Egg-drop exercise revisited: an in-class entrepreneurship exercise.

Egg-drop exercise revisited: an in-class entrepreneurship exercise. INTRODUCTION The number of entrepreneurship programs andentrepreneurship-related course offerings in universities and collegeshas increased exponentially over the last 20 years (Heriot &Simpson, 2007; Plumy, et al., 2008). The first entrepreneurship coursewas offered in the 1940s with 188 students enrolling in the course(Katz, 2003). In 1970, a national survey of business schools reportedthat just 17 courses in entrepreneurship were offered (Henricks &Newton, 2003). Today, though, over 1,600 universities and colleges inthe United States, alone, offer over 2,000 courses dedicated to theeducation of entrepreneurship (Katz, 2003). Despite the increasing interest in studying and teachingentrepreneurship, as a scholarly field entrepreneurship is stillrelatively new (Fiet, 2001a; Heriot and Simpson, 2007). In addition,entrepreneurship as a discipline has often been contested as a domainwhich cannot be taught (Fiet, 2001a; Henricks & Newton, 2003). Whilethis idea has been touted, the newly adopted and dominate view is thatentrepreneurship can be taught and that those receiving formal trainingare better equipped and more successful than those lacking such formaltraining (Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon & Woo, 1994; Fiet, 2001a; 2001b).Regardless, those tasked with teaching prospective entrepreneurs canattest to the fact that entrepreneurship students are a differentaudience than students of other domains. Entrepreneurs are thought topossess different characteristics relative to others, like managers, forexample (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Thus, entrepreneurship studentspresent unique challenges to those charged with educating them (Fiet,2001a; 2001b). Students of entrepreneurship are often interested in more hands-onexperiences that allow them a tactile experience relative to theconcepts being taught. And whether it is the nature of the material orthe students being taught, evidence of this emerges by the countlessentrepreneurship programs offering hands-on experiences like launchingcompanies, business plan competitions, managing angel investment funds,and so forth. While these activities, no doubt, provide enriching andunique experiences for students, a thorough understanding of theconcepts involved to execute these activities must also be achieved.Thus, some number of more traditional pedagogical approaches such aslectures, in-class exercises, exams, and so forth are generally alsointegrated into entrepreneurship programs and course offerings in orderto establish an appropriate theoretical foundation (Fiet, 2001a). But,how can the entrepreneurship instructor manage the challenge of engagingthis unique student population while also relaying important conceptsnecessary for an appropriate theoretical understanding ofentrepreneurship? This is a question with which I have wrestled foryears as I have interacted with and taught undergraduate and graduateentrepreneurship students ranging from students from a large stateuniversity with a newly started entrepreneurship program to studentsfrom a small private university with a top-ranked entrepreneurshipprogram. Although I do not propose to have the end-all-be-all answer tothis question, I have developed an in-class exercise that has been wellreceived by undergraduate and MBA entrepreneurship students and that iscapable relaying numerous entrepreneurship course topics in a novel,tactile and engaging manner. The purpose of this article is to detail this exercise, which is amodified version of the in-class egg-drop exercise that has been usedwithin the business domain in business policy and strategy courses toteach the concept of strategic choice. Other courses have also usedversions of the exercise to teach teamwork and engineering design(Warner, 2005). In the pages that follow, I will explain how theexercise is run within one course period, to what entrepreneurshipconcepts the exercise applies, and I will share some personalexperiences and tips that I have developed over the years as I haverefined this exercise. In addition to providing anecdotal evidence ofthe exercise's effectiveness through running the exercise inmultiple levels of entrepreneurship courses, I also present data thatwere collected from an undergraduate entrepreneurship course and anMBAlevel entrepreneurship course. Students from both courses completedthe exercise and were subsequently asked to report their perceptions ofthe exercise in terms of relaying various learning objectives as well astheir overall impressions of the exercise. RUNNING THE EXERCISE The exercise can be completed within class period time frames ofvarying lengths. I have effectively run the exercise in as few as45-minutes and as many as 75-minutes. Thus, the time frames studentshave for completing various tasks can be modified slightly to help theexercise conform to various class period time frames. Appendix Aprovides time-related guidelines for courses that are 45-minutes inlength and 75-minutes in length, as these are generally the standardtime allotments for undergraduate courses. The exercise is best applied within a survey-style entrepreneurshipcourse that covers a broad array of entrepreneurial topics. In addition,as noted above, the exercise can be employed with an undergraduate or agraduate-level student audience. However, because the topics highlightedin the exercise are varied (and it should be noted that the instructorcan emphasize or deemphasize any particular concept(s) per their courseobjectives), it is advisable that the exercise be run at the middlepoint of the semester or later. Students who have attended the coursefor some time will have been exposed to various entrepreneurial topics.As such, they will be better equipped to value and learn from theexercise. Before beginning the exercise, students must be broken up intoteams. Although the size and composition of the teams may vary, I havefound that the project works particularly well with even numbered teamsand teams of six or fewer students. In addition, if the course requiresstudents to be in a team for other course-related projects, it isadvisable that the students work in their preformed teams. In the surveycourses that I teach, students have already formed teams within whichthey work throughout the semester. Within my courses, the timing of whenthe egg-drop exercise occurs is such that the "big" teamproject tasks are just beginning. I have found that, because of this,the egg-drop exercise is a particularly nice ice breaker and way to getall team members working together. In addition, unexpected