Comment évaluer l’output de l’entrepreneuriat

For example, there isconsiderable debate over the most appropriate method of measuring the
effectiveness of entrepreneurship programmes (Westhead et al., 2001). Indeed, there does not
appear to be a standard methodological approach to evaluation, nor does there exist a common

set of evaluation criteria for determining effectiveness (Wan, 1989; Henry et al., 2003).

This clearly presents problems for evaluators and further complicates the debate

surrounding whether or not entrepreneurship can be taught

Colette Henry, Frances Hill, Claire Leitch, (2005) "Entrepreneurship education and training: can
entrepreneurship be taught? Part II", Education + Training, Vol. 47 Issue: 3, pp.158-169

Despite this, McMullan et al. (2001) have argued that it is necessary to assess the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship courses on a number of grounds. First, there is an expectation that the net benefits
of

entrepreneurship programmes should outweigh their costs and risks. Second, training

programmes and courses can be expensive in terms of money for sponsors and in time

for participants. Third, in addition to the more obvious costs highlighted by these

authors there are hidden costs which should also be taken into consideration when

assessing a programme’s effectiveness (Henri et al 2005)

However, conducting such evaluations can be problematic. In considering the

substantial research that has been undertaken into the cost-benefit analysis of training,

Gibb (1997) doubts whether a definitive answer could ever be found to the question of

effectiveness in terms of pay back. Furthermore, Wyckham (1989) has noted that there has been
difficulty in identifying appropriate output measures of programmes as well

as determining causality. Despite this, however, Storey (2000) and McMullan et al.

(2001) suggest that the best means by which to evaluate training courses is to directly

relate programme outcomes to objectives. Indeed, McMullan et al. (2001, p. 38) advance

that the objectives of entrepreneurial courses should be “primarily economic” and as

such “appropriate measures would include businesses started or saved, revenue

generation and growth, job creation and retention, financing obtained and

profitability”. Clark et al. (1984) have noted that few surveys actually evaluate the

impact a particular programme has had on new venture creation following its
completion. Instead most entrepreneurship programme evaluations measure such

variables as instructor’s knowledge, preparation and presentation style, as well as the

degree of difficulty and level of interest of the programme itself.

Wyckham (1989) has argued that First, the knowledge

and skills of students are assessed through examination. Second, courses and teachers

are evaluated through student evaluation surveys. Third, after the course has been

completed data on the employment and income status of the graduate participants can

be obtained and evaluated. Further, he has noted that no universally accepted criterion

which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of an entrepreneurship programme has

yet been identified. However, while McMullan et al. (2001) suggest that designing a

methodology to evaluate programmes and courses is comparatively easy, it is more

difficult to ensure that the approach adopted is actually valid. Indeed, Westhead et al.

(2001, p. 167) caution that “precise and careful methodologies are required to evaluate

training programmes”. They have observed that initially researchers attempting to

assess the outcomes of training programmes asked participants for their views. Indeed

this approach is not uncommon and as McMullan et al. (2001) indicate, it is likely that

most evaluations of entrepreneurial programmes will continue to employ this

particular methodology. However, they do advise that this type of subjective

judgement should be confined to determining the satisfaction of participants, and

cannot be used as a proxy for measuring the performance outcomes of a programme.

Thus, when attempting to assess the impact or effectiveness of a course they suggest

that the objective measures be employed instead. Westhead et al. (2001) have highlighted the
limitations of adopting a purely

subjective approach to evaluation. First, there is the issue of whether the participants

on a particular course are representative of the target population as a whole. Second,

respondents to a survey can be tempted to give answers that they feel the evaluator

wants, instead of providing an honest response. Third, the impact of a programme can

only be judged by comparing it with what would have happened had the respondent
not participated on the course. Fourth, failure to take into account the personal

characteristics of individuals might lead to an exaggeration of the effectiveness of a

programme. Fifth, researchers should appreciate that participants actually self-select

themselves onto programmes, which can, when evaluating courses, lead to inaccurate

assessments being produced. Sixth, the subsequent behaviour of respondents is

actually more important than reporting their opinions. Jack and Anderson

(1998). They have developed a five step framework for assessing the effectiveness of

entrepreneurship education and training programmes, which is based on an earlier

version developed by Block and Stumpf (1992).