The impact of design thinking on entrepreneurial competencies among university students in Peru
-
Author(s)Luis Miguel Olortegui-AlcaldeLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1072-4497
,
Franklin Cordova-BuizaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7623-7472
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.24(2).2026.12
-
Article InfoVolume 24 2026, Issue #2, pp. 162-175
- 15 Views
-
3 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
In emerging economies, youth unemployment and limited entrepreneurial education remain persistent challenges for higher education institutions. This study aims to examine how the dimensions of design thinking (empathy, creativity, and problem-solving) influence the development of entrepreneurial competencies among university students in Peru. A structured questionnaire was administered to 385 undergraduates enrolled in business programs at two private universities in Metropolitan Lima between August and November 2024. Business undergraduates were selected because they represent the segment most actively involved in university-based entrepreneurial initiatives in Peru. Data were analyzed using covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) to assess the structural relationships between design thinking dimensions and entrepreneurial competencies. The results reveal strong and statistically significant associations across all constructs. Problem-solving exerted the strongest effect on willingness to innovate (β = 0.42), followed by entrepreneurial motivation (β = 0.37) and creativity (β = 0.33). Empathy demonstrated positive effects on motivation (β = 0.35) and resilience (β = 0.28), with all coefficients significant at p < .001. Model fit indicators confirmed robust adequacy (CFI = 0.94; GFI = 0.92; NFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.06). These findings indicate that design thinking strengthens the cognitive and behavioral foundations of entrepreneurial performance, particularly adaptability, creative ideation, and user-centered problem-solving. Integrating this human-centered iterative methodology into higher education represents an effective strategy for enhancing students’ innovation capacity and resilience. The study advances theory by empirically validating design thinking as a pedagogical mechanism for entrepreneurship education, and advances practice by offering evidence-based guidance for universities operating in emerging economies.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)I23, I21, L26, O32
-
References54
-
Tables7
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Participant characteristics
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics and inter-construct correlations
- Table 3. Reliability and convergent validity
- Table 4. Discriminant validity
- Table 5. Model fit indices
- Table 6. Structural coefficients
- Table A1. Measurement instrument
-
- Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476-494.
- Alvarez-Salazar, J., & Seclen-Luna, J. P. (2023). To survive or not to survive: findings from PLS-SEM on the relationship between organizational resources and startups’ survival. In H. Latan, J. F. Hair, & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues, and Applications (2nd ed., pp. 329-374). Springer.
- Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
- Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678.
- Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M. F., Li, J., & Fernandez de Arroyabe, J. C. (2019). An integrated model of organisational innovation and firm performance: Generation, persistence, and complementarity. Journal of Business Research, 105, 270-282.
- Asparrent Revollar, B. M., León Torres, R. E., Grillo Torres, C. M., & Cordova Buiza, F. (2023). A comparative analysis of the career perceptions of tourism and hospitality students before and during the covid-19 pandemic. GeoJournal of Tourism & Geosites, 49(3), 911-918.
- Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: A conceptual model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.
- Audretsch, D., & Belitski, M. (2023). The limits to open innovation and its impact on innovation performance. Technovation, 119, Article 102519.
- Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097-1108.
- Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650.
- Baron, R. A., & Shane, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship: A process perspective. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship (p. 19-39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
- Bazán Borja, M. (2022). Toward interregional innovation systems in Peru. Management Research, 20(4), 380-395.
- Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 1-17.
- Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57(2).
- Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5-16.
- Bygrave, W. D. (2004). The entrepreneurial process. In W. D. Gartner & A. Zacharakis (Eds.), The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship (pp. 1-26). Hoboken: Wiley.
- Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
- Caloffi, A., Colovic, A., Rizzoli, V., & Rossi, F. (2023). Innovation intermediaries’ types and functions: A computational analysis of literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189.
- Chatterjee, S., Moody, G., Lowry, P. B., Chakraborty, S., & Hardin, A. (2020). Information Technology and organizational innovation: Harmonious IT affordance and courage-based actualization. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(1).
- Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
- Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gate® idea-to-launch process – Update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213-232.
- Cordova-Buiza, F., Tapara-Sinti, J., Gallardo-Tello, N.E., & Robles-Fabian, D.A. (2022). Level of financial education among university students of business: A study in the Peruvian scenario. IBIMA Business Review, 2022, Article 275437.
- Cunneen, D. J., Mankelow, G., & Gibson, B. (2007). Towards a process model of independent growth firm creation. Small Enterprise Research, 15(1), 90-105.
- Davidsson, P. (2016). Research entrepreneurship. Conceptualization and design. Cham: Springer.
- Del Carpio, J., & Seclen-Luna, J. P. (2022). The effect of technological innovation on low-tech Peruvian manufacturing firms’ performance: The role of external sources of knowledge. Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 35(3), 366-379.
- Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117.
- Fagerberg, J., Landström, H., & Martin, B. R. (2012). Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’. Research Policy, 41(7), 1121-1131.
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
- Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676.
- Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159-1197.
- Heredia, J. A., Geldes, C., Kunc, M. H., & Flores, A. (2019). New approach to the innovation process in emerging economies: The manufacturing sector in Chile and Peru. Technovation, 79, 35-55.
- Hernandez-Padilla, J. D., Donayre-Gallo, A., Cordova-Buiza, F., & Auccahuasi, W. (2023). Innovative Digital Marketing Strategies to Increase Demand in a Hotel Company. Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 18(1).
- Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C., & Baptista-Lucio, M. del P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación [Research methodology] (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. (In Spanish).
- Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728.
- Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
- Kumar, R. R., Stauvermann, P. J., & Samitas, A. (2016). The effects of ICT on output per worker: A study of the Chinese economy. Telecommunications Policy, 40(2-3), 102-115.
- Kuratko, D. F. (2021). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
- Liedtka, J., Salzman, R., & Azer, D. (2017). Design thinking for the greater good: Innovation in the social sector. Columbia University Press.
- Liu, Y., Dong, J., Ying, Y., & Jiao, H. (2021). Status and digital innovation: A middle-status conformity perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, Article 120781.
- Maritz, A., & Donovan, J. (2013). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Setting an agenda for greater discipline contextualisation. Education + Training, 57(1), 74-87.
- Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh, M., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Bogers, M. (2021). Managing business-to-business open innovation: A project-level approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 94, 159-163.
- Miles, I. (2005). Knowledge-intensive business services: Prospects and policies. Foresight, 7(6), 39-63.
- Montes, J., Ávila, L., Hernández, D., Apodaca, L., Zamora-Bosa, S., & Cordova-Buiza, F. (2023). Impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of university students in Latin America. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), Article 2282793.
- Moroz, P. W., & Hindle, K. (2012). Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 781-818.
- Parida, V., Sjodin, D., & Reim, W. (2019). Reviewing literature on digitalization, business model innovation, and sustainable industry: Past achievements and future promises. Sustainability, 11.
- Phadke, U., & Vyakarnam, S. (2017). Camels, Tigers & Unicorns: Rethinking Science & Technology-Enabled Innovation. London: World Scientific.
- Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Botella-Carrubi, D., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Orero-Blat, M. (2021). The effect of digitalization on business performance: An applied study of KIBS. Journal of Business Research, 126, 319-326.
- Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263.
- Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organizations, and the public science base. Research Policy, 37(6-7), 1079-1095.
- Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2020). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Hoboken: Wiley.
- Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735.
- Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3), 219-229.
- Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351.
