills (for pre-venture
and infancy stages)
• Start-up planning
• Cash flow budget
• Break-even analysis
• Short-term planning
• Working capital management
• Sources of finance
• Record keeping.
Obstacles or blocks
• Awareness of personal
obstacles
• Awareness of obstacles in the
environment
Ability to identify opportunities
• Generation of ideas
• Prioritisation of ideas
• Opportunity delineation
• Opportunity evaluation
Marketing skills
• Understanding the customer
• Market size
• Competition awareness
• Pricing and sales tactics
Help
• Towards reaching the
achievement goal
• Thinking beyond obstacles
Ability to have a vision for
growth
• Commitment to growth
Operational skills
• Methods enhancing
productivity (product or
service business)
Reaction to success or failure
• Response to feelings of failure
(seen as a reason to try again)
Interpret successful
entrepreneurial role models
• Entrepreneurial characteristics
Human resource skills
• Planning
• Compensation
• Training
• Management
Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren and Nieman (1999); Ladzani and Van Vuuren (2002);
McClelland (1965a); Pretorius, Nieman and Van Vuuren (2005)
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 517
Table 3
Constructs pertaining to training execution
Factor Considerations
Context of the
programme
• Previous experience of the participants
• Minimum educational level of the participants
• Outcomes of the programme after participation
• Needs of the target group who participate in the programme
• Reasons for participating in the programme
Business knowledge
and skills
• Perceiving an opportunity and developing a business concept
• Starting a business venture from the business plan
• Growing the business venture after start-up
• Competing in a mature market through effective and efficient strategies
• Exiting the market in a decline phase through successful divestment strategies
Facilitator
• Developing entrepreneurial thinking patterns
• Reinforcing entrepreneurial ways of being and behaving
• Apprenticeship and mentoring through venture establishment
• Application of a holistic and multi-disciplinary approach
• Own level of practical experience with start-ups
Approaches used to
transfer knowledge
and skills
• Use of appropriate approaches, techniques and methods that enhance learning
• Optimal participation of the learner in the learning process
• Incorporation of real-life problems and obstacles in the learning process
Business plan
utilisation
• Preparation of a business plan
• Presentation of the business plan to peers, facilitators and potential funding
institutions
• Opportunity to defend the main principles and assumptions underlying the plan
against critical evaluation
• Execution of the business plan under real circumstances
Source: Pretorius (2001).
8
Findings and discussion
Currently, there is no standard approach to the
facilitation of NVC learnerships among those
service providers involved in the initiative.
Furthermore, apart from the guidelines provided
by SAQA for the required outcomes of the
learnership, very little literature is available
which outlines possible approaches for providers
in enough detail to make assessment worthwhile
for the purposes of this study. For these reasons,
our analysis is restricted to the activities and
achievements of a single programme, the
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project
Phase II, which is presented by the Support
to Education and Skills Development (SESD)
initiative.
Phase II of the Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project began in 2000. Its objective is
the implementation of learnerships and skills
programmes aimed at people with the potential
to start, manage and grow their own businesses.
According to Davies (2000: 1), the Pilot Project
aims to support the Department of Labour in
securing employment for people from vulnerable
groups through:
• developing their employable competencies,
518 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
• making recommendations on guidelines and
procedures for nation-wide implementation
of learnerships and skills programmes as
instruments for assisting the unemployed to
become entrepreneurs in the South African
sector of small and micro enterprises,
and
• building capacity in the Provincial Office
of the Department of Labour (and among
training and service providers) to implement
such strategies.
A key focus area is the establishment of
small- and micro-enterprise employment for
unemployed, newly retrenched, or soon-to-be
retrenched persons with entrepreneurial skills,
as part of the Department of Labour’s response
to Social Plans, by means of an integrated
learnership approach.
