1042-2587-99-233$1.

50
Copyright 1999 by
Baylor University

Toward a Reconciliation
E of the Definitional Issues
in the Field of Corporate
Entrepreneurship
Pramodita Sharma
James J. Chrisman

Although authors generally agree on the nature of entrepreneurial activities within existing
firms, differences in the terminology used to describe those activities have created confu-
sion. This article discusses existing definitions in the field of corporate entrepreneurship,
reconciles these definitions, and provides criteria for classifying and understanding the
activities associated with corporate venturing.

I^cholars have begun to pay increasing attention to entrepreneurial activities within

existing organizations {e.g., Birkinshaw, 1997; Burgelman, 1983; Caruana, Morris, &
Vella, 1998; Drucker, 1985; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Kanter, 1983; Miller, 1983; Pin-
chot, 1985; Zahra, 1986, 1995, 1996). Unfortunately, and similar to the study of entre-
preneurship in general, there has been a striking lack of consistency in the manner in
which these activities have been defined. A number of scholars have expressed concern
about this lack of universally acceptable definitions (e.g., Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989;
Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994; Wortman. 1987; Zahra, 1991). Although the choice of
definitions in behavioral sciences generally remains subject to debate (Hoy, 1995), a
clearly stated set of definitions is necessary for scientific understanding, explanation, and
prediction (McKelvey, 1982). Moreover, clearly stated and agreed-upon definitions
makes it easier for researchers to build on each other's work, and for practitioners to
decide whether research findings are applicable to their situation. Because the field of
corporate entrepreneurship is still in its infancy, the time is ripe to work on the clarifi-
cation of existing terminology.
This article represents one effort to systematize the use of terminology in the field
of corporate entrepreneurship. To do this we first review some of the existing definitions
and illustrate how they are contradictory. This review is conducted to provide a ground-
ing from which a framework of definitions can be developed that covers the field of
corporate entrepreneurship. In developing this framework we go from a general to a
specific point of view in order to clarify the existing boundaries of the field, reconcile
the various terms used to describe the phenomena of interest, and illustrate the territory
they cover.
Each of the definitions we will propose are broad, by intention. We are of the opinion
that broad definitions of concepts are preferable to narrow definitions at this stage in the
field's development for several reasons. First, broad definitions are less likely to exclude
as-yet-unspecified problems, issues, or organizations that are potentially important or

Spring, 1999 11
interesting. Therefore, starting broad makes it less likely that the definitions will become
outmoded and in need of revision as new issue.s are discovered. Furthermore, broad
definitions are more amenable, and more resilient, to the discovery and classification of
unique populations and subpopulations of firms and events since they avoid premature
or arbitrary decisions about the variables that delineate one group from another. Broad
definitions make it possible for the natures of different organizations and events to
emerge through empirical research and theories of differences. Finally, broad definitions
are more likely to be acceptable to most scholars since most will find a place for the topic
or sites of research that are of interest to them. In sum, broad definitions better reflect the
early stage of development of the field, avoid the need for excessive retrenchment as new
knowledge becomes available, and provide considerable latitude for a theoretical and
empirical process to emerge that will eventually permit the unique parts of the whole to
be classified, defined, and understood in relation to that whole.
After we have presented our framework of definitions pertaining to corporate en-
trepreneurship, we then proceed to discuss some of the critical constructs by which
internal corporate venturing efforts might be classified to illustrate the possibilities of the
approach taken. We focus on internal corporate venturing because it is the sub-area that
has been perhaps the most thoroughly studied thus far and is. therefore, the most ame-
nable to further classificatory efforts.

EXISTING DEFINITIONS

Entrepreneurship
Before discussing existing definitions in the field of corporate entrepreneurship, we
briefiy turn our attention to the term "entrepreneurship." Entrepreneurship has meant
different things to different people {Gartner, 1990; McMullan & Long, 1990). The
historical development of the term has been documented by various authors (e.g., Gart-
ner, 1988; Hisrich, 1986; Livesay, 1982; McMullan & Long, 1983). The earliest refer-
ence of the term has been traced to Richard Cantillon's work (1734). To him, entrepre-
neurship was self-employment with an uncertain return (McMullan & Long, 1990).
In a recent study, Gartner (1990) identified two distinct clusters of thought on the
meaning of entrepreneurship. The first group of scholars focused on the characteristics
of entrepreneurship (e.g., innovation, growth, uniqueness, etc.) while the second group
focused on the outcomes of entrepreneurship (e.g., creation of value). Scholars who
subscribe to the notion that entrepreneurship should be defined by its characteristic
attributes appear to be the largest group, accounting for 79% of Gartner's sample.
Among members of this group, most seem to rely on variations of one of two definitions
of entrepreneurship: Schumpeter's (1934) or Gartner's (1988).
To Schumpeter (1934), an entrepreneur is a person who carries out new combina-
tions, which may take the form of new products, processes, markets, organizational
forms, or sources of supply. Entrepreneurship is, then, the process of carrying out new
combinations. In contrast, Gartner states that "'Entrepreneurship is the creation of orga-
nizations" (1988, p. 26). Gartner was careful to specify that this was not offered as a
definition but rather as "an attempt to change a long held and tenacious viewpoint in the
entrepreneurship field" toward "what the entrepreneur does, not who the entrepreneur is"
(p. 26). Nevertheless, it is clear from the literature that a large number of researchers in
entrepreneurship have employed this definition, including Gartner himself (e.g., By-
grave, 1993; Gartner, Bird, & Starr, 1991; Learned, 1992).
Whereas both these definitions have merit, it should be clear that despite their

12 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

overlaps, each covers a somewhat different territory. Thus, while the carrying out of new
comhinations (i.e.. an innovation of product, process, etc.) may result in the creation of
a new organization, it does not necessarily have to do so. Likewise, the creation of a new
organization may involve a new combination; however, there are many new organiza-
tions that can make no claim to innovative activity. The debate about what entrepre-
neurship is will surely rage on for the foreseeable future in spite of the best arguments
of scholars on any side of the debate. Yet there are clear advantages to attempts to
reconcile the language used in the field, as ambiguity in terminology holds back the
development of cohesive, explantory, or predictive theories {Low & MacMillan, 1988).
As explained below, in this article, we seek definitions that do not exclude what has been
termed entrepreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship in the past, are most likely to
cover those aspects of entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship that will draw the
attention of scholars in the future, and will facilitate the reconcihation of the theory and
research on entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship.

