Elena Novelli · Strategic Management Journal 2024 · randomized controlled field experiment · n=261

Making business model decisions like scientists: Strategic commitment, uncertainty, and economic performance

Cited 41 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Level 2 by design analogy (randomized field experiment in management, not clinical CEBM)

OpenAlex W4400516011 · doi:10.1002/smj.3636 · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

A randomized field experiment was conducted with 261 entrepreneurs to examine how business model development moderates the impact of scientific decision-making on performance. Treated entrepreneurs learned to apply a scientific approach to decision-making, while an active control group received comparable training content without the scientific approach.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical values, exact effect sizes, or confidence intervals. Directionally, the effect of scientific decision-making depended on baseline business model development: - Treated entrepreneurs with higher degrees of business model development elaborated lower-level choices and achieved superior economic performance compared to controls. - Treated entrepreneurs with lower levels of business model development reevaluated fundamental assumptions, resulting in increased epistemic uncertainty and less favorable short-term economic outcomes compared to controls.

Why it matters

This study shows that scientific decision-making training does not benefit all ventures equally in the short term. Its value is contingent on strategic maturity, as early-stage founders may face immediate performance penalties from foundational strategic disruption.

Limits

The abstract provides no numerical data, effect sizes, statistical significance values, or duration of follow-up. Long-term performance effects were not reported, and the specific geographical and industry composition of the 261 entrepreneurs is not described.

Cited by