8.1 Assessment findings for proposition 1:
the course content of the NVCL
The NVC qualification outcomes were analysed
against the criteria stipulated in the evaluation
framework for curriculum content. In particular,
the outcome statements and the assessment
criteria for each core unit standard were
examined, to understand the prospective content
of each module. Since all learnership activities
should be guided by these unit standards, the
actual teaching materials used by facilitators were
assumed to have been developed in accordance
with these standards and so were not themselves
assessed. The evaluation was conducted by
means of a comparison template, which included
each of the business-, entrepreneurial- and
motivational-skill areas outlined in table 2,
compared with the unit standard titles, outcome
statements and assessment criteria (refer to
example in table 4). The assessment criteria
provided the richest source of information about
the intent of each training component, since
they stipulate the manner in which the eventual
learner competencies must be assessed.
Table 4
Example of the comparison template
Entrepreneurial
skill:
Ability to identify
opportunities
Associated Unit Standard:
Research the viability of new venture ideas/opportunities
Suggested content Specific outcomes Assessment criteria
Generation of ideas SPECIFIC OUTCOME 1
Identify and assess own
business ideas/opportunities for
a new venture
4 assessment criteria e.g.
• Sources and methods of access to general and
commercial business information are identified
for proposed business venture.
Prioritisation of
ideas
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 2
Analyse the viability of a
selected idea/opportunity against
specific screening variables
4 assessment criteria e.g.
• Access to relevant technology and other
resources needed for the new venture is
analysed to aid a decision on the viability of
the new venture.
Opportunity
delineation
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 3
Research the potential of a
particular idea/opportunity as a
new venture
5 assessment criteria e.g.
• Market research is conducted including
analysis of demand for the product/service and
competitor analysis.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 519
Opportunity
evaluation
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 4
Analyse a range of risks
associated with a new venture
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 5
Evaluate new venture ideas/
opportunities based on research
findings
5 assessment criteria e.g.
• The potential risks and factors that may
threaten the new venture are identified and
analysed with a view to eliminating and/or
minimising them.
2 Assessment criteria e.g.
• A preliminary evaluation of the proposed new
venture is produced in the form of a written
report, using the identified criteria.
The findings can be summarised as follows:
• The curriculum covers the fundamental
business skills very well. All business
skills outlined within the framework are
represented, and the fundamental business
skill elements highlighted by Ladzani and
Van Vuuren (2002: 158), i.e. managerial
skills and the business plan, are well covered.
The programme also covers other business
skills not represented in the evaluation
framework, such as ethics, quality policies,
time management, mobilising resources,
negotiation and tendering procedures.
These skills reflect the programme’s unique
contextual requirements.
• Similarly, the entrepreneurial skills are
covered relatively well, with separate
unit standards focusing on Creativity and
Innovation and Opportunity Identification.
The Entrepreneurial Profile is discussed,
with reference to the characteristics of
a successful entrepreneur, and learners
assess their individual entrepreneurial
characteristics with the aim of improving
these. Some reasons for business failure
are identified and discussed with the
aid of examples. However, these only
include business risks, and no discussion or
evaluation of personal propensity towards
risk taking is covered.
• Achievement motivation is poorly repre-
sented in the curriculum. Although goal
setting is mentioned, it is not explicitly
linked to achievement motivation. Cognitive
and psychological factors such as personal
mental obstacles, achievement imagery and
goals, and reaction to success or failure are
not covered at all. Since the likelihood of
new venture initiation is heavily dependent
on the ambition and cognitive state of the
prospective entrepreneur, the relative
absence of achievement development is the
foremost shortcoming of this curriculum.
• The present structure of the curriculum’s
content suggests that the programme
is geared towards the growth stage of a
venture’s life cycle, instead of the pre-start
and start-up phases. This is best illustrated
by the curriculum’s treatment of financial
content, which is relatively complex. Other
assessment standards focus on advanced
control methods such as quality assurance
and productivity optimisation, which are
also suited to the growth stage. We would
thus suggest that this content be postponed
to a second phase of training, once the new
venture has been established and nurtured
through its infancy stage. However, these
unit standards do have a place within
this specific programme, since it aims to
provide a holistic view of small business
development, not just start up.
• Although real-life problems are not covered
explicitly in the assessment criteria, all of the
problems mentioned in section 6.3 of this
study are included indirectly in discussions
of related content. Future revisions of unit
standards could include specific references
to the problems commonly faced by small
businesses.
