This Is Entrepreneurship Course Assignment. Our Case Is The ✓ Solved

This is Entrepreneurship course assignment. Our Case is The

This is Entrepreneurship course assignment. Our Case is The Pre-Venture Feasibility Analysis: The Andrea Kaneb Case.

The question: If you were Kaneb, would you have concluded, based on the data accumulated and analyzed, that you should abandon this potential opportunity? Make this analysis and write it. Or would you decide to persist, and if so, what would you do to address the critical issues identified through your analysis? I need introduction, answering the questions, analysis, SWOT, PESTEL, Conclusion.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Pre-venture feasibility analysis is a structured screening process used to determine whether an opportunity merits substantial investment of time and resources. In the Andrea Kaneb case, the key task is to synthesize data on market demand, product feasibility, competitive landscape, and the entrepreneur’s capabilities to decide whether to abandon or persist with the opportunity. Foundational texts in entrepreneurship emphasize that disciplined evaluation—beyond optimism or fear—drives sustainable venture creation (Drucker, 1985; Barringer & Ireland, 2019). A rigorous approach combines market signals with resource considerations to form a defensible decision, aligning with the core management doctrine that decision quality improves with systematic analysis (Drucker, 1985; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). The subsequent analysis uses SWOT and PESTEL to structure the internal and external factors shaping Kaneb’s option set and risk profile, then synthesizes an actionable path forward if persistence is chosen (Kotler & Keller, 2016).

Answering the Question: Should Kaneb Abandon or Persist?

Based on the data summarized in the case, the prudent conclusion is to persist, but only with a meticulously revised plan and staged milestones. Abandoning the opportunity would ignore potential upside and the possibility of a viable pivot, which aligns with the entrepreneurship literature that emphasizes opportunity recognition and iterative experimentation as drivers of value creation (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Bygrave & Hofer, 1991). If key risk factors—such as market demand uncertainty, capital constraints, or execution gaps—are too high to justify near-term investment, a stop could be justified; however, when the data show meaningful demand and scalable channels, a guided persistence strategy tends to outperform premature discontinuation (Drucker, 1985; Timmons, Spinelli, & Maddox, 2009). In Kaneb’s case, the decision to persist should be coupled with a rigorous plan to de-risk the venture, validate the value proposition in pilot markets, and conserve capital through lean experimentation.

Analysis Framework and Implications

Market viability: A primary determinant is whether there is a sizable and accessible customer base willing to pay for the offering. If early signals indicate a potential market, even at modest scale, the opportunity warrants continued testing using low-cost experiments (Aguilar, 1967). If demand signals are weak or highly iterated, the firm should reassess the value proposition or target a narrower niche. This aligns with classic market analysis principles and the notion that market feedback should drive iterated product adaptation (Kotler & Keller, 2016).

Technical and operational feasibility: The ability to deliver the product or service with the required quality and at a sustainable cost is essential. If Kaneb’s team can achieve minimal viable performance at reasonable cost, execution risk declines and adaptation becomes feasible. Literature on resources and capabilities suggests that internal strengths (talent, technology, partnerships) can offset some external uncertainties when configured strategically (Barney, 1991; Dess, Lumpkin, & Eisner, 2014).

Financial viability and funding risk: Pre-venture analyses emphasize break-even horizons, cash burn, and the capital required to reach milestones. If projected returns meet hurdle rates after risk-adjusted adjustments, persistence may be appropriate, provided funding gaps can be closed with staged financing or customer-funded pilots (Timmons et al., 2009).

Strategic fit and entrepreneurial orientation: The opportunity should align with the founder’s vision, risk tolerance, and capability. An entrepreneurial orientation—calculated risk-taking, proactiveness, and innovativeness—supports pursuing bold yet disciplined experiments (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). A pivot plan that preserves core competencies while testing new value propositions improves the odds of long-run success (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

Decision and Action Plan

Given the above, Kaneb should persist but with a clearly staged plan: (1) reframe the value proposition based on validated learning; (2) design lean experiments to test customer willingness to pay and product-market fit; (3) identify and secure a minimum viable footprint to minimize capital burn; (4) build partnerships or pilot channels to de-risk distribution; (5) establish go/no-go milestones tied to objective metrics (customer interest, unit economics, and regulatory feasibility). This approach follows the principle of learning-driven entrepreneurship, where evidence informs continued investment (Drucker, 1985; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

SWOT Analysis

  • Strengths: Foundational capabilities, unique value proposition, initial customer interest, potential partnership opportunities.
  • Weaknesses: Resource limits, early-stage cost structure, ambiguous regulatory or ethical constraints, and possible execution risk.
  • Opportunities: Untapped market segments, potential for strategic alliances, scalable distribution if validated.
  • Threats: Competitive responses, regulatory changes, macroeconomic volatility, and potential misalignment between customer needs and the product.

PESTEL Analysis

  • Political: Regulatory approvals, policy support for new ventures, potential subsidies or tax incentives.
  • Economic: Interest rates, consumer purchasing power, access to capital, and macroeconomic cycles that affect demand.
  • Social: Changing consumer preferences, demographics, and acceptance of new solutions.
  • Technological: Availability of enabling technologies, platform ecosystems, data privacy and security considerations.
  • Environmental: Sustainability requirements, resource use, and potential environmental impact of production and distribution.
  • Legal: Intellectual property protection, contract law, liability, and compliance requirements.

Conclusion

In sum, the Kaneb case illustrates that a disciplined, evidence-driven approach supports persisting with a potential opportunity—provided the plan includes rigorous testing, controlled spending, and clear milestones. Abandonment could be appropriate only if the data demonstrate unacceptable risk or misalignment with strategic capabilities. By adopting a lean, validated-learning trajectory—guided by SWOT and PESTEL insights—Kaneb can reduce downside while preserving upside potential. This perspective is consistent with entrepreneurship scholarship, which emphasizes iterative learning, resource leveraging, and strategic pivoting as pathways to venture success (Drucker, 1985; Barringer & Ireland, 2019; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

References

  • Barringer, B. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2019). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures (6th ed.). Pearson.
  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
  • Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Harper & Row.
  • Gans, J. S., Scott, E. L., & Stern, S. (2018). Strategy for new ventures. Stanford Graduate School of Business.
  • Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management (15th ed.). Pearson.
  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). The entrepreneurial orientation of firms: Implications for strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 135-154.
  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
  • Timmons, J. A., Spinelli, S., & Maddox, R. (2009). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Aguilar, F. J. (1967). Scanning the business environment. Macmillan.

Related Assignments