strengthens(and sometimes weaknesses) of various team members are also oftenhighlighted during this exercise. This tends to create a balance betweenthe team members as they move forward in the course and students oftendevelop an appreciation for or sensitivity towards various team membercompetencies and weaknesses. This tendency often creates interactionswhich can be used as examples to illustrate the importance ofcharacteristics for effective new venture teams that can be discussedduring the debriefing period. This will be discussed in more detaillater. Once student teams have been formed, a copy of the exerciseinstructions are then distributed to each student in the course faceddown. After the instructions have been distributed to all students, onedelegate from each team should come to the front of the room to collect1) a bag containing the materials used in the exercise (see Appendix B)and 2) one large raw egg. Once the teams have received their materialsand egg, students may turn the instructions over and they should readalong as the instructor reads the instructions aloud. As explained in the instructions, there are several key points towhich the students will need to pay special attention in order tosuccessfully complete the exercise. While reading the instructionsaloud, I try to verbally emphasize those points although often studentteams fail to focus on the key points, which ultimately leads to a greatlearning experience and points that can be discussed during debriefing. Specifically, the first and most important point students mustfocus on is that successful completion of the exercise requires thatthey meet the target market's value propositions. In mostentrepreneurship survey courses it is emphasized that theproduct/service offering being sold by the venture must appeal to thetarget market. Assessing the congruence between the firm's offeringand the customer's needs is often the first step in theestablishing the feasibility of the product/service (cf., Barringer& Ireland, 2008). Countless examples of firms that missed the markrelative to achieving this congruence are regularly highlighted inentrepreneurship texts and courses. In addition videos, like The DeepDive (ABC News, 1999) that highlights the new product development firmIDEO, illustrate the processes through which firms validate theproducts/services with their target market prior to solidifying them formass market production. Further emphasizing the need for entrepreneursto meet the target market's value considerations, research suggestshigh failure rates for new product innovations when they are notproperly evaluated by appropriate target market participants (Klink& Athaide, 2006). As explained in the instructions, several excerptshighlight the importance of this point as follows: ... the egg does not break.... the vehicle actually works.... your team's recent assessment of the market's product perceptions (e.g., what they value), ... the design is aesthetically pleasing. ... this task requires technological capability, coordination, and creativity for successful completion.... being able to effectively address the target market's value propositions is extremely important. At this point in the construction of your venture's opportunity, you know that the market values 1) a safe landing and 2) creativity. Addressing these market-level value propositions could help your venture gain sustainable market-potential for the foreseeable future and a more desirable network of resource providers. In addition, to further emphasize the importance of meeting thetarget market's value propositions and to illustrate the point thatwhat customers value changes over time, at about the half way mark inthe exercise, the instructor interjects and informs the students of thefollowing: "Because your new venture team is very entrepreneurially savvybecause of taking <insert course name here>, they realize thatthey must regularly monitor their target market's preferences. Yourteam's most recent assessment has alerted you to the fact that inaddition to valuing a safe landing and vehicle creativity, the marketnow also values the accuracy of the vehicle's landing.Consequently, at launch, the market will also assess how close to thecenter of a target the vehicle lands." For courses 75-minutes in length, the following should also beadded to the above passage: "Because firms competing within the industry must now modifytheir firm's offerings that are under development to accommodatethis, new, additional value proposition, new venture launch times in theindustry have been delayed. Consequently, new venture teams now have anadditional 15-minutes to develop their vehicles. The new launch will be<insert time here>." The approach that I have taken to focus the student'sattention to accuracy of landing is to print out an 81/2 X 11"landscape oriented picture of my face (quite a desirable target to someof them, I'm sure!) that will be placed at the center of thelanding area. While this target works well for me, instructors who arenot comfortable with this can print out or draw a simple target symbolat which students can aim. Also, when this third value proposition isprovided to the students, as the course time allotment allows, it isrecommended that the instructor extend the time frame that students haveto work on their vehicles. A 75-minute course can extend the time frameby about 15-minutes. A 45-minute course generally does not haveadditional time to allot. I have run the exercise without allottingextra time after the announcement of the third value consideration andthe exercise has still worked well. To reiterate, with regard to target market value propositions,there are three considerations that the teams must address: 1) safelanding, 2) vehicle creativity and 3) accuracy of landing on apredetermined target. It should be noted that relative weights of thesevalue considerations are not provided to the teams. Regardless, teamsnearly always assume that a safe landing is the most important, andtherefore most heavily weighted, consideration. This occurs often to theextreme detriment of the other two value propositions. Although there isregular neglect of two value considerations, one team in the classusually manages to effectively address at least two considerations(safety and accuracy of landing, most often) and frequently that teamwill attempt a tangential effort to add some creative component to theirvehicle (e.g., drawing, pasting interesting newspaper pictures, namingthe vehicle, developing a story that the team tells before launch,etc.). As such, this lack of attention to equally weighted valueconsiderations provides an interesting discussion point about theimportance of meeting the target