Corporate Entrepreneurship Terminology

In recent years, the entrepreneurial abilities of corporate organizations has become
a major subject of discussion both among practitioners and academicians. With this
broadening of perspective, entrepreneurship has become more a hypothetical and ab-
stract term attached to any individual or group creating new combinations (e.g., Lumpkin
& Dess, 1996; Pass, Lowes. Davies. & Kronish. 1991), either on their own or attached
to exi.sting organizations. This is reflected in some academic writings. For example,
Covin and Sievin (1991) have suggested that the three entrepreneurial postures of risk
taking, innovativeness. and proactiveness, brought forth by Miller (1983). can be applied
to corporate processes as well as to new independent ventures. Collins and Moore (1970)
have differentiated between "independent" and '"administrative" entrepreneurs, with the
former creating new organizations from scratch, and the latter creating new organizations
within or adjunct to existing business structures. More recently. Lumpkin and Dess
(1996) have stated that launching a new venture can be done either by a start-up firm or
an existing firm.
Although there is an increasing recognition of the entrepreneurial activities within
existing firms, ambiguities continue to plague attempts to define such activities. In fact,
the language problem is, if anything, more acute when entrepreneurship is applied to a
corporate setling. While the terms "entrepreneurship" or "independent entrepreneurship"
are used to describe entrepreneurial efforts of individuals operating outside the context
of an existing organization, a variety of terms are used for the entrepreneurial efforts
within an existing organization such as corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983;
Zahra, 1993). corporate venturing (Biggadike. 1979). intrepreneuring (Pinchot. 1985).
internal corporate entrepreneurship (Jones & Butler, 1992). intemal entrepreneurship
(Schollhammer. 1982; Vesper. 1984). strategic renewal (Guth & Ginsberg. 1990). and
venturing {Hornsby, Naff/Jger, Kuratko. & Montagno, 1993). A list of definitions used
in the literature for these related terms is presented in Table 1.

Deflnitionai Ambignities
A careful examination of Table 1 reveals that the same term is sometimes used
differently by different authors, and some authors use different terms to describe the
same phenomenon. Examples of these definitional ambiguities are provided below and
highlighted in Table 2.

Spring, 1999 13
Table 1
Existing Definitions
Author/s & Yr. Definition suggested

CORPORATE ENTREFRENEURSHIP
Burgelman Corporate entrepreneurship refers to the process whereby thi.- l"irms engage in diversification
(1983) through inlemal developmeni. Such diversiricalion requires new resource combinations lo
extend ihe nrm's activities in areas unrelated, or marginally related, to its current domain of
competence and corresponding opportunity sel (p. 1349).
Chung & Corporate entrepreneurship is an organizational process for transforming individual ideas into
Gibbons (1997) colleciive actions through the management of uncertainties (p. 14).
Covin & Sievin Corporate entrepreneurship involves extending the firni's domain of competence and
(1991) corresponding opportunity set through internally generated new resource combinationK (p. 7.
quoting Burgelman, 1984. p. 154).
Guth & Corporate entrepreneurship encompasses two types of phenomena and the processes
Ginsberg (1990) surrounding them: (1) the birth of new businesse.s within existing organizations, i.e.. internal
innovation or venturing; and (2) the transformation of organizations through renewal of the
key ideas on which they are built, i.e. strategic renewal (p. 5),
Jennings & Corporate entrepreneurship is defined as the extent to which new products and/or new markets
Lumpkin (1989) are developed. An organization is enUepreneurial if it develops a higher than average
number of new products and/or new markets (p. 489).
Schendel (1990) Corporate entrepreneurship involves the notion of birth of new businesses within on-going
businesses, and . . . the transformation of stagnant, on-going businesses in need of revival
or transformation (p. 2).
Spann, Adams, Corporate entrepreneurship is the establishment of a separate corporate organi/uiion (often in
& Wortman the form of a profit center, strategic business unit, division, or subsidiary) to introduce a
(1988) new product, serve or create a new market, or utilize a new technology (p. 149).
Vesper (1984) Corporate entrepreneurship involves employee initiative from below in the organization lo
undertake something new. An innovation whieh is created by subordinates without being
asked, expected, or perhaps even given permission by higher management to do so (p. 295).
Zahra (1993) Corporate entrepreneurship is a process of organizational renewal that has two distinct but
related dimensions: innovation and venturing, and strategic renewal (p. 321).
Zahra (1995. 1996) Corporate entrepreneurship — the sum of a company's innovation, renewal, and venturing
efforts. Innovation involves creating and introducing products, production processes, and
organizational systems. Renewal means revitalizing the company's operations by changing
the scope of its business, its competitive approaches or both. It also mean.s building or
acquiring new capabilities and then creatively leveraging them to add value for
shareholders. Venturing means that the firm will enter new businesses by expanding
operations in existing or new markets (1995, p. 227; 1996, p.l715).
INTERNAL CORPORATE ENTREPRENBURSHIP
Jones & Buller Internal Corporate Entrepreneurship refers to entrepreneurial behavior within one firm (p,
(1992) 734).
Sehollhammer Internal (or intra-corporate) entrepreneurship refers to all formalized entrepreneurial activities
(1982J within existing business organizations. Formalized internal entrepreneurial activities are
those which receive explicit organizational sanction and resource commitment for the
purpose of innovative corporate endeavors — new product developments, product
improvements, new methods or procedures (p. 21 I).
CORPORATE VENTURING
Biggadike A Corporate venture is defined as a business marketing a product or service that the parent
(1979) company has not previously marketed and that requires the parent company to obtain new
equipment or new people or new knowledge (p. 104).
Block & MacMillan A project is a Corporate venture when it (a) involves an activity new to the organization, (b)
(1993) is initiated or conducted internally, (c) involves significantly higher risk of failure or large
losses than the organization's ba.se business, (d) is characterized by greater uncertainty than
the base business, (e) will be managed separately at some time during its life, (f) is
undertaken for the purpose of increasing sales, profit, productivity, or quality (p, 14).
Ellis & Taylor Corporate venturing was postulated to pursue a strategy of unrelatedness to present activities,
< 1987) to adopt the structure of an independent unit and to involve a process of assembling and
configuring novel resources (p, 528).
von Hippel Corporate venturing is an activity which seeks to generate new businesses for the corporation
(1977) in which it resides through the establishment of external or internal corporate ventures (p.
163).

