Minor Entrepreneurship

Identifying and managing business opportunities

• Bruno Cirillo (Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, SKEMA Business School)

Required readings:

Session 1

Read after class:

• Busenitz, L. W., J. B. Barney, (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.
• Laureiro-Martinez, D. (2014). Cognitive control capabilities, routinization propensity, and decision-making performance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1111-1133.
• 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.
• Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469.

Session 2

Required reading in advance:

• Case study: Chereau, P., & Cirillo, B. (2015). ARECO: A full steam ahead. The Case Center: case #815-040-1. (a printout is available from the instructor)
• Preparation Questions:

1. What opportunity did the entrepreneur create/discover? Can you quantify it? How did he identify the opportunity?
2. What challenges did he face to start ARECO? What critical decisions did he have to take?
3. Explore additional information on ARECO and IMRA at https://www.airrefreshingcontrol.com/ and http://www.imra-europe.com/#/home

Other readings (read after class):

• Cirillo, B., Breschi, S., A. Prencipe (2018). Divide to connect: Corporate spinouts as linking contexts of intra-corporate networks. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.002
• Cirillo, B., Brusoni, S., G. Valentini (2014). The rejuvenation of inventors through corporate spinouts. Organization Science, 25(6), 1764–1784. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0868

Session 3

Required reading in advance:

• Case study: Chesbrough, H.W. (2002). Graceful exits and missed opportunities: Xerox’s management of its technology spin-off organizations. Business History Review, 76(4) 803-837.
• Preparation Questions:

1. What challenges did Xerox face in managing its pioneering technologies?
2. Did Xerox recognize opportunities in such technologies? What were these opportunities?
3. What strategies did Xerox carry out for discovering and exploiting new opportunities? Were these strategies successful?

Other readings (read after class):

• Chesbrough, H. W., A. R. Garman, (2009). How open innovation can help you cope in lean times. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 68-76.
• Cirillo, B. (2019). External learning strategies and technological search output: Spinout strategy and corporate invention quality. Organization Science.
• Shapira, Z., J. M. Shaver, (2014). Confounding changes in averages with marginal effects: How anchoring can destroy economic value in strategic investment assessments. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10), 1414-1426.
• Sull, D. N. (2005). Why good companies go bad and how great managers remake them. Harvard Business Press.

Session 4

Required reading in advance:

• Luehrman, T. A. (1995). Capital projects as real options: An introduction. Harvard Business School, 9, 1-12.

Other readings (read after class):

• Nagji, B., G. Tuff, (2012). Managing Your Innovation Portfolio. Harvard Business Review, May: 67-74.
• Tong, T. W., Y. Li, (2011). Real options and investment mode: Evidence from corporate venture capital and acquisition. Organization Science, 22(3), 659-674.

The final grade is the weighted sum of (1) continuous assessment and (2) the team project.

1. CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT (60% of the final grade)

A willingness to participate actively is one of the central ingredients for succeeding in this course. During the course, I will continuously assess your individual preparation and involvement based on:

• in-class quizzes on required readings (25%)
• your analysis/discussion of case studies (25%)
• your participation in class discussion (10%)

2. TEAM PROJECT (40% of the final grade)

Each team will work on a report analyzing a new product-market opportunity for a selected company. The name of the company selected for the project will be communicated by the instructor during the first session. A few essential points:

• Team composition. Each student is assigned to a team by the instructor. Teams composition will be communicated during the first session and cannot be changed.
• Teamwork and submission. Each team will work on a written proposal (Word doc) that identifies and analyzes a new product-market opportunity for the selected firm. A complete guideline on the team project (e.g., expected format and contents, words limit, etc.) will be provided in class. The final version of the proposal will be submitted by email (bruno.cirillo@skema.edu) no later than March 12. This deadline is strictly enforced.
• Project evaluation. I will evaluate your written proposals based on the following criteria:
  • originality/creativity (10%)
  • relevance of the analysis (10%)
  • relevance/feasibility of the business opportunity (10%)
  • clarity of the writing and logical flow (10%)
• Project presentation. Before the final submission of the team project, each team will present it in class during the last session of the course on March 5. During this session, projects will be discussed with the class.

3. BONUS (MALUS)

A willingness to prepare classes in advance and participate actively is one of the central ingredients for succeeding in this course. The instructor reserves the right to allocate a bonus-malus (i.e., by either increasing or decreasing your individual grade) based on your participation during the course.