Seminar 5, November 9-13, 2009

Seminar 5

A. Handout on Strategic Audit - Opportunity Evaluation

B. Case Study on Opportunity Evaluation: Botton of Grey hound hill - 'Classic Cars,' formerly known as Saha cars

i) What opportunity is there? Evaluation - See Handout

ii) Visit the site over the next week to decide what you would do

iii) next week for the seminar hour, please prepare a couple of pages as a group on your evaluation of the opportunity of this site.

What business: what, why, how?

iv) Do not forget to prepare for next week's seminar!

Those groups that come without the written preparation off the seminar hour next week.

I will ask those groups who come without having done the assignment
to leave the seminar asap and to complete the assignment by the following week week.

If you are not in the seminar this week, it is your obligation to find
out what the assignment is and come to class prepared.


B. Review of the Individual Assignment that is due first week of December

C. If you are interested in attending the Business Startup Show for free, please look at http://www.bstartup.com

D. For articles and business ideas, you may want to check out http://www.entrepreneur.com/

Seminar 3, October 19-23, 2009

Seminar 3, October 19-23, 2009
Seminar Tutor: NG

Case Study: Unicorn Inns

We discussed the first three questions.

Next week, please come to class prepared, having done the next 3 questions.

Seminar 2, October 12-16, 2009

Seminar 2
Seminar Tutor: NG

Topics Covered:


A. Assignment I_ Individual Coursework

Clarification of the assignment that is due during the first week of December 2009.

You are highly encouraged to start working on your individual assignments early on.


B. Seminar Task I - Entrepreneurship: Myths and Misconceptions


‘Entrepreneurs are born and not made’

Much of the early research in entrepreneurship has focused on trait theory and the personality of the individual (Chell, 1985). As a consequence, it is often assumed that individuals have certain inherent traits that predispose them to entrepreneurial activity. From this perspective, it is deemed possible to build a personality profile which identifies the entrepreneur.


More recent research indicates that entrepreneurial skills, abilities, behaviours and perceptions are dynamic, and can change over time and through experience and learning (Cope, 2001). People may display some of the classic traits such as need for achievement, risk bearing, creativity but these are not necessarily stable or static characteristics. Entrepreneurship can also be viewed as a social construction (Chell and Pittaway, 1998; Pittaway, 2000) occurring within and shaped by particular social, historical and cultural contexts.


‘Entrepreneurship is synonymous with new venture creation’

Entrepreneurship is often seen as a set of activities involved in organisation creation (Gartner, 1985). From a more dynamic perspective, it is reasonable to argue that the study of should encompass the entirety of the entrepreneurial experience, prior to, during and after start-up. By focusing on new venture creation alone, the rich and complex process of how entrepreneurs negotiate the management of a growing enterprise or venture is largely ignored (Cope, 2001).


‘Entrepreneurship is all about making a fortune’

Entrepreneurship is often associated with making money and creating a personal fortune. For some people, this may indeed be the case. However, even in a business context the underlying motivations for any individual may be extremely complex and can include the need to: achieve independence/autonomy; be challenged; create something new; exploit an opportunity; influence others; or simply to make a living. Money is often the mechanism through which individuals (and those around them) measure their success rather than an end in itself.


‘Entrepreneurship only takes place in a business context’

Entrepreneurship is often associated with wealth creation in a business context. However, the same sets of behaviours and activities may be found in a number of other contexts – public sector, voluntary sector and other non-profit organisations.

There is growing interest, both politically and academically, in the notion of ‘social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social enterprise’. The triggers for such activity and behaviour may be different (for example, the response to a perceived social need or gap in provision). It is not clear from the limited research to date whether there are significant contextual differences in terms of motivation, perceived rewards, use of networks, etc. What is clear is that the sectoral boundaries between ‘public’, ‘private’ and ‘voluntary’ may become blurred. The management of the interaction between these sectors may become a particular focus for future research.


‘Entrepreneurship is all about the cult of the individual’

Entrepreneurs are often portrayed as ‘heroes’ and entrepreneurial endeavour (particularly in Western societies) is associated with the expression of individualism. Even where an individual is perceived to be leading entrepreneurial activity, this is not achieved without the involvement of others – who often occupy crucial roles within the organisation. Research in high growth firms in Silicon Valley, for example, indicates that a balanced team has an impact on long-term business growth and survival (Eisenhardt and Bird-Schoonhoven, 1990). In smaller firms the support network, the family and domestic partners are also viewed to have a significant impact on both the entrepreneur and the development of the small firm. Again, these areas require further research.


‘SMEs are a homogenous group’

Small businesses and owner-managers are often treated as a homogenous group, particularly for policy purposes. This is, however, a gross over-simplification. The SME sector is characterised by its diversity, e.g.:


i) Size - a micro-business employing less than 10 employees has a quite different dynamic to small and medium-sized enterprises.

ii) Industry sector - SMEs differ considerably between industry sectors depending upon their technology base and the dynamics of their market.

iii) Owner-managers - differ in terms of their underlying business motivations, aspirations, experience and business strategies.



‘All owner-managers want to grow their business’

Western economies have institutionalised the concept of business growth, exemplified in the concept of GDP. The SME sector is often heralded as the engine of economic growth (OECD, 1998). As a consequence, much support for small businesses works on the assumption that all business owners wish to grow their business.

Research evidence suggests that a desire for business growth amongst SMEs cannot be assumed (Gray, 1998). Some owner-managers operate a business as a means of sustaining a particular lifestyle, whilst others wish to keep the business at a size that remains under their personal control. Interestingly, some owner-managers actively pursue a strategy of business closure if they perceive this to be the best course of action. The number of owner-managers that pursue substantial growth is only in the region of 15% (Carter et al, 2001) .