14 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Table 1

Continued
Author/s & Yr. IX-finiUon suggested

VENTURE, INTERNAL VENTURES. INTERNAL CORPORATE VENTURING.

NEW BUSINE.SS VENTURING
Homsby, Naffziger, Venture may be applied to the development of new business endeavors within the corporate
Kuratko, framework (p. 30).
Montagno (1993)
Roberts & Internal ventures are a finn's attempts to enter different markets or develop substantially
BerTy (1985) different products from those of its existing base business by setting up a separate entity
within the existing corporate body (p. 6),
Stopford & New Business Venturing occurs when "individuals and small teams form entrepreneurial
Baden-Fuller groups inside an organization capable of persuading others to alter tbeir behavior, thus
(1994) influencing the creation of new corporate resources' (p. 522).
Zahra (1996) Venturing means that the firm will enter new businesses by expanding operations in existing
or new markets (p. 1715).
Zajac. Golden, Internal corporate Venturing involves "the creation of an internally-staffed venture unit that is
Shorten (1991) semi-autonomous, with the sponsoring organization maintaining ultimate authority' (p. 171).
INTRAPRENEURSHIP
Nielson, Peters, Intrapreneurship is the development within a large organization of internal markets and
& Hisrich (1985) relatively small and independent units designed to create, internally test-market, and expand
improved and/or innovative staff services, technologies or methods within the organization.
This is different from the large organization entrepreneurship/vcnture units whose purpose
is to develop profitable positions in external markets (p. 181).
Pinchot III Intrapreneurs are any of the "dreamers who do." Those who take hands-on responsibility for
(1985) creating innovation of any kind within an organization. They may be the creators or
inventors but are always ihe dreamers who figure out how to tum an idea into a profitable
reality (p. ix).
STRATEGIC or ORGANIZATIONAL RENEWAL
Guth& Strategic renewal involves the ereation of new wealth through new combinations of resources
Ginsburg 11990) (p. 6).
Stopford & Organizational renewal alters the resource pattern of business to achieve belter and sustainable
Baden-Fuller overall economic performance. To be sustainable, more pervasive effort is needed,
(1994) involving more ihan a few individuals and the finance function (p. 522).
Zahra (1993, Renewal means revitalizing a company's business through innovation and changing its
1995. 1996) competitive profile. It means revitalizing the company's operations by changing ihe scope
of its business, its competitive approaches or both. II also means building or acquiring new
capabilities and then creatively leveraging them to add value for shareholders. (1995, p.
227; 1996, p. 1715).
Renewal has many facets, including the redefinition of the business concept, reorganization
and the introduction of system-wide changes for innovation . . . . Renewal is achieved
through the redefinition of a firm's mission through the creative redeployment of resources,
leading to new combinations of products and technologies (1993, p, 321),

Burgelman (1983) defines corporate entrepreneurship as "the process whereby the

firms engage in diversification through internal development. Such diversification re-
quires new resource combinations to extend the firm's activities in areas unrelated, or
marginally related, to its current domain of competence" (p. 1349). Biggadike (1979), on
the other hand, describes corporate venturing as "marketing a product or service that the
parent company has not previously marketed and that requires the parent company to
obtain new equipment or new people or new knowledge" (p. 104). Taking a still different
approach, Ellis and Taylor (1987) define corporate venturing as "a strategy of unrelat-
edness to present activities, to adopt the structure of an independent unit and to involve
a process of assembling and configuring novel resources" (p. 528).

Spring, 1999
Table 2

Examples of Some Definitional Ambiguities

Atithors ;ind terni.s used

Ellis & Tavior (1987) Burgelman (1983) Biggadike (1979)

CharacterLstics CV CE CV

Extent ol innoviilion a.ssembling & configuring requires new resource requires obtaining new
novel resources combinations equipmenl. or people, or
knowledge lo introduce a
new product or service
Relatedness to unrelated to present activities activilies in areas unrelated
existing businesses or marginally related lo
current domain of
conipetence
Structural autonomy independent unit