8.2 Assessment findings for
proposition 2: training delivery
Training delivery was evaluated using a
questionnaire based on the entrepreneurial
training (EE) model proposed by Pretorius
(2001: 264). An additional element was included
in addition to the learning approach focus of
520 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
this model, to evaluate the treatment of real-
life problems within the programme being
investigated. The results of this qualitative
evaluation are presented as radar diagrams,
with each of the elements within a construct
represented by a node on the diagram. The
average value of the results for each element
in the feedback from the questionnaire is
represented on the scale for that element node.
Any significant deviations from the scale median
value of 4 represent either positive or negative
aspects of the programme. Important deviations
are discussed.
8.2.1 Key issues concerning the context of the
learning programme
Figure 1 illustrates the results of the in-depth
evaluation of the learning programme. Although
the selection requirements are clearly stated in
the programme’s selection criteria (Department
of Labour, 2003: 4), they do not seem to be
applied in practice, since the target group’s
previous experience levels, needs and reasons
for participation seem to be specific problem
areas, with all three elements scoring below the
median. An inconsistency is evident between the
context of the NVCL programme (as outlined
earlier) and aspects of the selection process. A
review of candidate characteristics and opinion
reveals that some candidates were recruited
directly following secondary school (e.g. almost
30 per cent of KZN candidates), and only 34
per cent of all candidates could cite specific
examples of previous experience in running
a business (Prodigy, 2005: 5). Furthermore,
approximately half of the candidates reported
that they would prefer formal employment, or
would prefer gaining more work experience
before starting their own business (Prodigy,
2005: 7). These points indicate that the candidate
selection may not have targeted the right type of
individual in some cases.
Figure 1
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the context fit of the NVCL
compared to the midpoint
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 521
Two possible reasons for this can be suggested:
• In some cases, limited practical business
experience among selectors, and consequent
inexperience in identifying entrepreneurial
potential results in circumvention of
selection requirements. Thus, some learners
are granted admission to the programme
who are not suited to the demands of the
NVC initiative.
• Secondly, for some learners, the allowances
are more than they are accustomed to having
in their hands (New Venture Africa, 2005:
25). This generates the problem of learners
becoming reliant on such monies, or entering
the programme primarily because of the
allowance rather than because they want to
establish a business. Hence, the selection
process must place greater emphasis on
targeting and correctly identifying candidates
with the right entrepreneurial attributes,
and ensuring that their motivation is not
driven by the monetary incentives of learner
allowances.
8.2.2 Key issues in the entrepreneurial success
themes construct
As Figure 2 illustrates, the elements of this
construct are covered relatively well, especially
within the instructional unit standards. However,
the programme struggles to instil tolerance for
calculated risks, management of stress and conflict,
and the ability to deal with uncertainties.
It was highlighted that though the programme
covers these aspects in the innovation and
entrepreneurial profile modules, they are not
addressed as a salient facet of the programme.
The respondents suggested that focus on these
factors largely depended on the individual
facilitator’s practical business experience
and specific approach to training. These
characteristics are thus least well developed
among students trained by facilitators with a
purely theoretical background.
Figure 2
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the entrepreneurial success
construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
522 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
8.2.3 Key issues in the business knowledge
and skills construct
Since the focus of the programme is on business
start-ups, the development and start-up phases
of a project’s life cycle are covered well. The
technical skills of running a business are also
covered in great detail within the instructional
unit standards. Figure 3 highlights a shortfall
in skills required for bridging the gap between
start-up and maturity, i.e. the ability to grow
a business. The theory of business growth is
covered in the “Developing your business”
module, but significant growth development
falls outside the intervention frame, i.e. the
initiative is aimed at start-up and early growth.
Further development instruction is not provided
in the learning materials, but should be offered
through continued mentoring support and an
ongoing relationship with the training providers.
However, this bridging infrastructure is no longer
in place, and only lending institutions provide
assistance to recipients of formal loans.
