Search results

Competency models are widespread in entrepreneurship and help develop educational offerings. Although existing models cater to specific sub-disciplines, the field of Industry 4.0 startups still needs a tailored competency. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this gap by developing a specific competency model to address the unique challenges in Industry 4.0 entrepreneurship.

The research approach involved a content analysis and interview study in compiling and categorizing the necessary competencies to succeed in the Industry 4.0 domain. The developed model was subjected to different forms of validation using the Content Validity Index and inter-rater reliability incorporating expert feedback.

The described multi-methodological approach resulted in the proposed “CompEntre 4.0” model, which contains 23 crucial competencies for Industry 4.0 startups. The results of this model validation demonstrate that it meets the necessary threshold values, establishing its reliability and potential for future use and further improvement.

By providing a structured framework tailored to the specific demands of this domain, the competency model has the potential to guide and empower entrepreneurs, improving their prospects for success in the rapidly evolving landscape of Industry 4.0.

While there are specific competency models for the entrepreneurship field and for specific sub-disciplines of entrepreneurship, there is, despite numerous specifics, no competency model for Industry 4.0 entrepreneurship yet.

The paper argues for a comprehensive method of sociological deconstruction and reconstruction that includes: (i) de-subjectifying interpretation, (ii) re-subjectifying explanation, (iii) de-objectifying understanding, and (iv) re-objectifying conceptualization.

Both methodological and substantive arguments are guided by the constructive principle of mediating interpenetration of polar opposites.

Status groups and class interests are conceived as major categories of sociological differentiation mediating between the abstractions of individuals and society. Three types of class formation are discovered in Weber’s legacy beyond Marx’s property one. Sorokin’s work in a two-dimensional social stratification and mobility is found to have major significance for developing the concept of social classes and for reconciling divergent ideas of social stratification. The principle of concept formation by mediation of interpenetrating polar opposites is found to be of greater complexity and effectiveness than Hegel’s logical principle of transcendental supersession.

The comprehensive method of sociological deconstruction and reconstruction seamlessly integrates qualitative and quantitative methods in sociology as well as concept formation and research.

The very headline of this presentation hints at least two things. First, what is meant is the history of American sociology, though it is some what awkward to say so outright. Second, the history of American sociology is accomplished, in an impor tant sense, but one should not say that so out‐right, either. In philosophy, as Wittgenstein advised, whereof we can not speak, thereof we must be silent. A different rule reigns in sociology: whereof we can hint at, thereof we must prove. My first task, there fore, is to prove that no matter how embarrassing it may seem one canspeak of a his tory of American sociology after all. My second task is to prove that it has already been on a course of development specifically characteristic of it. And, finally, my last point will be that this specific course is brought to its desired end. Every thing in its own time. Talking about the history of American sociology is extremely risky. But it is the risk that it makes it worth trying. Part of the risk stems from the issue if there is a history of sociology at all, as well as from the issue if there is American sociology in the proper sense of the word. Apart from this, there is the consideration that it may be the American nature proper of that sociology that makes it the least likely to have its own history. First things first.

The present paper takes a look at the particularities of German strategy research over the last three decades. In contrast to much of the Anglo-Saxon research, which has focused on competition as a guiding concept in theorizing about strategy, German research has typically been concerned with more fundamental questions about the general relationship between organizations and their environments and, as a result, tended to be more conceptual than empirical. Researchers have been particularly influenced by the German sociological and philosophical traditions, specifically by the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas and by the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. Also, there are authors who draw on the economic tradition of the Austrian School in order to develop a competence-based theory of the firm. Another branch builds on Anthony Giddens's structuration theory and Jacques Derrida's philosophy of deconstruction. As we will demonstrate, much of the research has been concerned with fundamental theoretical tensions: evolution vs. planning, selection vs. compensation, cognitive–instrumental rationality vs. moral–practical rationality, etc. We note that, as a consequence, much of German strategy research shows a particular interest in paradoxa and oxymora (such as ‘planned evolution’, ‘productive misunderstandings’ or ‘unfocused monitoring’). This paper will identify and explore important strands of German strategy research and discuss its particularities compared to mainstream strategy research in the United States.