CE - Corporate Entrepreneurship

CV - Corporate Venturing

It is observed that all three definitions describe the creation of a new business in an
area that requires innovative resource combinations. A clo.ser observation of these defi-
nitions, however, also reveals differences in the degree of restrictivene.ss. Burgelman
restricts corporate entrepreneurship to diversification into activities unrelated or mar-
ginally related to a firm's area of competence. Biggadike's (definition, on the other hand,
does not necessarily limit the venturing effort In this way. Thus, an existing competence
could still come into play as long as the venture extended that competence in some
manner, that is, through the need for new equipment, people, or knowledge. The dif-
ference in restrictiveness suggests that Burgelman's corporate entrepreneurship is a
subset of Biggadike's corporate venturing.
Ellis and Taylor agree with the requirement of unique resources and with Burgel-
man's conception of an unrelated activity but add another level of restrictiveness into the
defmition by specifying the structural arrangement of the venture in relation to the
corporation. Their definition would include only those venturing efforts that involved the
creation of a new venture division as a setting for such efforts. Thus, fiiTns that engaged
in venturing within a pre-existing corporate structure would fall outside Ellis and Tay-
lor's defmition. As a consequence, the firms that fit Ellis and Taylor's (1987) definition
of corporate venturing constitute a subset of the firms that would fit Burgelman's
definition of corporate entrepreneurship. In turn, Burgelman's corporate entrepreneur-
ship appears to be a subset of Biggadike's (1979) concept of corporate venturing.
Perhaps the most widely accepted definition of corporate entrepreneurship was pro-
posed by Guth and Ginsberg (1990). They say that corporate entrepreneurship encom-
passes the birth of new businesses within existing businesses and the transformation (or
rebirth) of organizations through a renewal of their key ideas. Their definition of cor-
porate entrepreneurship not only contains Biggadike's definition of corporate venturing
(which contains Burgelman's, etc.), it also introduces, in a different context, the interplay
of the idea of new organizations and new combinations that characterizes the debate
found in the literature on entrepreneurship. While we follow Guth and Ginsberg (1990)
in this article, it is important to illustrate the inconsistencies in these definitions because

16 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY ond PRACTICE

using the same terminology to describe markedly broader and narrower concepts is not
conducive to the advancement of the field.'
In summary the need for a framework that will help clarify the definitional ambi-
guities that exist in the field of corporate entrepreneurship becomes obvious from these
examples, a task we tum to below.

A DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK
Although organization creation and innovation" are generally regarded as key factors
in entrepreneurship (Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994), the challenges that entrepreneurs
face vary according to whether they are operating independently or as a part of an
existing organization. This necessitates two things: first, a need to clarify the definition
of entrepreneurship; and second, a need to differentiate between the settings in which
entrepreneurship takes place.

Entrepreneurship
For the sake of clarification in terminology and in recognition of the entrepreneurial
efforts of individuals working in a corporate setup, the following definitions of entre-
preneurship and entrepreneurs are proposed (Gartner, 1988; Schumpeter. 1934; Stopford
& Baden-Fuller, 1994; Zahra, 1993, 1995, 1996).

Entrepreneurship encompasses acts of organizational creation, renewal, or innova-

tion that occur within or outside an existing organization.
Entrepreneurs are individuals or groups of individuals, acting independently or as
part of a corporate system, who create new organizations, or instigate renewal or
innovation within an existing organization.

The conditions that define entrepreneurship are related to newness in the sense of
strategy or structure.'' Thus, the creation of an organization as defined by Gartner (1988)
is entrepreneurial since it entails fundamental strategic and structural decisions (Cooper,
1979). Likewise, the renewal or rebirth of an existing organization is entrepreneurial in
the sense that it represents a radical departure from predominant and historic strategic or
structural patterns. Innovation is also an entrepreneurial activity since it involves new
combinations that may dramatically alter the bases of competition in an industry, or lead

1. There is an interesting difference in the attempts to define individual or independent entrepreneurship on

the one hand and corporate entrepreneurship on the other. Many of those v^'ho study entrepreneurs seem benl
on limiting the field to individuals who create new organizations and new combinations (cf. Gartner, 1990).
On the other hand, the definition proposed by Guth and Ginsberg (1990) makes it clear that corporate
entrepreneurship can involve either the creation of new organizations (>/-new combinations. Thus, corporate
entrepreneurship is defined more broadly than some would like to define entrepreneurship. This means that
activities considered entrepreneurial in a corporate setting might not be considered as such if undertaken
outside an existing company.
2. An innovation is distinguished from an invenlion. An innovation brings something into new use. whereas
an invention brings something new into being (Rogers, 1962). The criteria for success of an invention are
technical, whereas for an innovation the criteria are commercial {Burgelman & Sayies, 1986).
3. By strategy we mean the manner in which an organization aligns its key resources with its environment.
Thus, strategy includes an organization's core competencies, resource deployments, competitive methods,
and scope of operations at either the business unit or corporate level (cf. Hofer & Schcndel, 1978: Porter,
1980: Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). By structure we mean simply the manner in which an organization goes
about implementing its strategy {cf. Galbraith & Nathanson, 1978).

Spring, 1999 17
to the creation of a new industry (Schumpeter, 1934; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994),
even though it may not be immediately manifested in organizational creation or renewal.
However, while the above definition recognizes the centrality of innovation to entrepre-
neurship, it doe.s not require that the birth or rebirth of an organization be accompanied
by a Schumpeterian innovation (Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). only that it consist of
actions that materially affect the nature of the organization (Schollhammer, 1982). Put
differently, both creation and renewal would subject the organization in question to the
"liability of newness" as put forth by Stinchcombe (1965). The extent of this liability for
an organization will vary according to the extent of its departure from its existing
strategy or structural patterns, as well as the extent of newness of the product, service,
technology, processes, etc., in a particular marketplace.
Thus, the presence of an innovation is viewed as a sufficient condition for entrepre-
neurship but not a necessary one, because organizational creation or renewal can occur
in the absence of innovation. Newness or uniqueness of an innovation is a matter of
degree both in terms of the tangible characteristics and in terms of the relevant market.
Furthermore, new to the marketplace does not necessarily mean that the innovation is
sold or consumed, as in the case of a new organizational form or a new process devel-
opment. Since innovation may vary in its amount and impact, it is very difficult and.
indeed, counterproductive to attempt to specify the precise level of innovation necessary
for entrepreneurship. Therefore, we take the position that for the purpose of defining
entrepreneurship, it is preferable to treat innovation as an entrepreneurial act rather than
as the only act that makes the occurrence of entrepreneurship possible.
It should be apparent that despite the breadth of this defmition it is highly consistent
with the prevalent views of entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1990; Schumpeter, 1934) and
corporate entrepreneurship (e.g., Zahra, 1995). Furthermore, the defmition of entrepre-
neurship proposed allows for further distinctions between independent and corporate
entrepreneurship to be made in a manner that is internally consistent.