The results are consistent with the context
of the NVCL programme (i.e. fostering entre-
preneurial intent among candidates, and
starting-up of new ventures), and with its focus
on the start-up phase of the life cycle as a content
qualifier. Therefore, the strong emphasis on the
development and start-up phases is a positive
attribute of this programme.
The decline phase is not formally covered
in the programme, but this is not considered a
serious limitation for a course whose primary
objective is business initiation and development.
However, knowledge about failure would
enhance the learners’ understanding of
the direct environment in which ventures
operate.
Figure 3
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the business knowledge and
skills construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
8.2.4 Key issues in the learning approaches
construct
The programme is experiential in nature, and
uses the development of a tangible business as
the learning medium. The assessment criteria
for the institutional learning component
frequently refer to evidence of skills application
within the learner’s own venture. The learning
process also incorporates mentorship and access
to markets for viable business plans (Le Roux,
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 523
2004: 14). The creation of a new venture as
an exercise in entrepreneurship is arguably
the most powerful possible training approach,
which is also in line with the strategic intent
of the NSDS. However, Figure 4 clearly
shows that the programme lacks appropriate
techniques for effectively preparing learners
for creating their own ventures, techniques
such as simulations, case studies and decision-
making models. As outlined in the literature
review, the emphasis in education should
be on what entrepreneurs need to do and
not on the characteristics that describe what
they are. An approach lacking in practical
(or simulated) application and experiential
learning may significantly limit the success of
the programme.
This limitation is largely due to the nature
of the learning materials used by the training
providers. The initial set of materials (which
has subsequently been rewritten) provided no
clear direction for the learning path, and no
module linkages to unit standards or outcomes
to be achieved. Instead, the materials focused
on theory, with limited opportunities for
practical exercises and experiential learning.
Such limitations can of course be overcome
by improvisation on the part of the individual
facilitator, but a lack of business experience limits
this in some cases. Ideally, the theoretical and
practical elements should run concurrently, with
candidates assimilating theoretical knowledge
while conducting research and compiling
business plans related to their own business.
Figure 4
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the learning approaches
construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
8.2.5 Key issues in the business plan utilisation
construct
As outlined in Figure 5, all aspects are covered
well and actually using a business plan is a key
focus of the training executed in the programme.
This is a critical element, as we discussed in the
literature review, since no meaningful business
training can be effected without students’ being
involved in creation a business plan (Botha,
2006).
524 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
Figure 5
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the business plan utilisation
construct of the NVCL compared to the midpoint
The focus of the institutional learning component
is the development and submission of the
business plan. Learners are assessed against the
viability of their business plans, and have to leave
the programme if their business plans are not
approved (Le Roux, 2004: 12). A notable finding
was that while many learners start with grand
but unfeasible visions for potential businesses
(e.g. involving extensively high leverage,
limited markets etc.), the business planning
process effectively helps them to narrow these
aspirations down to more workable and realistic
business models.
8.2.6 Key issues in the facilitator construct
The results indicate that, in general, the
facilitators are suitably experienced and able
to present the training in a manner that brings
about actual change in the learners’ ability to
start successful business ventures (see Figure
6). A notable exception is those facilitators with
little practical business experience who rely on
a purely theoretical approach; their students
are less inclined to initiate businesses on their
own. In some cases intervention was needed to
prompt students towards business activities, and
allow them to make the crucial links between
theory and business practice.
This poses a challenge to entrepreneurship
devel opment programmes, the success
of which is dependent on the approach,
delivery and real-world entrepreneurship
experience of its facilitators, as discussed
in the literature review. Unfortunately, it
is not always easy to find entrepreneurially
inclined and/or experienced individuals who
are prepared to facilitate such courses. The
situation may be improved by developing well
structured facilitator guides for facilitators
who lack experience. These could be checked
by experienced entrepreneurs, and should
include detailed experiential activities and
course delivery guidelines.