market's needs during debriefing. The second, particularly, important point emphasized in theinstructions is that "it is safe to assume that each competitor hasbasically the same resources from which to develop their vehicle."While it is true that all teams will have the same quantity of resourceslisted in the instructions, some resources vary slightly. Specifically,to constrain teams in terms of their abilities to be creative relativeto the resources they possess, when assembling the bags certainmaterials vary slightly across teams. Specifically, each materials bagcontains two markers. The two markers within each bag should be the samecolor, although the colors of the markers across teams will vary. Forexample, one team will have a materials bag with two blue markers andanother team will have a materials bag with two red markers and soforth. No two teams in the class will have the same color markers. Thesame material constrains can apply to the string that is provided tostudents. Generally, I use two different colors of string and correspondto the school's colors (crochet thread/floss works very well forthis). Then, each bag only contains one of the two colors. The purpose of restricting their resources in this way ismultifold. The importance of resource accumulation and uniquelycombining and using resources is important in entrepreneurship. Theresource-based view and constructionist views of entrepreneurialresource environments suggest that it is the idiosyncratic resourceenvironments that entrepreneurs construct that can lead to differentcapabilities and different competitive advantages (Baker & Nelson;2005; Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959). Thus, to reinforce the importancedeveloping and/or acquiring resources that are valuable, rare,nonsubstitutable and inimitable for new ventures (Barney, 1991;Barringer & Ireland, 2008), constraining teams relative to theresources provided to them highlights the difficulties of uniquelymeeting target market value propositions and obtaining a competitiveadvantage with commodity-type resources. In addition, competitors are often sources of growth,sustainability and are also often important resource providers (Lechner& Dowling, 2003; Lechner, Dowling & Welpe, 2006). Particularlyin early stages of venture development and for ventures developing inemerging industries, interfirm cooperation has been found to beimportant to successful venturing and for the development of innovations(Shan, Walker & Kogut, 1994). Moreover, direct relationships withcompetitors have been associated with start-ups more successfullyrealizing projects that might otherwise be unattainable for thestart-ups by themselves (Lechner, et al., 2006). Thus, developing andmaintaining network relationships with those outside of theorganization, including competitors, can be important for new ventures.In sum, slightly varying the resources across teams is an effective wayto illustrate to students the importance of resources, competitors andnetworking for entrepreneurial success. After reading the instructions to students aloud, the teams willthen be tasked with working on their vehicle construction for theremaining time until launch. To get a sense of various team interactionsand team member competencies, while teams are working on the task, theinstructor should walk around the classroom spending approximately equaltime observing each team as they work. Research suggests that newventures formed by teams are at an advantage relative to solo-foundedventures (Lechler, 2001). This is because new ventures benefit from theeffective integration of heterogeneous skills and abilities of multipleindividuals, which can increase the likelihood of new venture success(Gartner, 1985). In addition, research suggests that certaincharacteristics of new venture teams are particularly helpful forstart-ups. For reasons mentioned above, heterogeneous teams arepreferred to homogeneous teams as they increase the likelihood thatmultiple viewpoints will be considered, ultimately leading to betterdecision making (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990). Further, teams whohave a level of familiarity with one another because of prior workingexperiences together perform better than teams who have not beforeworked together (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990). Finally, researchsuggests that the size of the new venture team matters (Barringer &Ireland, 2008). Too large of a new venture team can often createdifficulties in managing the various viewpoints and executing tasks inan efficient manner (Clarysse & Moray, 2004). The importance ofthese three new venture team characteristics often emerges as thestudent teams work on their vehicles. The instructor's observationsrelated to the relative heterogeneity of competencies/experiences acrossteam members, teamwork within teams who have worked together, and teamsize should be noted for discussion during debriefing. While the teams are working on their vehicles and as the instructorvisits each team for observation, the instructor will likely receivenumerous questions. The most common questions relate to the rules andthe materials that students are provided. Two important points must benoted relative to these types of questions. The instructions specifythat that there are industry standards to which all teams must comply.These are essentially industry regulations that characterize theemerging industry within which the teams are "launching" theirventure. One of the industry standards is that teams are not to ask themarket (e.g., instructor) any questions. Specifically, the instructionsstate "You cannot ask "the market" any questions abouttheir product preferences or about any other issues related to thistask. The rules are clearly specified here and must be followed."In addition, a list of the materials provided to teams is included inthe instructions and teams "are not allowed to use the bag in whichthe materials came". These constraints are integrated into theexercise to allow teams some flexibility to network and/or collaboratewith competitors for resources and ideas. In addition, the rules do notstate that teams cannot use other materials that they possess or thatare present around the classroom or building. Particularly savvy teamswill realize this and use that flexibility to bootstrap for additionalresources (e.g., materials) that might be helpful with completing theexercise. Most teams, however, will neglect this point and often findthemselves at a resource disadvantage. These differences can be used tofurther reinforce of the importance that idiosyncratic resourceenvironments play in developing a competitive advantage (Baker &Nelson; 