Opportunity Assessment Plans

Demographics of the sample

Out of the total sample (76 respondents), the male respondents represented 68.4 per cent (52 respondents), with the remaining 31.6 per cent (24 respondents) being female. The youngest age is 19 and the oldest age 68. The average mean is 30.36 with a standard deviation of 11.66. The derived standard deviation of the age of respondents in this study, which is fairly high, represents a good assortment of ages. Regarding the respondents' education, the two categories with the most representation of respondents are Grade 12 learners, 34.2 per cent (26 respondents), and university postgraduates, 31.6 per cent (24 respondents), followed by university undergrad-duates, 17.1 per cent (13 respondents) and students from technikons, 7.9 per cent (7 respondents). This is a good distribution split between secondary and technikon, tertiary (university) and advanced tertiary (university) education.

Data regarding business plans from the research sample

This subsection identified what business plan template had been utilised by the sample. The results indicate that 46.1 per cent (35 respondents) of the sample used the UP business plan template. This is an expected finding, due to the B. Com and M. Phil. Entrepreneurship students being included in the sample population. The percentage split allows for a comparison and statistical testing to be done between the UP business plan and the other business plans utilised. Respondents who used their own templates accounted for 15.8 per cent (12 respondents) of the total, followed by a consultants' template 10.5 per cent (12 respondents), other (combination of business plans) 9.2 per cent (7 respondents), internet and development agency's template, both 6.6 per cent (5 respondents each) and lastly no template, 5.3 per cent (4 respondents).

Inferential statistics used to test the hypotheses

This study's hypothesis 1 read as follows:

H1_o: Potential entrepreneurs do not distinguish between ideas and opportunities through formulating a detailed business plan.

H1a: Potential entrepreneurs distinguish between ideas and opportunities through formulating a detailed business plan.

Approximately 90 per cent of information required to assess opportunities corresponds with information that is required in the business plan, which in both instances would need to be researched, gathered and processed by the potential entrepreneur. This study distinguished two primary tasks included in opportunity assessment, resulting from two dominant definitions found through an analysis of the business opportunity literature. One of them was distinguishing opportunities from ideas.

The data regarding business plans from the research sample revealed a variety of business plan templates used, with detail ranging from very basic to very detailed. However, in each section in the business plan the highest count fell in the detailed or very detailed categories.

The data from the research sample regarding distinguishing between ideas and opportunities revealed that the majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statements presented to them in the questionnaire. The results indicated that 71.1 per cent to 85.5 per cent of respondents distinguished between ideas and opportunities when formulating their business plan.

Factor analysis was done to establish the reliability and validity on the factor which was labelled as 'distinguishing between ideas and opportunities'. The Eigen value for this factor was 5.46590, and the factor explained 54 per cent of the variance in data. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.9146.

In order to employ ANOVA, two assumptions are required; (1) normal distribution of the residuals, and (2) equal variances. These assumptions were tested and the results showed that this was not the case. Therefore, a 'Normal Blom Transformation' was conducted, which then resulted in the assumptions been met and the study could continue with the running of ANOVA. Transformations are usually applied so that the data appear to more closely meet the assumptions of a statistical inference procedure that is to be applied. ANOVA was done to investigate the influence of the IV on the DV. It is important to note that ANOVA was done on the factor of which nine items measured the respondents' ability to distinguish between ideas and opportunities and on a question that directly asked the respondents to which degree they could distinguish between ideas and opportunities. In Table 3 it can be seen as Factor: distinguishing between ideas and opportunities and direct question. The first significant finding involved the variables 'business plan' and 'factor:

distinguishing between ideas and opportunities'. The p-value was 0.0260, thus the p-value< 0.05, which revealed that a real, significant difference was found. These results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the respondents' ability to distinguish between ideas and opportunities through the formulation of a business plan, depending of the different types of business plan templates used. Thus, respondents who used a UP business plan, which is guaranteed to be detailed, stated they distinguished more strongly between ideas and opportunities meaning that their scores where better than the respondents who used other templates. The means for the UP template used was 1.62, Development agencies and consultants' templates was 2.26 and own template, internet template, no template or other was 2.21. The second significant finding involved the variables 'business ownership' and the 'direct question'. The p-value was 0.0434, thus the p-value< 0.05, which revealed that a real, significant difference was found. These results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the respondents' perception of their ability to distinguish between ideas and opportunities after formulating a business plan depending on their current business ownership status. Respondents that currently had businesses showed slightly higher confidence levels in their ability to distinguish between ideas and opportunities, compared with respondents who did not currently have businesses.