‘Entrepreneurs are risk-takers’


It is a commonly held belief that entrepreneurs take risks. However, research illustrates the complexity surrounding the concept of risk. Some theorists argue that entrepreneurs are ‘moderate’ risk takers (Brockhaus, 1980; Gasse, 1982), whilst others suggest that entrepreneurs take ‘calculated’ risks (Timmons et al, 1985). There are significant difficulties associated with any attempt to measure an entrepreneur’s risk-taking propensity, as the concept of risk is a subjective one. An observer may view the entrepreneur to be taking a risk whilst the entrepreneur might feel that he/she is actively trying to minimise the risk being taken (Chell et al, 1991).



‘Entrepreneurship cannot be taught’

According to a recent survey (Levie, 1999), entrepreneurship courses are now being offered in around 40% of HEIs in England. ‘Two main types of course are evident: courses for entrepreneurship, and courses about entrepreneurship.’ (Levie, 1999; p4). A common demarcation is that courses for entrepreneurship emphasise experiential learning and connection with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activity, whilst courses about entrepreneurship tend to be delivered in a more traditional manner - through lectures, textbooks and assessed through essay and exams. It is clear, however, that these two different pedagogical approaches need not be mutually exclusive. Here at Middlesex University, the Entrepreneurship Unit seeks to pursue a synthesis between theory and practice in our teaching.


In teaching entrepreneurship, the subject can be approached from a functional, managerial perspective - studying the processes of start-up, sources of appropriate finance, forms of legal entity, the management of growth, exit strategies, etc. Another underlying purpose may be to sensitise individuals to the contexts in which entrepreneurial activity may occur - for example, within small businesses, large corporations (termed corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship), the public sector and voluntary organisations. More broadly, there are interesting issues to be considered from social, historical, cultural and moral perspectives. Further research in these areas is required in order to develop conceptual frameworks that will inform our thinking and teaching.


References:

Brockhaus, R H (1980), ‘Risk taking propensity of the entrepreneur’, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 3, pp 509-520.

Carter, S et al (2001), ‘Barriers to Survival and Growth in UK Small Firms’, Report to the Federation of Small Businesses, London.

Chell, E (1985), ‘The entrepreneurial personality: a few ghosts laid to rest?’, International Small Business Journal, 3, 3, pp. 43 - 54.

Chell, E and Pittaway, L (1988), ‘The social constructionism of entrepreneurship’, 21st ISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference, Durham University Business School.

Cope, J (2001), ‘The entrepreneurial experience: towards a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship’, PhD Thesis, Lancaster University. Lancaster.

Eisenhardt, K M, and Bird-Schoonhoven, C (1990), 'Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978 - 1988', Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 504-529.

Gartner, W B (1985), ‘A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation’, Academy of Management Review, 10, 4, pp 696-706.

Gasse, Y (1982), ‘Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur’ in: Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, C A Kent, D L Sexton and K H Vesper (eds), Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gray, C, (1998), Enterprise and Culture, London: Routledge.

Levie, J (1999), Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in England: a survey. Survey commissioned by the Department for Employment and Education.

OECD (1998), Fostering Entrepreneurship, Paris: OECD.

Pittaway, L A (2000), ‘The social construction of entrepreneurial behaviour’, PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Timmons, J A, Smollen, L E and Dingee, A L M (1985), New Venture Creation, Homewood, Illinois: Irw

Seminar I, October 5-9, 2009

Welcome to the Seminar Section of Entrepreneurship and Small Business MKT 2290

Seminar I
Seminar Tutor: NG


A. Important Reminders

By now, you should have gone over your class handbook and be completely clear about what is expected of you to pass this module successfully.

By now, you should have bought the required text for the module. You are also highly encouraged to consider buying the recommended texts.

By now, you should have attended a Learning Resources training seminar at the Library. You have to attend both the lectures and the seminars to be able to pass the module.

If you miss more than 20% of either the lectures or the seminars, you will fail the module.

Missing 20% of the lectures or seminars equates to missing 1 day of every five days of the working week in professional life, which in return is likely to mean that you would be fired.

If you come to the seminars any later than 10 minutes without a valid excuse, you will not be allowed into the seminar and you will be marked as absent.

You are required to come to the seminars having done the work required of you. Otherwise you will be asked to leave the class for that day.

You are not to use mobile PDA devices, phones, laptops dusing the seminars. If you do, you will be asked to leave the class for that day.

Please turn off all mobile devices.

You are required to respect each other's time and presence in class. So absolutely no talking among students!

If you have a question, you will have to ask the seminar tutor. If your discussion is not class related, you will be asked to either follow the class rules or leave the seminar for that day.


B. Seminar Activities and Preparation

Effective learning in seminars depends on preparation by students and their active participation. The one-hour session is structured to allow for interaction and group discussion of information. In order for the seminar to function effectively, you must play an integral and active role in the achievement of the learning outcomes of the sessions.

Hence, you are strongly advised and expected to be fully prepared for each session by having read the relevant chapters in the core texts, analysed the relevant case study (if distributed prior) and answered the allocated questions or other tasks.

During the seminars, each group will be expected to present its answers to the other groups followed by a discussion and assessment by all groups. You are actively encouraged to contribute your thoughts and ideas classroom discussion and to give formative and constructive feedback to your colleagues. At the same time, these discussions will help you to correct your misunderstandings and improve your skills and performance.