2005; Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959). In addition, bootstrappingis a regularly used method by entrepreneurs for lessening the dependencea new venture has on outsiders for debt or equity financing (Ebben &Johnson, 2006). Different methods of bootstrapping have been discussedas effective in helping a new venture accumulate financing and otherresources. For example, Winborg and Landstrom (2001) identified ownerresources and sharing or borrowing resources via relationships withother firms, as two effective bootstrapping methods. The extent to whichteams seek assistance from other teams, use other materials that theyindividually possess, or scour the building or classroom for othersupplies can provide nice instances to illustrate learning pointsrelated to importance of resource accumulation and bootstrapping. When the time limit for construction has been reached, it isimportant that all teams cease working on their vehicles. Then entireclass must then be escorted to a second-story, minimum, open area wherethey can safely drop their vehicles. Although I have never encounteredany difficulties in receiving approval for this exercise to be completedin the building's common areas, it is recommended that prior toconducting the exercise the instructor receive permission from theappropriate administrative heads in the building where the launch willtake place. I have found that the best areas are an open stairwell orbalcony in a common location. This always attracts onlookers which makesfor an especially fun and interactive experience. However, other areasthat have also worked are outdoor balcony areas. The key is really justto locate a safe area where the vehicles can be safely dropped withoutharming anyone or damaging any physical property. The methods I use for determining the order of launch is simplyrandomly selecting the team names/numbers or having teams draw launchorders (e.g., 1st, 2nd, etc.). Then, each team goes in the orderselected and drops their vehicles (e.g., "launches their newventure") over the landing area. As the vehicles land, use a markerto write the team name/number on the impact location so as to bestassess the accuracy of landing. Once a team has launched their vehicle,they must remove it from the landing area so the next team has a cleararea above which to launch. As each vehicle launches, the market (e.g.,the instructor) should comment on various aspects of the launch dealingwith the target market value propositions. It is generally easiest tobegin by assessing the creativity of the vehicle by examining thevehicle's design and evaluating the quality of the in-air flight(e.g., was the flight path direct and concise, did the vehicle fly allover the place, did the vehicle fly near audience members, etc.). Thesafety and accuracy of landing are generally self explanatory criteriato the students-did the egg break or crack and how closely did it landto the center of the target? After all vehicles have been launched, aclear winner generally emerges and I announce that to the class. While it is not entirely necessary to provide a prize to thewinning team, I generally provide a modest token to the winningteam's members. The prizes awarded to the winning team can varyfrom extra credit points to candy and so forth, but I never tell themwhat they are competing for (except for a larger share in the market asstated in the instructions) until after the launch is complete. Uponannouncing the winner, the class should clean up the landing area andany remaining materials at the launch site and reconvene in theclassroom for debriefing. DEBRIEFING THE STUDENTS As discussed above, after launch and cleanup, the class shouldreconvene to the classroom for debriefing. Above I have outlined many ofthe discussion points that correspond to entrepreneurial topics that areillustrated by the exercise. In this section I provide several questionsthat can be used to prompt and lead the discussions dealing with theeight main topics highlighted in the exercise. Further, as applicable,additional information that provides insight into the administration ofthe exercise and to the debriefing is described. 1. Target Market Value Propositions Much of the discussion above has focused on instilling theimportance of meeting the target market's value propositions. Iwill not reiterate that discussion here. Instead, the following is alist of questions that can help to facilitate a discussion about thesepoints What were the target market's value propositions that theteams were trying to meet with their vehicle designs? What was the mostimportant target market value consideration? Based on our marketresearch did we learn how the market places value on each valueproposition? Did teams place a particular emphasis on one or more of thevalue propositions? Why? Why not? In the middle of the exercise, theteams learned of a new value proposition. Did any teams change theirproduct design after learning this new market information? Why? Why not?When entrepreneurs develop firm offerings (e.g., their products and/orservices), do they ever need to change the nature of the offerings? 2. New Venture Teams Before providing discussion questions, a few comments on frequentteamwork experiences are worthwhile. Generally, there will be one or twoteam members who have more experience with construction-types of taskslike this one. These students are usually very instrumental in thedevelopment of the physical vehicle. However, they often lack a sense ofvehicle creativity. Other team members are often morecreativity-oriented and their competencies become more instrumental forexecuting the creativity portions of the task. When team members workwell together, both the construction and creativity competencies emergein the vehicle designs, regardless of whether any team members haveworked on a construction task similar to this one before or not. Often,though, one task competency (along with the team member(s) with thatcompetency) will emerge as dominant over the others. This regularlyoccurs to the detriment of the other competencies. When this happens,during debriefing it is effective to ask these teams to discuss whathappened during the construction of their vehicle. If team members arehesitant to elaborate, providing them examples of what was observed andlinking it to the importance of constructing a heterogeneous new ventureteam that works well together is an effective way to focus a discussionon the characteristics of effective new venture teams. Questions that help generate discussion relative to these pointsinclude: How did the teams work through designing and constructing thevehicles? What roles did different team members play in the design andconstruction of the vehicle? Did anyone take on a leadership role in theteam and why? What skills did the team's members bring to thetable? Were all of those skills used? If yes, discuss. If no, why not?Was it important to have a heterogeneous or a homogeneous team whencompleting this exercise? If you were going to do the exercise overagain, what would the team do differently? What could have made the teammore effective overall? If you were forming your "dream team"to complete this exercise, what would it look like (e.g., how manypeople, what types of skills, competencies, etc.)