最新糖心Vlog

Teaching Staff:
Name: Dr Alistair Campbell

The key learning objectives of this course are:

Text book:
Michael H Morris, Donald F Kuratko and Jeffrey G. Covin, (2011) Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 3rd Edition, SOUTH –WESTERN Cengage Learning ISBN–10: 0-538-47892-6

Additional readings will be made available through the LEARN site:
Sharma, P. & Chrisman, J. (1999). Towards a Reconciliation of the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, vol. 23, pp. 11-27.

Lumpkin, G. & Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, vol.21, pp. 135-172.

Bessant, J. & Tidd, J. (2007) Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Wiley & Son, Ltd, USA. Chapter 2, Organizing Innovation and Entrepreneurship pp40-79

Morris, M. & Sexton, D. (1996). The Concept of Entrepreneurial Intensity: Implications for Company Performance, Journal of Business Research, vol. 36, pp. 5-13.

These articles will add depth to the topics covered:
Ireland, D; Covin, J & Kuratko, D (2009.) Conceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, vol. 33, pp. 19-46.

Anthony, SD., Johnson, MW., Sinfield, JV., (2008) Institutionalizing Innovation, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol 49, No 2, pp 48-53

Goodale, JC., Kuratko, DF., Hornsby, JS., Covin JG., (2011) Operations management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance., Journal of Operations Management, 29 (2011) pp116–127

There is a wide range of material on the course topic available. The following provides some additional reading guidance if you are interested in reading further on the topic.

Amabile, T. (1998) How to Kill Creativity, Harvard Business Review, vol.76 (September-October), pp. 77-87.

Buckland, W., Hatcher, A. & Birkinshaw, J. (2003). Inventuring. McGraw Hill.

Covin & Slevin (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behaviour, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 16, issue 1, pp. 7 – 26.

Guth & Ginsberg (1990). Corporate Entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 11 (summer), pp. 5 -15.

Hayton, J (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research, Human Resource Management Review, vol. 15, pp. 21-41.

Hornsby, J; Kuratko, D & Zahra, S (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 17, pp. 253-273.

Hornsby, J, Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1993). An Interactive Model of the Corporate Entrepreneurship Process, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 17, issue 2.

Ireland, D, Kuratko, D & Morris, M (2008). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels: part I, Journal of Business Strategy, vol.27, pp. 10- 17.

Ireland, D, Kuratko, D & Morris, M (2008). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels: part II, Journal of Business Strategy, vol.27, pp. 21-30.

Kanter, R.M. (1994). Innovative Reward Systems for the Changing Workplace. New York, McGraw Hill Publishers.

Kuratko, D & Audretsch (2009) “Strategic Entrepreneurship: Exploring Different Perspectives of an Emerging Concept”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, vol. 33, pp. 1 -17.

Morris & Kuratko (2002). Corporate Entrepreneurship, Harcourt College Publishers, NY.

Morris, M.H. & Kuratko, D.F (2002). Applying Entrepreneurship in Established Companies, (Chapter 1). IN Corporate Entrepreneurship. Harcourt College Publishers.

Sharma, P. & Chrisman, J. (1999). Towards a Reconciliation of the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, vol. 23, pp. 11-27.

Sundbo, J. (1998) The Theory of Innovation: Entrepreneurs, Technology and Strategy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenhan, UK.

OECD (2005) Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. Paris, OECD.

Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York.

Pinchot, III, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper & Row.

Thornberry, N (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: teaching managers to be entrepreneurs, Journal of Management Development, vol.22, pp. 329-344.

Valqui Vidal, RV (2009). Creativity for problem solvers, AI & Soc, vol.23 (3), pp. 409-432.

Wolcott, R.C. & Lippitz, M.J. (2009). Grow from Within. McGraw Hill.

Zimmerer & Scarborough (2008) Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, fifth edition, Pearson – Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Library Resources
The 最新糖心Vlog of Adelaide’s Barr Smith Library provides a range of learning resources including texts, journals, periodicals, magazines, and access to online databases and information services. It also offers a virtual library which is accessible via the 最新糖心Vlog’s website. The 最新糖心Vlog Library web page is:  
From this link, you are able to access the Library's electronic resources.

LEARN is the 最新糖心Vlog of Adelaide’s platform for dedicated online delivery. LEARN is a customised version of Moodle, and houses all course requirements including the course profile, announcements, additional course materials (beyond the prescribed text), assessment items, discussion forums, grading, feedback, links to various university and course resources, an internal website email system, a technical assistance facility, etc. LEARN is only accessible once the URL and a password have been provided to the student on enrolment. Students are given access to the course prior to the start date to familiarise themselves with the operational aspects and functionality of the website.