8.2.7 Overall programme evaluation
The results in Figure 7 reflect a generally
positive perception among NVC learnership
practitioners of the various aspects of the
programme. However, the context fit and
business knowledge and skills constructs show
up as the weaker areas of the programme, with
scores of 3.7 and 4.1 respectively.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 525
Figure 6
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the elements of the facilitator construct of the
NVCL compared to the midpoint
Figure 7
Graphical representation of evaluation results for the overall NVC learnership programme of the
NVCL compared to the midpoint
526 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
The content and training approach of the SESD
initiative is thus found generally to be achieving
the outcomes set by the NSD strategy. The
initiative’s experiential approach to training is
a very strong characteristic of the programme.
Involving the actual start-up of a real business
venture in the learning process is in line with the
strategic intent of the NSDS.
A key weakness of the programme is the high
learner attrition rate, with a drop of 33 per cent
from 85 to 57 learners between November 2004
and November 2005 (Prodigy, 2005: 7). This
may be partly due to the mismatch between
programme context and learner selection, as we
have discussed. Of those learners that remain,
42 per cent have decided on their businesses
and 58 per cent have either clients on board
and are generating income and/or have started
employing staff (Prodigy, 2005: 55).
Apart from the curriculum and training
delivery limitations we have discussed, the
programme shows some administrative and
logistical shortcoming; these however fall
outside our evaluation here. The programme
also shows certain limitations when evaluated
against the evaluation framework. The most
important of these limitations are:
• the omission of achievement motivation
development from the course,
• the compromising of suitable training
approaches by inadequate training materials
and inexperience of facilitators in certain
cases,
• the mismatch between the context of the
programme and actual learner selection,
which jeopardises the programme’s overall
performance potential.
Consequently, our two propositions are
disproved. The curriculum structure of the
NVC learnership cannot be said to fully match
the recommendations found in academic
literature, and the training delivery does not
unproblematically develop entrepreneurs, as
required by the NSDS strategy. However, the
results also suggest that the programme has
many strengths, which contribute to achieving
the goals of the NSDS, and that the limitations
outlined above can be remedied with relative
ease. Therefore, the initiative is a very
positive step towards achieving the objectives
of the NSDS and better understanding and
facilitating the entrepreneurial development
process.
9
Conclusions
This study took relevant constructs from
secondary literature about the content
and execution of entrepreneurial training
programmes, and synthesised them into a
concise assessment framework. This framework
we then used to evaluate the NVC learnership as
presented by the Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project of the Department of Labour
and the Danish Government. Our evaluation
finds that this training programme exhibits
many of the necessary characteristics outlined
in the evaluation framework. The major
strength of the programme is its experiential
approach, which requires that learners create
tangible new ventures. The project impact
evaluation report (Prodigy, 2005) shows that
the programme has successfully prompted some
business creation (i.e. tangible business activity
among the 58 per cent of participants who
remain in the programme). However, certain
limitations were also found, which prevent
the programme from satisfactorily achieving
the NSDS’s objectives for the development of
entrepreneurs. The sustainability of the newly
created ventures, which is the real measure of
the programme’s success, can only be measured
though longitudinal study. Overall, we can
say that the programme exhibits tremendous
promise, but must address its limitations if it
hopes to meet the ambitious targets set by the
NSDS.
Importantly, the ideal learner profile for
such a learnership programme is a candidate
with some previous business experience, not a
recently graduated high school student with very
limited technical and life skills. It is possible that,
in trying to achieve the target number of learners
set by the NSDS, selectors for the programme
circumvent the stricter requirements of the
candidate screening procedure. However this
is a short-term solution, since it will in the long
term result in more learners dropping out of
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 527
the programme, and so limit the success of the
learnership process. Thus the NVCL programme
output can be enhanced by improving the
selection of learners for the programme.
Administrators have to learn to correctly identify
early entrepreneurial potential.
Finally, the degree of agreement between the
quantitative assessment and the results from
the questionnaires suggests that the assessment
model developed here based on Pretorius
(2001) is a successful evaluation model for
entrepreneurial interventions.
10
Limitations and future research
The basic shortcoming of this study, which is
shared by all attempts to assess entrepreneurial
interventions, is the lack of empirical methods
for evaluating the assessment framework.