Independent and Corporate Entrepreneurship

Following the lead of Collins and Moore (1970), entrepreneurial activities under-
taken independently and those undertaken within the context of an organization are
differentiated as "independent entrepreneurship" and "corporate entrepreneurship."
Thus:

Independent entrepreneurship is the process whereby an individual or group of

individuals, acting independently of any association with an existing organization,
create a new organization.**
Corporate entrepreneurship is the process whereby an individual or a group of
individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization
or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization.

Strategic Renewal and Corporate Venturing

As mentioned earlier, a number of authors (e.g., Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Schendel,
1990; Zahra, 1995, 1996) have suggested that within the realm of existing organizations,
entrepreneurship encompasses three types of phenomenon that may or may not be

4. Since organizational renewal obviously involved major strategic or structural changes to an existing
organization, il cannot be considered independent enlrepreneurship. by detlnition. Furlhennore, organiza-
tional creation can occur in (he presence or absence of innovation, as discussed above. Therefore, to include
innovation in this definition would be redundant.

18 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

interrelated: (i) the birth of new businesses within an existing corporation; (ii) the
transformation of existing organizations through the renewal or reshaping of the key
ideas on which they are built; and (iii) innovation. While the first has been referred to
as internal corporate venturing (Zajac. Golden & Shortell. 1991). intrapreneurship (Pin-
chot. 1985), corporate new venture division (Sandberg, 1992). intemal innovation, in-
ternal venturing (Guth & Ginsberg. 1990), and so on, the second has been called strategic
renewal (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990), strategic change, revival, transformation (Schendel.
1990). strategic departure, new product development (Vesper. 1984), reorganization,
redefinition (Zahra, 1993), organizational renewal (Stopford & Baden-Fuller, I994J, etc.
In this discussion the terms strategic renewal and corporate venturing are used.

Strategic renewal refers to the corporate entrepreneurial efforts that result in sig-
nificant changes to an organization's business or corporate level strategy or structure.
These changes alter pre-existing relationships within the organization or between the
organization and its external environment and in most cases will involve .some sort
of innovation. Renewal activities reside within an existing organization and are not
treated as new businesses by the organization.
Corporate venturing refers to corporate entrepreneurial efforts that lead to the cre-
ation of new business organizations within the corporate organization. They may
follow from or lead to innovations that exploit new markets, or new product offer-
ings, or both. These venturing efforts may or may not lead to the formation of new
organizational units that are distinct from existing organizational units in a structural
sense (e.g., a new division).

Thus, both strategic renewal and corporate venturing suggest changes in either the
strategy or structure of an existing corporation, which may involve innovation. The
principle difference between the two is that corporate venturing involves the creation of
new businesses whereas strategic renewal leads to the reconfiguration of existing busi-
nesses within a corporate setting."^

External and Internal Corporate Venturing

As noted above, corporate venturing may or may not lead to the formation of
organizational entities that are distinct from the existing entities within an organization.
In fact, corporate ventures may or may not reside within the domain of the existing
organization (von Hippel. 1977). Based on these options, corporate venturing can be
classified either as external or intemal.

External corporate venturing refers to corporate venturing activities that result in the
creation of semi-autonomous or autonomous organizational entities that reside out-
side the existing organizational domain.

Some examples of extemal corporate ventures are those formed as a result of joint
ventures, spin-offs, and venture capital initiatives. Although these may vary in their

5. However, as our previous discussion has suggested, there may be instances where innovation occurs in
an existing organization in the absence of either corporate venturing or strategic renewal efforts. Although
these instances may be rare it is important to clarify the nature of these innovations for the purpose of
completeness. To be entrepreneurial in the absence of organizational creation or renewal the innovation must
be of the Schumpetcrian (1934) variety or, in other words, involve the introduction of an original invention
or idea into a commercially usable form that is new lo the marketplace and has the potential to transform
the competitive environment as well as the organization (Stopford Baden-Fuller, 1994).

Spring, 1999 19
degree of separateness from the parent company, their common feature is that they reside
outside the domain or boundaries of the existing organization.

hiternal corporate venturing refers to the corporate venturing activities that result in
the creation of organizational entities that reside within an existing organizational
domain.

The relationship between the terms discussed above is diagrammatically presented in

Figure I. It is observed that at every step down the hierarchy a new limiting criterion is
added, resulting in a set of internally consistent definitions that conform with previous
usages (Table 3).

TOWARD A CLASSIFICATION OF INTERNAL

CORPORATE VENTURES
Up to this point we have been concerned with a reconciliation of the definitions of
the key terms used in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. As noted at the outset of
this article, we have chosen to define these terms broadly. However, it should be clear
that phenomena such as internal corporate venturing may take many forms. Indeed, a
comparison of the definitions of Biggadike (1979), Burgelman (1983), and Ellis and
Taylor (1987) emphasizes this point. As we move from abstract concepts to concrete

Figure 1
Hierarchy of Terminology in Corporate Entrepreneurship
ENTREPRENEURSHIP

INDEPENDENT CORPORATE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP ENTREPRENEURSHIP

CORPORATE STRATEGIC
VENTURING INNOVATION RENEWAL

INTERNAL EXTERNAL
CORPORATE CORPORATE
VENTURING VENTURING

DimeDsions: For example,

1. Structural autonomy i. Joint ventures
2. Degree of relatedness ii. Spin-offs
3. Extent of innovation iii. Venture capital initiatives
4. Nature of sponsorship