? How can we relate theteam component of this exercise to the development and management of anew venture? What do entrepreneurs need to consider when they aredeveloping a new venture team? What are the parallels between whatentrepreneurs need to consider when developing a new venture team andwhat we did in completing this exercise? 3. Creativity Entrepreneurship is an inherently creative act (Shane, 2003).Consequently, most entrepreneurship courses integrate some discussion ofthe concept of creativity. Often, this discussion corresponds to theportion of the course dedicated to opportunity recognition (Barringer& Ireland, 2008; Katz & Green, 2009). Students are faced withthe concept of creativity during multiple aspects of the exercise.First, one of the target market's value propositions is that thevehicle must be creative. Student teams represent a new venture teamthat is going through the process of organizing their venture (and itsoffering) for launch. As a part of this, they must think creatively asthey work on tasks that are mostly new to them. Not only must thiscreativity emerge in the final vehicle design, but teams must becreative with the use of the raw materials that they are provided.Finally, the context of the exercise--a new venture team that islaunching a business within an emerging industry--puts emphasis on theimportance of creativity within certain industries. As an emergingindustry, the industry is characterized by need for creativity andinnovativeness. Thus, an inherent quality of the new ventures competingwithin the industry is that they must be capable of working within acreative environment. The following questions are helpful in facilitating a discussion oncreativity and entrepreneurship. As previously discussed, one of thetarget market's value propositions was that the vehicle must becreative. What did the team do (or not do) to address this valueproposition? Was the team tasked with being especially creative duringthe exercise? Explain. What role do you think creativity plays forentrepreneurs, in general? What role do you think creativity plays forentrepreneurs launching firms within emerging industries? For whatactivities do entrepreneurs need to be especially creative? Iscreativity always helpful for entrepreneurs? Explain. 4. Resource Accumulation and Management One of the most important issues entrepreneurs must be concernedwith through multiple stages of venture development is the accumulationand management of resources (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Barney, 1991;Penrose, 1959). Most entrepreneurship courses will spend considerabletime discussing the importance of resources--both novel ways ofaccumulating them (e.g., bootstrapping, which will be discussed next)and the character of resources in terms of generating a competitiveadvantage (e.g., valuable, rare, inimitable, nonsubstitutable). Thesetopics regularly come during discussions of product/service feasibilitystudies as well as in lessons dedicated to business model development.As described in detail above, the resource accumulation and managementchallenge is also highlighted in this exercise. The following questions are helpful in generating a discussion ofissues associated with resource accumulation and resource heterogeneity.What resources did the teams possess? Was there anything notable aboutthe resources that each team had? Given what you know aboutentrepreneurs developing a competitive advantage, did the resources thatyour team had allow your team to develop a competitive advantage? Why orwhy not? Did any teams do anything to help them to accumulate resourcesthat were different from their competitors? Were those resourcesvaluable, rare, inimitable and nonsubstitutable? Explain. Why are thosecharacteristics (valuable, rare, inimitable and nonsubstitutable) ofresources important? What about managing the resources that your teampossessed--did any teams have any difficulties managing their resources?Explain. Did they run out of any resources or have excess resources?What did teams do in handling resources scarcity and/or excessresources? Given what you have experienced in the exercise, what rolesdo think resources play for entrepreneurs? 5. Bootstrapping The concept of bootstrapping is regularly discussed inentrepreneurship courses as a way of encouraging entrepreneurs to becreative as they seek resource accumulation. The concept applies to theaccumulation of both monetary and physical resources (Ebben &Johnson, 2006; Winborg & Landstrom, 2001). Because student teams arerestricted in the materials provided to them, teams that regularly excelin the exercise will use a form of bootstrapping to accumulateadditional resources for their teams. Of course, every entrepreneurneeds a thorough understanding of the industry regulations and laws withwhich they must comply before engaging in various resource accumulationactivities (e.g., EPA regulations, quality or safety standards by theFDA, technology standards, etc.). Within the exercise students areprovided with the rules of the game (e.g., standards of the industry)with which they must comply. With the exception of the bag that theirmaterials came in, no other resources are precluded from use within theindustry. However, teams must be creative in their resource accumulationso that they can obtain and use resources that will put them at anadvantage relative to competitors. Few teams will realize the potentialfor this bootstrapping. However, those that do often excel compared totheir competitors. To facilitate a discussion of bootstrapping, the followingquestions are helpful. What resources did the teams have to work with asthey developed their venture offerings? Were all of these resources thesame? Did the teams have access to any other resources aside from thosethat were provided in the materials bag? Could the team have accumulatedany other resources and used them? Did the standards of the industrystipulate that any resources could not be used? Aside from the bag thatthe materials came in, did the standards of the industry specify thatany resources could not be used? How can an entrepreneur'sresources help them to obtain a competitive advantage? Oftenentrepreneurs are constrained relative to the resources that theypossess during early stages of venture development. What canentrepreneurs do to put them in a better resource position? Within thecontext of the exercise, what could the team have done in terms of theirresources to help them obtain a competitive advantage over the otherteams? How could the teams participating in this exercise have usedbootstrapping to help them improve their resource positions relative tothe other teams? 