• Differentiate between small business managers, inventors and entrepreneurs − and their role in society.
• Describe the evolution in innovation theories and processes.
• Distinguish theory building from the description of a phenomenon.
• Map the social, technological and economic shifts that are enabling new models of entrepreneurial innovation to emerge.
• Compare and contrast the opportunities and risks of different entrepreneurial innovation models.
• Evaluate the potential impact of a new entrepreneurial innovation model on a traditional business or social enterprise in their local community.

Students will explore the theoretical underpinnings of entrepreneurial market disruption and innovation from historical and contemporary perspectives. In-class discussions and interactive innovation activities will provide students with the hands-on opportunity to apply the emergent entrepreneurial innovation model frameworks to new industry scenarios. Students will also consider their own communities and the potential local relevance of these new models of entrepreneurial innovation.

Entrepreneurship and innovation topics have become fashionable with policymakers, the business community, educators and the media. The mythology surrounding the young, college-dropout high-tech entrepreneur who goes on to create rapid success and wealth is pervasive. Further, most venture capitalists and startup clusters are focused on finding, funding and rapidly scaling these small, youthful high-tech companies (often called “gazelles”). The problem is that real profiles of successful entrepreneurial innovators and their organizations rarely fit this mythical model. And with respect to innovation theory, there can frequently be a lack of clarity in practice, confounding it with product improvement, line extensions, technical invention and so forth.

This gazelle model also represents a particular social value perspective which presumes that, to be a world-class thought-leader and a successful international business today, a company must experience rapid growth and have a sizable employee base when it achieves market leadership. Emergent models of entrepreneurial innovation that provide a useful counterpoint to this prevailing mode of thought will be explored in this course.

We will also consider the evolution of modern computing technologies from the older geographically and functionally centralized hubs to the new distributed capabilities of current forms of information and communications technology (ICT). The decentralization and democratization of ICT technology access and operations enables entrepreneurs to move from the traditional geographically-bound computing clusters (and related industrial agglomerations) to be able to work wherever they can access a cellular phone and/or internet connection. They are moving from an era of constraint to one of technologically-enabled choice in their business model and livelihood. This technological democratization has manifested in enabling tools such as the social web, open source software, do-it-yourself e-commerce, free video conferencing, and affordable cloud computing – allowing high-tech enabled entrepreneurs to work in dispersed geographic regions.

Further, a cross-generational global shift in personal values and priorities is taking place, and it is intersecting with businesses' traditional drive for growth and profits. This "post-materialist" value shift is global, with values such as personal autonomy, workplace creativity and sustainability being prioritized more highly than the accumulation of material goods.

At the same time, a movement toward a participatory global economy has also opened new models of exchange for organizations and individuals. As consumers and firms have moved from traditional geographic agglomerations of commerce and communication to global social media communities and platforms, new business models have emerged which allow entrepreneurs to launch an innovation globally, without the constraints of computing infrastructure and communications methods of the past. Within these technological and social value shifts lies opportunity and promise.

The Preliminary Assignment will involve viewing a series of videos and preparing a brief reflective essay on at least two of the video themes, uploaded to CBS Learn for discussion in Class 1. The Mandatory Mid-term Assignment will require the completion of a team project (Entrepreneurial Innovation Emergent Model Canvas) and the presentation of their findings in Class 6.

Preliminary Assignment: To help students get maximum value from ISUP courses, instructors provide a reading or a small number of readings or video clips to be read or viewed before the start of classes with a related task scheduled for class 1 in order to 'jump-start' the learning process.

The timetable is available on http://www.cbs.dk/uddannelse/summer-university-programme/courses.

Amoros, J.E., et al. (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2013 Global Report. Retrieved at: http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/3106/gem-2013-global-report (49 pages).

Anderson, C. (January 25, 2010). In the Next Industrial Revolution, Atoms Are the New Bits. Wired.  Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution/all/1 (15 pages).

Berg, E., Mörtberg, C., & Jansson, M. (2005). Emphasizing technology: socio ‐ technical implications. Information Technology & People, Vol. 18 Iss: 4, pp.343 – 358 (16 pages).

Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C., & Barsoux, J. L. (2011), The 5 myths of innovation. Sloan Management Review, 52 (2), 42–50. (9 pages).

Belk, R. (2013). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research. 67(8), pp.1595-1600. (6 pages)

Blank, S. (2013). Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything. Harvard Business Review 91(5): 63-72. (9 pages).

Blank, S. (2009, April 20). The Secret History of Silicon Valley Part V: Happy 100th Birthday Silicon Valley. Retrieved from http://steveblank.com/2009/04/20/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-part-v-happy-100th-birthday-silicon-valley/ (3 pages).

Chesbrough, H., Melissa. A. (2007). Open Innovation and Strategy. California Management Review 50 (1):57-76. (20 pages).

Copus, A. K.(2001) From Core-periphery to Polycentric Development: Concepts of Spatial and Aspatial Peripherality. European Planning Studies, 9(4), 539- 552. (14 pages).