Consequentially, the evaluation of the programme
is subjective, based on an understanding of the
specific programme obtained from secondary
sources. Including qualitative input from
the respondents (practitioners via interview
questionnaires) does mitigate this problem
somewhat, and improves the validity of the
findings.
Bias is also a limitation, both in the
questionnaire and the secondary literature
used for the evaluation. The study did not use
a representative sample of respondents for
the questionnaire , so some bias is possible;
however this appears not to have influenced
the assessment outcome as both positive
and negative aspects were identified in the
questionnaires. The impartiality of the authors
of the secondary literature is more difficult to
assess; this thus constitutes a limitation of our
study.
Future research should definitely empirically
investigate the impact of an individual facilitator’s
knowledge and experience on the overall
outcomes of the programme. A longitudinal
assessment of the eventual sustainability of the
new ventures created through the programme
is also needed.
References
1 ALBERTI, F.; SCIASCIA, S. & POLI, A. (2004)
“Entrepreneurship education: Notes on an
ongoing debate”. Proceedings of the 14th Annual
IntEnt Conference 4–7 July 2004, University of
Napoli Federico II, Italy.
2 AMOS, T.L. & MAAS, G. (2001) “Developing
entrepreneurial students: a proposal of the what
and how”, Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-
Conference 2–4 July 2001, Kruger National Park,
South Africa. Rhodes University: Grahamstown.
3 ANTONITES A.J. & VAN VUUREN, J.J. (2004)
“An action learning approach to entrepreneurial
creativity, innovation and opportunity finding”,
Proceedings of the 14th Global IntEnt-Conference,
4–7 July 2004, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy.
4 BOTHA, M. (2006) “Measuring the effectiveness
of women entrepreneurship programme, as
a training intervention, on potential, start-up
and established women entrepreneurs in South
Africa”, Unpublished DComm thesis. University of
Pretoria: Pretoria.
5 BROCKHAUS, R.H. (1993) “Entrepreneurship
education: A research agenda”, In Klant, H.
& Muller-Boling, D. (eds.) Internationalizing
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, IntEnt92:
Dortmund: 3–7.
6 DAVIES, T.A. (2000) “Opportunity scan to
identify the viability and focus areas of possible
new ventures that could be established in the
micro enterprise sector in the larger Durban
Metropolitan area”, New Venture Creation
Replication Guide (Electronic CD) Department of
Labour: Pretoria.
7 DAVIES, T.A. (2002) New Venture Creation: A
Unique Learnership Model for the Unemployed,
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project Phase II.
New Venture Creation Replication Guide (Electronic
CD) Department of Labour: Pretoria.
8 DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, (2003)
“Background information and outline of format
proposals for lead service providers.” New Venture
Creation Replication Guide, Provincial Skills
Development Pilot Project Phase II. (Electronic CD)
Department of Labour: Pretoria.
9 DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, (2005) National
Skills Development Strategy 1 April 2005 - 31 March
2010.http://www.labour.gov.za/useful_docs/doc_
display.jsp?id=9976. (Accessed 16 May 2005.)
10 DRUCKER, P.F. (2001) Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. Butterworth-Heinemann.
11 FREGETTO, E. & FRY, F. (2002) “Identifying
boundaries: delineating overlaps in teaching small
528 SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4
business management and entrepreneurship
courses”, 2002 USASBE (United States Association
for Small Business and Entrepreneurship) Annual
National Conference Proceedings. Reno, Nevada,
17-20 January 2002.
12 GARAVAN, T.N. & O’CINNEIDE, B. (1994)
“Entrepreneurship education and training
programs: a review and evaluation, part 1”, Journal
of European Industrial Training, 18(8): 3–12.
13. GARTNER, W.B. & VESPER, K.H.
(1994) “Executive forum: Experiments in
entrepreneurship education, success and failures”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3): 179–187.
14 GIBB, A.A. (1987) “Education for enterprise:
Training for small business initiation – some
contrasts”, Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 4(3): 42–47.