-
Academic resilience, emotional intelligence, and academic performance among undergraduate students
Uzoma Ononye ,
Mercy Ogbeta ,
Francis Ndudi ,
Dudutari Bereprebofa ,
Ikechuckwu Maduemezia
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/kpm.06(1).2022.01
Knowledge and Performance Management Volume 6, 2022 Issue #1 pp. 1-10 Views: 6558 Downloads: 1715 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯAcademic resilience and emotional intelligence are considered important personal resources for furthering students’ academic performance. However, many educational organizations seem to trivialize the performance implications of these constructs in teachings and curriculum. Consequently, it can decrease not just their academic performance but also their employability, as they lack the generic competencies to adapt and survive in a stressful context. Even so, empirical evidence on integrating academic resilience, emotional intelligence, and academic performance remains unexplored in the Nigerian university context. Therefore, the study aimed to investigate the linkages between academic resilience, emotional intelligence, and academic performance in Nigeria. The partial least square (PLS) modeling method was utilized for testing the stated hypotheses with data collected from 179 final year undergraduate students in the regular B.Sc. Business Administration and B.Sc. Marketing program at Delta State University, Nigeria. From the PLS results, the study reported that academic resilience was positively related to emotional intelligence (β = 0.125, p = 0.007), academic resilience (β = 0.231, p = 0.000) and emotional intelligence (β = 0.260, p = 0.000) were positively related to academic performance, and emotional resilience mediated the positive relationship between academic resilience and academic performance (β = 0.057, p = 0.005). While academic resilience predicted academic performance, it also predicted emotional intelligence, which affected academic performance significantly and positively.
-
A bibliometric analysis of the economic effects of using artificial intelligence and ChatGPT tools in higher education institutions
Anna Vorontsova ,
Svitlana Tarasenko ,
Wojciech Duranowski ,
Arkadiusz Durasiewicz ,
John Soss ,
Artem Bilovol
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(1).2025.08
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 23, 2025 Issue #1 pp. 101-114 Views: 3138 Downloads: 802 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯOne of the main challenges in higher education management is the complexity of resource optimization and increasing volumes of data, which limits the efficiency and accuracy of decision-making. The application of artificial intelligence can address these issues.
The present study aims to identify the key trends, knowledge gaps, and opportunities for further research into the economic effects of using artificial intelligence and ChatGPT tools in higher education. For this purpose, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify and screen the scientific articles related to the topic of this study indexed in Web of Science and Scopus from 1986 to 2024. A total of 234 articles were selected, all demonstrating positive growth both in scholarly output and citation count. The study identified the key contributors to scientific research on this topic by region (the United States, China, and India). It concluded that the relevant research centers are still at an early stage of their development. Based on bibliometric clusters formed by co-occurrence relations, three main areas of research were defined: 1) artificial intelligence in education for decision-making; 2) process automation and digital transformation in educational institutions; 3) artificial intelligence technologies and their application in education.
The study highlights the main areas of economic effects of artificial intelligence and ChatGPT tools in higher education, including reducing administrative costs, saving time for teachers and students, and improving the quality and accessibility of educational process.Acknowledgments
The publication is part of the research topic “Economic Basics of Technology Diffusion into the National Economy of Ukraine Considering Best International Practices” (№0124U003482). -
Challenges of improving effectiveness and efficiency of the higher educational system in developing countries
Saheer Al-Jaghoub ,
Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan ,
Hussein Al-Yaseen ,
Anas Al-Soud ,
Ahmad Areiqat
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(1).2019.03
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 17, 2019 Issue #1 pp. 19-31 Views: 2890 Downloads: 883 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯDue to the country’s lack of natural resources and its dependence on human resources, Jordanian universities have started to implement quality assurance system aiming to improve effectiveness and efficiency of the higher educational system. This paper presents the results of a research that aims to identify the main issues and challenges facing these universities in implementing quality assurance system. Data for this research were collected using a survey mailed to all public and private universities to investigate the main issues affecting the implementation of quality assurance system in Jordanian universities. The results of this research showed that the most important challenges faced by Jordanian universities are: human and lack of awareness, resistance to change and cultural among others. The research findings hoped to be useful for both universities and policy makers in the government in order to realize the full benefits of implementing quality assurance system. Hence, this and other research on implementing quality assurance in higher educational institutions might be of assistance.