Danneels, E. (2012). Second-order competences and Schumpeterian rents. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6: 42–58. doi: 10.1002/sej.1127 (17 pages).

Delhey, J. (2009). From Materialist to Postmaterialist Happiness? National Affluence and Determinants of Life Satisfaction in Cross-National Perspective. World Values Research 2(2):30-54. 5 (25 pages).

Estay, C., Durrieu, F., & Akhter, M. (2013). Entrepreneurship: From motivation to start-up. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 243-267. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10843-013-0109-x (25 pages).

Friedman, T.L. (2013, July 20). The New York Times. Welcome to the Sharing Economy. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-welcome-to-the-sharing-economy.html?pagewanted=all (2 pages).

Krugman, P. (2009). The Increasing Returns Revolution in Trade and Geography. American Economic Review, 99(3), 561-571. (11 pages).

Kukalis, S. (2010). Agglomeration Economies and Firm Performance: The Case of Industry Clusters. Journal of Management. 36(2), 453-481. (29 pages).

Mahr, D., Lievens, A. (2011). Virtual Lead User Communities: Drivers of Knowledge Creation for Innovation. In Research Policy 41(1), pp. 167-177. (11 pages).

Martin, R. & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concept or Policy Panacea?, Journal of Economic Geography, 3: 5-35. (31 pages).

Markusen, A. (1996, July). Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts. Economic Geography. 72(3), (293-313). (21 pages).

McGinn, D. (2005, July 1). The Trouble with Lifestyle Entrepreneurs. Inc. Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/business-culture.html (4 pages).

Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78-96. (19 pages).

Palmquist, M. (2010, May 25) Does Location Really Matter? Strategy+Business Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.strategy-business.com/article/10217c (1 page)

Porter, M.E. (2000) Location, Competition, and Economic Development, Local Clusters in the Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1): 14-21. (8 pages).

Potter, A., Watts, H.D. (2010). Evolutionary agglomeration theory: increasing returns, diminishing returns, and the industry life cycle. Journal of Economic Geography. (May 2011: 417-455) doi:10.1093/jeg/lbq004 (39).

Ricketts, M. (2006). Theories of entrepreneurship: Historical development and critical assessment. The Oxford handbook of entrepreneurship, 33-58. (26 pages).

Rogers, E.M., Medina, U.E., Rivera, M.A., & Wiley, C.J. (2005). Complex adaptive systems and the diffusion of innovations. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. 10(3), article 30. (26 pages).

Schoales, J. (2004). Alpha Clusters. Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Working Paper for ISRN Meeting, Vancouver, May 13 & 14, 2004. (47 pages).

Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P. and Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a Path to Innovativeness for Resource Constrained New Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 31 (2): 211-30. (20 pages).

Seymour, R. G. (2006). Hermeneutic phenomenology and international entrepreneurship research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(4), 137-155. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10843-007-0011-5 (19 pages).

Simmie, J. (2004, May). Innovation and Clustering in the Globalised International Economy. Urban Studies, 41(5/6), (1095-1112). (18 pages).

Sloam, J. (2013). The ‘Outraged Young’: How Young Europeans are Reshaping the Political Landscape. Political Insight, 4(1), 4-7. 10.1111/2041-9066.12003 (4 pages).

Smith, R., Anderson, A.R., (2003). Conforming non-conformists: semiotic manifestations of an entrepreneurial identity. Summary in: W.D. Bygrave Ed. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference. 4-8 June 2003. Boston: Babson College. Retrieved from OpenAir@RGU: https://openair.rgu.ac.uk/bitstream/10059/715/1/Smith%20non-conformists.pdf (16 pages).

Steyaert, C. (2007). 'Entrepreneuring' as a Conceptual Attractor? A Review of Process Theories in 20 Years of Entrepreneurship Studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 453-477. (25 pages).

Swedberg, R. (2007). Rebuilding Schumpeter’s Theory of Entrepreneurship. Conference on Marshall, Schumpeter and Social Science, Hitotsubashi University. Retrieved from http://www.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/service/tenji/amjas/Swedberg.pdf (28 pages)

Verganti, R. (2008). Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Meta-Model and a Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (5): 436–56 (21 pages).

Von Hippel, Eric (2005), Democratizing Innovation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Available through a Creative Commons License. http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm (204 pages).

Wadhwa, V. (2010, November 27). A better formula for economic growth. Vivek Wadhwa Blog. Retrieved from http://wadhwa.com/2010/11/27/554/ (2 pages).

Woodward, D., Guimarães, P. (2009). Porter’s Cluster Strategy and Industrial Targeting. In Goetz, S., Steven D., and Thomas H. (eds.). Targeting Regional Economic Development. (2009). London: Routledge: 68-83. (16 pages).

Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., and Byers, J.W. (2014). The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry. (Boston University School of Management Research Paper Series, Number 2013-16). Retrieved at http://people.bu.edu/zg/publications/airbnb.pdf  (35 pages).