15 GORMAN, G.; HANLON, D & KING, W. (1997)
“Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, enterprise education and education for
small business management: A ten-year literature
review”, International Small Business Journal,
15(3): 56–78.
16 HILLS, G.E. (1988) “Variations in university
entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of
an evolving field”, Journal of Business Venturing, 3:
109–122.
17 HOOD, J.N. & YOUNG, J.E. (1993)
“Entrepreneurship’s requisite areas of
development: A survey of top executives in
successful entrepreneurial firms”, Journal of
Business Venturing, 8(2): 115–135.
18 IVANCEVICH, J.M. (1991) “A traditional faculty
member’s perspective on entrepreneurship”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1): 1–7.
19 JOHNSON, B. (1990) “Toward a multidimensional
model of entrepreneurship: The case of
achievement motivation and the entrepreneur”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3): 39–54.
20 JORDAAN, J.W. (2002) “A multi-dimensional
conceptual framework as an aid to assist in
entrepreneurship development”, Proceedings of
the 12th Global IntEnt-Conference, 8–10 July 2002,
Johore Bahru, Malaysia.
21 KLANDT, H. (1993) “Methods of teaching:
what is useful for entrepreneurship education?”
Proceedings of the Conference Internationalizing
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Vienna
(Austria), July 5–7, 1993.
22 LABUSCHAGNE, M.; NIEUWENHUIZEN,
C. & KROON, J. (2001) “A multidisciplinary
approach to the development of training programs
and qualifications for entrepreneurship”,
Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-Conference,
2-4 July 2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
23 LADZANI, W.M. & VAN VUUREN, J.J.
(2002) “Entrepreneurship training for emerging
entrepreneurs in South Africa”, Journal of Small
Business Management, 40(2): 154–161.
24 LE ROUX, F.A.S. (2004) “Entrepreneurial
training and development: A holistic approach
to new venture creation in the Republic of South
Africa”, Proceedings of the 14th Global IntEnt-
Conference, University of Napoli Federico II (Italy),
4–7 July 2004.
25 LIGTHELM, A.A. & CANT, M.C. (2003) “Small
Business Problems in South Africa: Priorities
for Entrepreneurial Education.” Proceedings
of the 13th global IntEnt-Conference, 8th–10th
September Grenoble/France.
26 MAMINZA P.M.; MARAIS H.C.; MTHETHWA
B.A.; MBUYANE E.M.; NKOSI A.E. &
SHABANGU A.I. (2001) “The need for and
effects of entrepreneurship and technical training
in deep-rural areas”, International Conference for
Entrepreneurship Education and Training 2–4 July
2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
27 McCLELLAND, D.C. (1965a) “Achievement
motivation can be developed”, Harvard Business
Review, 43: 6–25.
28 McCLELLAND, D.C. (1965b) “Achievement and
entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4): 389–392.
29 McCLELLAND, D.C. & WINTER, D. (1971)
Motivating Economic Achievement, Free Press:
New York.
30 McMULLAN, W.E. & LONG, W.A. (1987)
“Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3): 261–275.
31 MIRON, D. & McCLELLAND, D.C. (1979) “The
impact of achievement motivation training on
small businesses”, California Management Review,
21(4): 13–28.
32 NEW VENTURE AFRICA (2005) A Model for
the Business Development Phase of the New Venture
Creation Learnership: Report Prepared for DANIDA
and SESD by New Venture Africa, Department of
Labour: Pretoria.
33 NIEUWENHUIZEN, C. & KROON, J. (2002)
“Identification of entrepreneurial success factors
to determine the content of entrepreneurship
subjects”, South African Journal of Higher
Education. 16(3).
34 NIEUWENHUIZEN, C. & GROENWALD, D.
(2004) “Entrepreneurship training and education
needs as determined by the brain preference
profiles of successful, established entrepreneurs”,
Proceedings of the 14th Global IntEnt-Conference,
4–7 July 2004, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy.
SAJEMS NS 10 (2007) No 4 529
35 ORFORD, J.; HERRINGTON, M. & WOOD,
E. (2004) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2004:
South African Report. UCT Centre for Innovation
and Entrepreneurship, Graduate School of
Business, University of Cape Town.