The Kruskal-Wallis analysis (Table 4) was done to compare the ability of respondents to distinguish between ideas and opportunities between the different types of entrepreneurs

(potential, new or established). The p-value was 0.0401, thus the p-value<0.05, which revealed that a real, significant difference was found. Current potential entrepreneurs that had not yet started their business but planned on starting their own business indicated more strongly that through the formulation of the business plan they could distinguish between ideas and opportunities. Note: On the questionnaire the lowest score indicates the positive (strongly agree) and the highest score indicates the negative (strongly disagree).

Based on the tests conducted and the empirical results achieved, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

This study's hypothesis 2 read as follows:

H2_o: Potential entrepreneurs do not develop opportunities through formulating a detailed business plan.

H2a: Potential entrepreneurs develop opportunities through formulating a detailed business plan.

Approximately 90 per cent of the information required to assess opportunities corresponds with information that is required in the business plan, which in both instances would need to be researched, gathered and processed by the potential entrepreneur. This study distinguished two primary tasks included in opportunity assessment, resulting from two dominant definitions found through an analysis of the business opportunity literature. One of them was developing opportunities.

The data from the research sample regarding opportunity development revealed that the majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statements presented to them in the questionnaire. The results indicated that 72.4 per cent to 86.8 per cent of respondents developed opportunities when formulating their business plan.

Factor analysis was done to establish the reliability and validity on the factor which was labelled as 'developing opportunities'. The Eigen value for this factor was 4.19933, and the factor explained 41 per cent of the variance in data. The Cronbach's alpha score was 0.8458.

ANOVA was done to investigate the influence of the IV on the DV. It is important to note that ANOVA was done on the factor of which nine items measured the respondents' ability to develop opportunities and on a question that directly asked the respondents to which degree their business idea changed or improved during the formulation of their business plans. In Table 3 it can be seen as Factor: developing opportunities and direct question. The only significant finding involved the variables 'business plan' and 'factor: developing opportunities'. The p-value was 0.0545, thus the p-value<0.1, which revealed that a significant difference was found. These results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the respondents' ability to develop opportunities through the formulation of a business plan depending on the type of business plan template used. Thus, respondents who used a UP business plan, which is guaranteed to be detailed, had better scores than the respondents who used other templates. The means for the UP template used was 1.66, Development agencies and consultants' templates were 2.01 and own template, internet template, no template or other was 2.09.

Based on the tests conducted and the empirical results achieved, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

This study distinguished two primary tasks included in opportunity assessment, resulting from two dominant definitions found through an analysis of the business opportunity literature; (a) distinguishing opportunities from ideas, and (b) developing opportunities. Due to the fact that the alternative hypotheses 1 and 2 were accepted (null hypotheses rejected), the conclusion is made that potential entrepreneurs assess opportunities through formulating a detailed business plan, as they could distinguish between ideas and opportunities and could develop opportunities.

Table 5 summarises the two null and alternative hypotheses in this study, the results indicated in the hypothesis testing above, as well as the significance level utilised.

In reviewing the relationships built around the hypotheses, the study found strong support for hypotheses 1 and 2. These hypotheses were composed of the relationships between the business plan (IV), and the DVs regarding opportunity assessment, which are summarised in figure 4.

Crucially for the study, statistically significant differences were found between the respondents' actual ability to distinguish between ideas and opportunities and develop opportunities (factors measured) and the type of business plan used. Respondents who used a UP business plan, which is guaranteed to be detailed, stated they distinguished more strongly between ideas and opportunities, and respondents who used the UP business plan stated more strongly that they developed their opportunities. These are the results of the respondents answering questions strategically designed to test the ability of the respondents to assess opportunities. Very interestingly, when the respondents were asked the questions directly about their ability to assess opportunities, in order to gauge their perceptions, no statistically significant differences are found with regard to the type of business plan.