20 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Table 3
Unique Features of Corporate Entrepreneurship Terminology
Terms Unique Criteria

Enlreprcneurship organizational creation, renewal, or innovation, within or oulside existing organizations,

Intiepeiidenl enlrepreneurship organizational creation,
+ by individualls) nol associated with an existing corporate entity,
Corporate entrepreneurship organizational creaiion. renewal, or innovation.
+ instigated by an existing organizational entity,
Strategic renewal organizational renewal involving major strategic and/or structural changes
-t- insiiguted by an existing organizational entity,
+ resides within existing organizational domain,
Corporate ventLring organizational creation.
+ instigated by an existing organizational entity
+ treated as new businesses,
Innovation introduction of something new to marketplace
-^ potential to transform competitive environment and organization
+ usually occurring in concert with corporate venturing or strategic renewal,
Extemal corporate venturing organizational creation.
-f instigated by an existing organizational entity,
+ treated as new businesses.
-I- resides outside existing organizational domain
Intemal corporate venturing organizational creation,
+ instigated by an exisling organizational entity,
+ treated as new businesses,
-(- reside wiihin existing organizational domain.
Dimensions of intemal 1. Structural autonomy.
corporate venturing 2. Rclatedness to existing bLsiness(es).
3. Exteni of innovation.
4. Nature of sponsorship.

solutions, it is desirable to classify groups or populations of organizations or events that

share a large number of common characteristics and differ sharply from other groups or
populations on those same characteristic dimensions. The problem of classification is
best addressed by a combination of theoretical and empirical methods. Thus, while we
can have a purely theoretical debate about what actions or situations to which the
entrepreneurial or corporate venturing labels should be attached, it is more difficult to
effectively classify discrete types of such phenomena without empirical research. How-
ever, we can develop theories about the nature of the differences that distinguish one
population from another to guide empirical investigation. In this vein we will discuss the
dimensions that appear to differentiate discrete types of intemal corporate ventures. We
chose intemal corporate ventures because of personal interest, their importance to the
field, and because they have received considerable attention in the literature, and are,
therefore, perhaps the best understood aspect of corporate entrepreneurship.
Although intemal corporate venturing activities are located within existing organi-
zations, they are created in different ways, have different relationships with the corporate
parent, involve different levels of innovation, and differ in strategic importance. These
distinctions suggest that intemal corporate ventures may vary in terms of at least four
dimensions that may materially influence their subsequent development and perfor-
mance: structural autonomy, relatedness to existing businesses, extent of innovation, and
nature of sponsorship. In turn, these variations suggest that a classification of intemal
corporate ventures is possible. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to develop
such a classification in full, each of the relevant dimensions is discussed briefly below
as a starting point for empirical investigations.

Spring, 1999 21
Structural Autonomy
This refers to the extent to which the intemal corporate venturing activities of a
corporation are embedded within its existing organizational units. Put differently, this
dimension addresses the crucial decision of where to locate the venture within an orga-
nization. The options vary from totally embedding the venture within the ongoing
operations of an existing division to creating a separate new-venture division isolated
from the rest of the organization and reporting directly to top management (Block &
MacMillan, 1993; Kanter. Richardson, North, & Morgan. 1991). Block and MacMillan
(1993) suggest that the ideal place to locate a venture will depend on its needs for
managerial attention, resources, learning opportunities, and protection from corporate
antagonism.
Different authors have focused on intemal corporate ventures with different levels of
structural autonomy, and these differences have influenced their definitions of terms as
well as their descriptions of the phenomenon. For example, Burgelman and Sayles
(1986) studied new venture divisions. This choice of setting may have influenced their
restrictive definition of corporate entrepreneurship and may also explain the nature of the
model by which they seek to describe the venturing process. However, Pinchot's (1985)
work indicates that relationships among the critical components of the process may vary
somewhat for ventures initiated within the structure of an existing division. Overall, this
suggests that differences in the stmctural autonomy of internal corporate ventures may
have a material effect on the venturing process.

Degree of Relatedness to Existing Business

The second dimension on which the internal corporate venture may vary is the
degree of relatedness of the new business to existing businesses in terms of product
offerings, markets, or core competencies and resources required. This constmct may vary
from being closely related to completely unrelated to the organization's present activi-
ties, leading to a variation in the challenge provided and the learning required for
effectively managing the internal corporate venture (Block & MacMillan. 1993; Sorren-
tino & Williams. 1995).

Extent of Innovation
While the degree of relatedness to existing businesses refers to the degree of newness
of the venture to the organization, the extent of innovation refers to the degree of
newness of a venture in the marketplace. This dimension may vary from ventures that are
simply imitative entries to those innovative entries that are potentially "frame-breaking"
(Stopford & Badcn-FuUer, 1994). Although imitative ventures will require considerable
learning on the part of an organization, some lessons may be leamed from experiences
of pioneering competitors. For the ventures that are completely new to the marketplace,
and perhaps even create new markets, the firm in question is the pioneer and faces
considerably greater challenges as a consequence.

Nature of Sponsorship
This dimension is related to the degree of formal authorization for the venture. Zahra
(1993) has suggested that ventures may vary from being formal or induced (sponsored
by an organization) to informal or autonomous (entrepreneurial efforts based on em-
ployees' initiative without formal organizational sponsorship). This view has been ex-
tended by Day (1994), whose research supported the existence of'*top-down." "bottom-

22 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

up," and "dual-role champions" in entrepreneurial processes within internal corporate
ventures.
Sponsorship has received considerable attention in the corporate entrepreneurship
literature. While Covin and Slevin (1991) and Burgelman (1983) have focused on formal
entrepreneurial efforts, other authors (e.g., Kanter, 1983; Pinchot, 1985) have focused on
informal entrepreneurial efforts. The challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurship
vary according to the nature of sponsorship. For example, in case of autonomous en-
trepreneurial efforts, the role of an organizational champion and sponsor is extremely
important, whereas it may not be as critical in the case of formally induced efforts.