6. Competitors Entrepreneurs must contend with a host of issues related to theircompetitors. An error entrepreneurs often make regarding competitors isnot acknowledging that they have any and/or that they can learn fromthem (Barringer & Ireland, 2008). In emphasizing this error, GuyKawasaki, famed venture capitalist and columnist for EntrepreneurMagazine, has noted that if an entrepreneur does not think that theyhave competitors then they do not know how to use Google (Kawasaki,2006). Studying and understanding one's competitors and theirofferings can be very useful in terms of obtaining a second-moveradvantage and for differentiation (Shamsie, Phelps & Kuperman,2004). Through the course of the exercise, some student teams come torealize this, particularly as the vehicles start coming together. Whenthis realization sets in, there will usually be a team or two that willwatch the construction and design of other team's vehicles. Often,this results in modifications to the team's design based on whatthey have learned from gathering this "competitiveintelligence". In addition, as discussed above, competitors are notalways adversaries and can instead be important resource providers,particularly for early-stage ventures and when competing in emergingindustries (Lechner & Dowling, 2003; Lechner, et al., 2006; Shan,Walker & Kogut, 1994). Teams picking up on the nuance of the slightresource differences in materials provided to teams will sometimesbarter with their competitors for use of their varied resources. Whensuccessful, the teams who have exchanged resources typically developmore aesthetically pleasing and creative vehicle designs via additionalvehicle colors and string. The following questions can help to engage students in discussionof these topics after exercise completion. Did any teams conduct anycompetitive intelligence during the vehicle design and constructionperiod? What was observed/learned? What about during the launchperiod--did any teams learn launching strategies from watching theircompetitors? For teams that conducted competitive intelligence, did thatstrengthen your team's competitiveness? Were there any differencesin materials provided across teams? What were the differences? Did anyteams work with any of their competitors during the exercise? Did anyteams exchange or barter for use of another team's markers orstring? What about any other resources? For teams that worked with theircompetitors, did that strengthen your team's competitiveness? 7. Networking Networking is thought to be a key for successful entrepreneurship(Allen, 2006; Barringer & Ireland, 2008; Burt, 1992; Granovetter,1973; Katz & Green, 2007). Although somewhat of a cursory lessonthat can be relayed through the egg-drop exercise, the importance ofnetworking in entrepreneurship can be emphasized. For example, whenstudent teams interact with their competitors to obtain competitiveintelligence or access to resources, they are networking with them. Inaddition, teams that attempt bootstrapping via searching the buildingfor materials regularly engage in social networking with individualsthat are in the common areas. Finally, during the venture launch period,there are often on-lookers with whom the student teams network. All ofthese instances can be used to highlight the role of networking inentrepreneurship. Questions to ask students include: Did you engage in any networkingduring the course of the exercise? Explain. What about networking withcompetitors? Did any teams attempt to accumulate any resources outsideof the classroom? Did you interact with anyone while obtaining thoseresources? During the launch period, did any student teams network withany individuals that were not in the class? What about with any membersin the class who were not on your team? How can you relate the socialnetworking that you did in this exercise to the role that networkingplays for entrepreneurs? Pretend that the launch period was a tradeassociation meeting or industry conference. As a representative of yournew venture, how might the social networking that you did help or hinderyou? 8. Industry Structures In addition to the above-discussed topics, the egg-drop exerciseillustrates the concept of industry structures and lifecycles. Ashighlighted in the instructions, the teams are launching a new venturewithin an emerging industry--one characterized by high levels ofdynamism, uncertainty and that is generally developed due to new orchanging technology (Barringer & Ireland, 2008). Firms that arecompeting in these innovative industries must be aware of and responsiveto changes in technology and to the competitive environment. This isbecause firms competing within these industries, often termedhigh-impact firms, are thought to be the true engines of economicdevelopment and growth (e.g., innovation, job creation, higheremployment wages, and larger regional tax bases) (Acs, Parsons &Tracy, 2008; Audretsch, 2007). Leading a discussion about these ideascan be fruitful in terms of framing the importance of emergingindustries, the importance of innovation, and terms of comparing andcontrasting an emerging industry structure relative to others (e.g.,mature, declining, etc.). Further, when entrepreneurs are developingtheir business models, they must be aware of the characteristics of theindustry within which they will compete. The business model for a firmcompeting within a new, highly innovative, emerging industry will likelybe quite different from the business model of a firm that will becompeting within a mature industry. A series of questions that can help facilitate this discussion isas follows: Within what type of industry (e.g., industry structure) werethe firms launched? What are the characteristics of that industry type?What are the important activities (e.g., value chain) entrepreneurs muststay focused on when their firms are competing within an emergingindustry? Why are emerging industries important? How does this industrystructure vary when compared to other industry structures? What would anentrepreneur do differently if they were launching a business in anemerging industry versus another industry type <insert other industrytype here> (e.g., mature, fragmented, declining, etc.)