This course is offered in online mode.

As a guide, a 3 unit course comprises a total of 156 hours.

This is a draft schedule and session dates are a guide only. The timetable may be changed during the course delivery if necessary.

An overview of the course assessment appears in the following Table. Details appear in the following section:

Students must complete all course assessment requirements.

Course results are subject to moderation by the ECIC Board of Examiners

Assessment 1: Discussion Forum Participation
Weighting: 15%
Due Dates: Day 3-7 Weeks 1-10
Submission Details: Via discussion prompts on the forum in LEARN

Task:
Respond to the discussion prompts and questions each. The initial analysis /response to the assigned discussion topic must be posted by the due date (day 3). It is expected you will read all discussion postings, and then post 3-4 follow-up responses to/comments on your classmates’ postings days 4-7.

The object is quality, rather than quantity in demonstrating your understanding of the concepts and ability to apply them.

Length and Presentation:
Initial post 100+ words, respond to 3-4 of others posts.

Criteria by which your assignment will be marked:

• Demonstrated critical thinking, including applications in practice
• Demonstrated complete understanding of the assignment and the underlying concepts
• Met the minimum substantive expectations
• Posted the required subsequent responses to the posts of your classmates or to the responses to your initial post – responses are substantive in nature (at least 100 words)
• Indicated critical thinking and constructive feedback and meaningful inputs to the discussion
• Demonstrated good-quality writing and concise language choice
• Willingness to collaborate and contribute to discussion with others using logical and rational argument
• Reference to literature and real life examples.

Assessment 2: Reflection Journals
Weighting: 5%
Due Dates: Day 7; Weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10
Submission Details: Via Drop Box in LEARN

Task:
Reflect on your thoughts and insights from this week’s material and then post your thoughts in regard to prompts provided. You may return to your journal entries and edit them as desired at any time throughout this course based on any new insights you have gained.

Please note: This is a private journal that will only be visible to you and your teaching staff.

Length and Presentation:
200+ words per weekly entry

Criteria by which your assignment will be marked:

• Demonstrated ability to record personal impressions and opinions succinctly, on topics and concepts covered in the course.
• Demonstrated awareness of own style/perspective and insights into implications for own behaviour.
• Demonstrated ability to look back on the prior record of events and, with the benefit of hindsight, reflect on whether personal impressions, opinions or approach have changed or could be improved on.

Assessment 3: Individual Assignment
Weighting: 30%
Due Dates: Day7; Week5
Submission Details: Via Drop Box in LEARN

Task:
Compare and contrast: Nascent ventures versus innovations within an established corporate environment.

Use your own work experience and those you have observed, to outline a position on the nature of entrepreneurial activity within new start-ups compared to that same activity within established companies. What are the similarities, and what are the differences? How does this change the way one goes about supporting innovation in these different contexts?

Throughout the assignment, reference should be made to current, relevant research and tested theories from the literature – these may be from the text book, the suggesting reading list or (preferably) from other reliable academic sources.

Length and Presentation:
2500 - 4500 words, which includes a short introductory paragraph (100-150 words) to act as a synopsis of the report.

NB: The decision-makers who read reports generally have very limited time to do so. The art in writing a good report (one that will be read first, and then acted upon) is to entice the reader to stay with you until the punch-line, so that you get your message across, clearly. Please do not be tempted into thinking that a longer report will be more favourably judged than a shorter one – this is highly unlikely.

Criteria by which your assignment will be marked:

• Logical, progressive, structured argument/position
• Treed back into research cases and theories from the literature
• Does the author's position come across clearly and convincingly, whether the reader agrees with that position or not?

Assessment 4: Case Study (Group)
Weighting: 30%
Due Dates: Day7; Week 8
Submission Details: Via Drop Box in LEARN

Task:
In this assignment you will work in groups of approximately 4-6 people (depending on class size), which you will self-select and communicate to your teaching staff by no later than Day 7 of Week 2. Each group will have a private discussion forum setup to collaborate on this assignment.

The case study is based on the group members' work experience. In this assignment the group is required to propose a case for a new corporate venture, outlining how it will succeed in improving the company's prospects, what the specific improvement is, and other relevant factors that will motivate your case to the corporate decision-makers.