Reconciliation of Definitions
Based on the discussion presented in this article it is now possible to clarify the
relationships between the definitions of Biggadike (1979), Burgelman (1983), Ellis and
Taylor (1987), and Guth and Ginsberg (1990). First, it should be clear that we follow
Guth and Ginsberg (1990) in defining coporate entrepreneurship as an activity compris-
ing corporate venturing, strategic renewal, and innovation. Second, it should also be
clear that Biggadike's (1979), Burgelman's (1983), and Ellis and Taylor's (1987) defi-
nitions all involve internal corporate venturing efforts but that each defines somewhat
different types of internal corporate venturing. Thus, Biggadike's (1979) definition com-
prises all those internal corporate ventures that involve some amount of innovation
regardless of the venture's degree of relatedness to the parent, structural autonomy, or
sponsorship. Burgelman (1983), on the other hand, does not specify the degree of
structural autonomy or sponsorship but makes it plain that the venture must be innova-
tive and unrelated to the parent's existing businesses. Finally, Ellis and Taylor (1987)
specifically exclude any venture that is not structurally autonomous, innovative, and
unrelated to the parent, although either a formally or informally sponsored venture that
possesses those characteristics would qualify.
As shown in Table 4, if we assume that each of the four dimensions by which
internal corporate ventures might be classified can take one of two states, Biggadike's
(1979) definition encompasses eight of the 16 possible types of internal corporate ven-
tures. Burgelman's (1983) contains four of those types, and Ellis and Taylor's (1987)
consists of two.^ This reconcilation not only illustrates the consistency of the definitional
framework proposed in this article, but also illustrates how it might be utilized by
researchers to reconcile the findings of those and other studies.
For example, all else held equal, Biggadike's (1979) findings are generalizable to the
most situations. However, because his study does not distinguish between different types
of innovative internal corporate ventures, generalizations must be made with the greatest
caution; the averages across types may not apply strongly to any single type. Conversely,
Ellis and Taylor's (1987) work is the least generalizable across internal corporate ven-
tures because of the restrictiveness of their definition. On the other hand, this restric-
tiveness also means that one can have a higher degree of confidence in the generaliza-
tions that can be made. Of course, Burgelman's (1983) definition and study falls some-
where in-between in terms of the extent and reliability of the generalizations that can be
made from his research.
Admittedly, not all of the definitions previously used will fit as neatly into the
framework proposed in this article as the ones discussed above. Nevertheless, the frame-

6. The classificalion scheme shown in Table 4 is meant for illustrative purposes. Thus, while it might be a
good starting point for clarifying internal corporate ventures, it is not our intention to suggest that this is how
intetTial corporate ventures should be classified.

Spring, 1999 23
Table 4
A Tentative Classification of Internal Corporate Ventures and
a Reconciliation of Previous Definitions
Kxtent of Relatedness Structural Nature of
innovation to parent autonomy sponsorship DeFinitions used

InnovLifive Unrelated Aufonomou.s Formal Biggadike Burgelman Ellis & Taylor

Informal (1979) (1983) (1987)

Related
Embedded

Autonomous
Formal
Informal
Formal
i
Informal
Embedded Fonnal
Informal
[mitative Unrelated Autonomous Formal
Informal
Embedded Formal
Informal
Related Autonomous Formal
Informal
Embedded Fonnal
Informal

work does provide a standard term of reference by which definitions and research
findings can be compared and harmonized.

CONCLUSION
A review of the literature of corporate entrepreneurship reveals an ambiguity in
terminology used. Although various authors agree on the features that are unique in
corporate entrepreneurship, they often use different terms to express themselves. While
this is not uncommon in behavioral sciences in general, and in new emerging disciplines
in particular, an acceptance of a common set of terminology is necessary for scientific
progress. This article represents one effort to systematize the terminology in corporate
entrepreneurship.
A framework for the clarification and reconcilation of definitions was developed
with the aim of providing a set of criteria for each descriptor. Moreover, a hierarchy of
criteria was developed for the different terms. Finally, the basis for developing a system
of classification for internal corporate ventures was proposed. While more work needs to
be done, it is hoped that our efforts to put forward a set of internally consistent defini-
tions and specify the criteria that differentiates one descriptor from another will provide
a step toward a common terminology in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Regard-
less, we believe that the clarification of the various elements that constitute corporate
entrepreneurship should be of immediate value to the field.

REFERENCES
Biggadike, R. (1979). The risky business ofdiversificatioti. Harvard Business Review. 57(3). 103-111.

Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinalional corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary

initiatives. Strategic Management Journal. 18(3). 207-229.

24 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Block. Z.. & MacMillan, I, C. (1993). Corporate venturing: Creating new busines.ses within the firm.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Burgelman. R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic tnanagement: Insights from a process
siudy. Management Science. 29. 1349-1364.

Burgelman, R. A, (1984). Designs tor corporate entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 26(2)
154-166.

Burgelman, R. A.. & Sayles. L. R. (1986). Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure, and managerial
skills. New York: Free Press.

Bygrave. W. D. (1993). Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm. Journal of Business Venturing.
8. 255-280.

Cantillon, R. (1734). Essai sur la nature du commerce en general. [Essay on the nature of general com-
tnerce] (Translated by Henry Higgs.) London: MacMiilan.

Caruana, A., Morris. M. H., & Vella, A. (1998). The effect of centralisation and formalization on entrepre-
neurship in export firms. Journal of Small Business Management. 36(\), 16-29.