? What keydifferences would you expect in a business model for a firm competingwithin an emerging industry versus a <insert other industry typehere> (e.g., mature, fragmented, declining, etc.)? OTHER INSTRUCTOR NOTES In addition to the materials used by the student teams, I havefound that the instructor should come prepared with a few supplies oftheir own. First, it is advisable that one additional supply bag isassembled in case any teams are shorted supplies in their materials bagor in case any materials wind up being faulty (e.g., the bottle of glueis dried up, the scissors do not work, etc.). Second, it is advisable tohave one additional raw egg on hand per class. While it has infrequentlyoccurred, occasionally a team will break their egg prior to launch. Inthese cases, the team is disqualified from "competing inindustry" (e.g., I usually tell them that their firm violated EPAguidelines and their business launch is been substantially delayedrelative to their competitors). Thus, teams who break their egg prior tolaunch are unable to compete for the prize. However, to keep these teamsengaged in the class, they are still allowed to launch their vehiclewith the rest of the class using the spare egg, but they cannot qualifyfor a share of the market (or a prize). Finally, and probably moreimportantly, it is very important that the instructor bring two trashbags, a newspaper, a roll of paper towels and some sort of antibacterialcleaning spray or wipes. The newspaper will be laid out over the surfacearea below where the vehicles will be launched. Because many vehicleswill have some sort of parachute attachment, the vehicles will oftenveer quite off track, so be liberal in the area that is covered(particularly if the launch occurs indoors). The trash bags, papertowels and cleaning wipes are self explanatory--any vehicles that do notsafely fly their raw eggs to the ground, will entail a bit of a messthat needs to be cleaned. A note on this, however, is that while thereis usually at least one crash and therefore there are broken eggs, themess is not generally substantial or insurmountable. However, forsanitary purposes particularly for indoor launches, it is advisable tobring the cleaning supplies as noted above. Additional discussion is also needed regarding the egg vehicledesigns. Specifically, a dominant vehicle design in terms of a safe andtargeted landing has emerged over time as a consequence of running theexercise. The dominant vehicle design is illustrated in Figure 1. As illustrated in Figure 1, several features of the dominantvehicle design are noteworthy. The first feature is that the vehicleworks best without any type of parachute device. When launching thevehicle with a parachute the vehicle will veer significantly off target,which is a direct violation of one of the three market valuepropositions that the teams are trying to appease. In addition, uponlanding, the weight and pull of the parachute generally tips the vehicleover causing the egg to completely break or crack. As a result, teamsemploying a parachute generally miss (at least) two of the three valuepropositions their target market desires. This makes for a very nicediscussion point in class when debriefing the students particularlybecause at the middle point of the exercise teams are given a thirdvalue proposition that should help to focus their attention on theseaspects of the design. Interestingly, I have found that in many casesteams completely ignore the third value proposition that they are given. In fact, as noted above teams tend to only focus on (and most oftenover think) the value consideration dealing with the safe landing.Vehicle creativity is almost always an afterthought and a targetedlanding is regularly ignored. In addition, despite the fact that teamsare given a third value consideration at the half way point in theexercise, they nearly always hesitate to change their design orreconsider their vehicle design (which almost always includes aparachute). This hesitation provides an interesting discussion pointabout how often new venture teams become so focused on executing theconcept that they began with that they completely ignore changes in theexternal environment that may impact their firm's operations. Iregularly refer students to the Iridium Satellite phone example, acompany infamous for their faux pas of ignoring changes in the industry,with competitors, and market preferences (e.g., while Iridium focused ondeveloping satellite phone technology, traditional cell phone providersand manufacturers entered and overtook the marketplace--see Barringer& Ireland, 2008, for a detailed account of this example). A second feature of the vehicle, related to its safe and targetedlanding, is that the bottom of the vehicle should be weighted in someway. The vehicle tipping over is the most common cause of the eggbreaking upon landing. Weighting the vehicle in this way keeps thevehicle moving in a consistent direction toward the designated targetand upon landing the centralized weight generally prevents the vehiclefrom tipping. A third and final noteworthy feature of the vehicle's physicaldesign is that the egg is positioned in the vehicle such that uponlanding (which will be quite a hard one) the egg drops down into acushioned area in the vehicle. While various cushioning materials havebeen used successfully (e.g., newspaper, balled up tape, cotton balls,rubber bands, etc.) cotton balls tend to be the most effective and theyare often placed on top of another material like newspaper so that theegg will be at least half exposed, per the instructions. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Regarding the creativity of the vehicle, a subjective assessment ofthe vehicle's creativity is made by the market (e.g., theinstructor). Organizational creativity researchers define creativity asa creative idea or product that is both novel and useful (Amabile, 1988;Ford, 1996; George & Zhou, 2001; Litchfield, 2008; Shalley, 1991;Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004; Zhou, 2003). Novelty reflects thestatistical infrequency of the idea/product and usefulness refers to howvaluable, effective or appropriate the idea/product is for its intendedpurpose. Most entrepreneurship texts (see for example, Barringer &Ireland, 2008; Katz & Green, 2009) emphasize the importance ofcreativity for the opportunity recognition process. Thus, when studentsignore this value consideration, it is a nice segway into a discussionof the importance of creativity for successful entrepreneuring. Teams who perform the best on the exercise usually employ adivision of labor by specialization. These teams generally begin with aninitial vehicle design plan and then