36 PLASCHKA, G.R. & WELSCH, H.P. (1990)
“Emerging structures in entrepreneurship
education: curricular designs and strategies”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(3): 55–71.
37 POOE, R, (2002) “Outcomes-based education
as a vehicle to entrepreneurship education and
training”, Proceedings of the 12th Global IntEnt
Conference, July 8–10, 2002 Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
38 PRETORIUS, M. (2000) “Evaluation of a
proposed training methodology to enhance micro
and small business start-ups in South Africa”,
Proceedings: ICSB World Conference. Brisbane.
Australia.
39 PRETORIUS, M. (2001) “A training model
to enhance micro and small business start-ups
in South Africa”, Unpublished DTech thesis.
Transvaal University of Technology: Pretoria.
40 PRETORIUS, M. & MAARTENS, W.P. (2001)
“Application of a proposed evaluation instrument
to evaluate venture start-up training programmes”,
Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-Conference,
2–4 July 2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
41 PRETORIUS, M.; NIEMAN, G. & VAN
VUUREN, J.J. (2005) “Critical evaluation of two
models for entrepreneurial education: an
improved model through integration,” International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(5): 413–
427.
42 PRODIGY (2005) DOL/SESD NVC Programme:
Impact Evaluation Report Compiled By Prodigy
Business Services, November 2005. Department of
Labour: Pretoria.
43 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (1995) “White
paper on national strategy for the development
and promotion of small business in South Africa”,
Government Gazette. 28 March, 357(16317)
44 RONSTADT, R. (1987) “The educated
entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial
education is beginning,” American Journal of Small
Business, 11(4): 37–53.
45 SHAVER, K. & SCOTT, L. (1992) “Person,
process and choice: the psychology of new venture
creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16:
23–45.
46 SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS
AUTHORITY (2002) National Certificate: New
Venture Creation (SMME) SAQA Registered
Qualification.
47 TIMMONS, J.A. (1971) “Black is beautiful: Is it
bountiful?” Harvard Business Review, 49: 81–94.
48 TIMMONS, J.A. (1994) New Venture Creation:
Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century. Irwin: Burr
Ridge.
49 TIMMONS, J.A. & SPINELLI, S. (2003) New
Venture Creation, Entrepreneurship for the 21st
Century. McGraw Hill.
50 ULRICH, T.A. & COLE, G.S. (1987) “Toward
more effective training of future entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Small Business Management, 25(4):
32–39.
51 VAN CLOUSE, G.H. (1990) “A controlled
experiment relating entrepreneurial education
to students’ start-up decisions”, Journal of Small
Business Management, 28(2): 45–53.
52 VAN VUUREN, J.J. & ANTONITES, A.J.
(2001) “Recent developments regarding content
of entrepreneurship training programmes”,
Proceedings of the 11th Global IntEnt-Conference,
2-4 July 2001, Kruger National Park, South Africa.
53 VAN VUUREN, J.J. & NIEMAN, G. (1999)
“Entrepreneurship education and training: a
model for syllabi/curriculum development”, 44th
ICSB World Conference Proceedings.
54 VESPER, K.H. & McMULLAN, W.E. (1988)
“Entrepreneurship: today courses, tomorrow
degrees?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
13(1): 7–13.
55 VIVIERS, S.; VAN EEDEN, S. & VENTER,
D. (2001) “Identifying small business problems
in the South African context for proactive
entrepreneurial education”, Proceedings of the 11th
Global IntEnt-Conference 2–4 July 2001, Kruger
National Park, South Africa.
56 WATSON, C.H. & BOSHOFF, A.B. (1995)
“Applying the entrepreneurship life-cycle
framework to the identification of topic areas for
teaching”, Proceedings of the Int Ent Conference,
Bunbury, Australia, 25–28 July 1995.
57 WICKHAM, P.A. (2004) Strategic Entrepreneurship
(3
rd
ed.) Financial Times/Pitman Publishing:
London.
doc_807062871.pdf