Chung. L. H.. & Gibbons. P. T. (1997). Corporate entrepreneurship: The roles of ideology and social capital.
Group and Organization Management. 22(1). 10-30.

Collins, O., & Moore, D. G. (1970). The organization maiiers. New York: Appleton.

Cooper. A. C. (1979). Strategic management: New ventures and small business, [n D. E. Schenedel & C. W.
Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policx and planning, pp. 316-327. Boston:
Little, Brown.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, 76(1), 7-25.

Day, D. L. (1994). Raising radicals: Different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures.
Organization Science. 5. 148-172.

Drucker. P. (1985). Innovations and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.

Ellis, R. J.. & Taylor, N. T. (1987). Specifying entrepreneurship. In N. C. Churchill, J. A. Hornaday, B. A.

Kirchhoff, O. J. Krasner, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.). Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, pp. 527-541.
Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Galbraith. J. R.. & Nathansun. D. A. (1978). Strategy implementation: The role of siruciure and process. St.
Paul. MN: West.

Gartner. W. B. (1988). "Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question. American Journal of .Small
Business. 12(4). 11-32.

Gartner. W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about sntrsprsntuT&hip? Journal of Business
Venturing. 5. 15-28.

Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J., & Starr, J. A. (1991). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurship from orga-
nizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 16(3), 13-31.

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic
Management Journal. //(Summer), 5-15.

Hisrich, R. D. (1986). Entrepreneurship, entrepreneur, and venture capital. Lexington. MA: Lexington
Books.

Hofer. C. W.. & Schendel. D. E. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West.

Homsby, J. S., Naffziger. D. W., Kuraiko, D. F., & Montagno. R. V. (1993). An integrative model of the
corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 17{2). 29-37.

Spring, 1999 25
Hoy, F. (1995). Researching the entrepreneurial venture. In Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence,
and growth. Vol. 2. 145-174. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.

Jennings. D. F., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1989). Functioning modeling corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical
intcgrative analysis. Journal of Management. /5(3), 485-502.

Jones, G. R.. & Butler, J. E. (1992). Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency theory
. Journal of Management. 18, 733-749.

Kanler, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kanter. R. M., Richardson, L., North, J., & Morgan, E. (1991). Engines of progress: De.signing and running
vehicles in established companies; The new venture process at Eastman Kodak, 1983-1989. Journal of
Business Venturing, 6. 63-82.

Learned, K. E. (1992). What happened before the organization? A model of organizational formation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 17(1), 39-48.

Livesay. H. C. (1982). Entrepreneurial history. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds), Ency-
clopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of
Management, 14(2), 139-161.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to
perfonnance. Academy of Management Review. 27(1). 135-172.

McKelvey. B. (1982). Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolution, classification. Berkeley: Univer-

sity of California Press.

McMullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1983). The meaning of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small
Business, 8(2). 47-59.

McMullan. W. E.. & Long, W. A. (1990). Developing new ventures: The entrepreneurial option. Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science. 29(1),
170-191.

Niclson, R. P., Peters, M. P., & Hisrich. R. D. (1985). Entrepreneurship strategy for internal markets—
Corporate, nonprofit, and government institution cases. Strategic Management Journal. 6(2), 181-189.

Pass. C. Lowes. B.. Davies. L.. & Kmnish, S. J. (1991). The Harper Collins dictionary of economics. New
York: HarperCollins.

Pinchot. G. Ill (1985). Imraprerieuring. New York: Harper & Row.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.

Prahalad, C. K., and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,
68O),19'9\.
Roberts. E. B., & Berry. C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: Selecting strategies for success. Sloan
Management Review. 26(3). 3-18.

Rogers. E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.

Sandberg. W. R. (1992). Strategic management's potential contributions to a theory of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. /6(3). 73-90.

Schendel. D. (1990). Introduction to the special issue on corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
Journal. //(Summer). 1-3.

Scholihammer, H. (1982). Intemal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent. D. L. Sexton. & K. H. Vesper

(Eds.). Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. pp. 209-229. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

26 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. New Brunswick. NJ: Transaction Publish-
ers.

Sorrentino. M.. & Williams. M. L. (1995). Relatedness and corporate venturing: Does it really matter?
Journal of Business Venturing. /0( 1), 59-73.

Spann, M. S., Adams, M., & Wortman, M. S. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Definitions, dimensions, and di-
lemmas. Proceedings of the U.S. Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 147-153.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organi-
zations, pp. 142-193. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuiler, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 15(1), 521-536.

Vesper, K. H. (1984). Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship: A pilot study. In J. A. Homaday, F.

Tarpley. Jr.. J. A. Timmons, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, pp. 294-326.
Wellesley. MA: Babson College.

von Hippel. E. (1977). The .sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wortman. M.S.. Jr. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical
research in the field. Jounial of Management, 13(2). 259-279.

Zahra. S. A. (1986). A canonical analysis of corporate entrepreneurship antecedents and impact on perfor-
mance. Proceedings of the Academy of Management. 71-75.

Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study.
Journal of Business Venturing. 6(4), 259-285.

Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and extension.
Enlrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 17(4), 5-21.

Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The ca.se of management le-
veraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, W(3), 225-247.

Zahra. S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of
industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6). 1713-1735.

Zajac, E. J.. Golden, B. R., & Shortell. S. M. (1991). New organizational forms for enhancing innovation:
The case of internal corporate joint ventures. Management Science, 37(2), 170-185.

Pramodita Sharma is Assistant Professor of Management at Dalhousie University.

James J. Cbrisman is Associate Dean. Director of Ph.D. and MBA Thesis program and Professor of Venture
Development in the Faculty of Management at the University of Calgary.

The authors are indebted to William D. Guth, W. Ed McMullan, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers
for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 10th annual meeting of the U.S. Association for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship.

Please direct correspondence concerning this article to Pramodita Sbarma.

Spring, 1999 27