Also important is that the corporate setting be described in sufficient detail for the reader to make proper sense of the proposed corporate innovation. The corporate setting may be based on a single company, or an imagined conglomerate of the group's collective work experiences.

Each group must submit their Case Study topic to the teaching staff for approval by no later than Day 7 of Week 3. (It is highly recommended that your group submits their topic for approval as early as possible to give you more time work on your group assignment and make changes to your topic, if needed.)

The marks allocated for the report will apply to each member of the group, so part of the assignment is apportioning and managing each member's contribution, and then integrating it into a cohesive Case Study report. As always, the writing should be anchored to relevant academic sources that help increase depth and validity.

A later spin-off of this group project will be an individual presentation of this Case Study. This will essentially be an asynchronous version of the ubiquitous "elevator pitch" and will give each group member the opportunity for an individual expression of this group initiative.

Summary of Case Study Deadlines

• Day 7, Week 2: Select and communicate groups to teaching staff.
• Day 7, Week 3: Communicate Case Study topic to teaching staff for approval.
• Day 7, Week 8: Submit final Case Study Report for grading.

Length and Presentation:
5000 words

NB: The decision-makers who read reports generally have very limited time to do so. The art in writing a good report (one that will be read first, and then acted upon) is to entice the reader to stay with you until the punch-line, so that you get your message across, clearly. Please do not be tempted into thinking that a longer report will be more favourably judged than a shorter one – this is highly unlikely.

Criteria by which your assignment will be marked:

• Structure, Format
• Coherence of report (integration of group inputs)
• Reference to academic sources, evidence of concepts introduced in course
• Is it clear how the innovation will fit into the established corporate milieu?
• Is the description of the innovation clear, and its successes, improvements?
• Is the proposal convincing?

Assessment 5: “Elevator Pitch” Presentation
Weighting: 20%
Due Dates: Day7; Week10
Submission Details: Via Drop Box in LEARN

Task:
The group presented a 5000 word report on this. You now have the opportunity to put your own "spin" on this and emphasise the parts that you think are really key to making your point heard. The hardest part of this is deciding what to leave out – perhaps start by asking yourself, "what is the one thing I want the viewer to walk away with?"

Some argue that the concept of an elevator pitch is outdated – fair enough, it's been around a long time, but so has the car, so adapt it, change it – call it a one-minute engagement if you like – or a conversation-starter, etc.

The fact remains, it's an opportunity – you have the undivided attention of a major decision-maker for sixty seconds – what will you do with that?

Length and Presentation:
This is a 1-minute PowerPoint with voice-over, or a 1-minute video clip.

Criteria by which your assignment will be marked:

• Is the limited time used well?
• Coherence of material
• Impact: Does it sound convincing?

All text based assignments must be submitted via Drop Box in LEARN

There are a few points to note about the submission of assignments:

• Assignment Submission: Assignments should be lodged via Drop Box in the LEARN system. Please refer to individual assignment tasks for specific submission details relevant to each task. Note that assignments may be processed via TURNITIN, which is an online plagiarism prevention tool.
• Cover Sheet: As part of your assignment, please add the completed 最新糖心Vlog of Adelaide Assessment Cover Sheet to your assignment, providing details of yourself and your team members (if applicable), your assignment, the course, date submitted, etc. as well as the declaration signed by you that this is your (your team’s) work. Note that the declaration on any electronically submitted assignment will be deemed to have the same authority as a signed declaration. Where applicable, also include the word count excluding title pages and references.
• Backup Copy of Assignments: You are advised to keep a copy of your assignments in case the submitted copy goes missing. Please ensure that all assignment pages are numbered. If your assignment contains confidential information, you should discuss any concerns with the Course Lecturer prior to submission.
• Extensions of Time: Any request for an extension of time for the submission of an assignment should be made well before the due date of the assignment to the Course Lecturer. Normally, extensions will only be granted for a maximum of two weeks from the original assignment submission date. Extensions will only be granted in cases of genuine extenuating circumstances and proof, such as a doctor’s certificate, may be required.
• Failure to submit an assignment on time or by the agreed extension deadline may result in penalties and may incur a fail grade. Note that a late penalty of 5% of the total available marks for that assessment item will be incurred each day an assignment is handed in late (Unless otherwise stated in 'Assessment Related Requirements' or 'Assessment Detail' above). Assignments handed in after 14 days from the due submission date will fail even if a 100% mark is granted for the work.