designate roles across teammembers. When doing this, some members are responsible for preparingmaterials for assembly (e.g., cutting materials, prepping complementarymaterials like glue and tape for use), others are charged withdeveloping a creative theme and decorating the vehicle and/or developingthe story that will be announced to the market at launch of the vehicle(for example, at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio--home of theWright Brothers--a team of students developed their vehicle named andthemed the Kitty Hawk after the city where the Wright Brother'sfirst powered flight occurred), and finally the last set of studentsactually assemble the vehicle. STUDENT FEEDBACK I have worked on modifying this exercise over a number of years soas best to relay the entrepreneurial topics described above. Over time,I have used informal feedback received and my professional judgment tomodify the exercise as necessary. After running a specific version ofthe exercise over multiple semesters, a particularly desirablederivation emerged. That derivation was described above. To assesswhether students perceived they learned the relevant topics and tosurvey their general perceptions of the exercise, students from twocourses that completed the exercise were asked to participate in asurvey. Specifically, after completing the exercise, undergraduatestudents majoring in entrepreneurship that were enrolled in New VentureCreation (e.g., survey course in entrepreneurship) were asked to fillout a survey. In addition, MBA students taking New Venture Management(e.g., graduate-level survey course in entrepreneurship) also completedthe exercise and upon doing so were asked to participate in the samesurvey. Following the exercise completion, students from both classes weresent an email asking them to participate in a confidential online surveyaimed at gathering feedback on the exercise (e.g. what they learned,their general impressions of the exercise, and whether they wouldrecommend the exercise for subsequent entrepreneurship courseofferings). The survey was administered online to assure anonymity andaccuracy of responses. The survey contained numerous questions to assessstudent's perceptions of learning outcomes, overall perceptions,and recommendations for future use. All survey questions wereLikert-type items anchored on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5= strongly agree). In total, n = 23 undergraduate students completed thesurvey (53.5%) and n = 13 MBA students completed the survey (92.8%). Theaverage age of the undergraduate students was 21.08 years and 30.5 forthe MBA students. In addition, in the undergraduate sample there were 4female respondents and 19 male respondents. Although this genderdistribution may seem somewhat skewed, only 19% of the entireundergraduate class was composed of females. Thus, the distribution ofthe undergraduate survey respondents is consistent with the genderdistribution in the course. In the MBA sample there were 3 females, 9males, and 1 person did not report their gender. The survey results arepresented in Table 1. The first set of questions asked students to report on theexercise's effectiveness in relaying the importance of meeting thetarget market's value propositions. The first question askedstudents to indicate the extent to which their team tried to meet thethree value propositions important to their target market as theydeveloped their vehicle. The mean evaluation from the undergraduatestudents was 4.30 (sd = .87) and for the MBA students 4.65 (sd = .47).To further assess student perceptions regarding the exercise'seffectiveness in communicating concepts related to consumer's valuepropositions, participants responded to two additional questionsregarding addressing the needs/desires of a target market and theimportance of meeting the target market's value propositions. Asillustrated in Table 1, questions two and three, the mean evaluationsfrom the undergraduate students were 4.39 (sd = .49) and 4.14 (sd = .69)and for the MBA students 4.02 (sd = .41) and 4.17 (sd = .55),respectively. These results suggest that both undergraduate and graduateentrepreneurship students perceived the egg-drop exercise as effectivein teaching lessons related to target market value propositions. The second set of questions asked students to evaluate theexercise's effectiveness in teaching about industry structures. Thefirst question asked participants to evaluate if the context of theexercise helped them to understand the importance of entrepreneurs beinginnovative when entering into an emerging market. The mean evaluationfrom the undergraduate student sample was 4.44 (sd = .58) and the meanevaluation from the MBA student sample was 4.15 (sd = .68). A secondquestion asked students if the context helped them to understand theimportance of entrepreneurs pursuing innovative opportunities whenentering into an emerging industry. The mean assessment from theundergraduate student sample was 4.22 (sd = .51) and the mean assessmentfrom the MBA student sample was 4.01 (sd = .70). Overall, these resultssuggest that students perceive the exercise as one that can effectivelyteach concepts related to industry structure and the importance ofinnovation. The third set of questions asked students to assess theexercise's effectiveness in relaying concepts associated withcompetitive intelligence and networking. The first item asked if theexercise helped them to understand the importance of conductingcompetitive intelligence. Undergraduate student's mean response was4.13 (sd = .69) and the MBA student's mean response was 3.77 (sd =1.09). Question 7 asked students to respond about whether the exercisehelped them understand the importance of networking for entrepreneurs.Undergraduate student's mean response was 4.17 (sd = .57) and theMBA student's mean response was 3.85 (sd=.80). Thus, both samplesperceived the exercise as effective for communicating these concepts.However, the undergraduate students' evaluations suggest that theyperceived the exercise as slightly more effective for communicatingconcepts associated with competitive intelligence and networking thandid the MBA students. The next set of questions asked students to assess theexercise's effectiveness in communicating concepts related to newventure teams, resource accumulation, and creativity. The studentsresponded to an item asking if the exercise helped them to understandthe importance of acquiring diverse resources relative to competitors inentrepreneurial endeavors. The mean assessment from the undergraduatestudent sample was 4.17 (sd = .71) and the mean assessment from the MBAstudent sample was 3.62 (sd = .86). Question 9 asked students if theexercise helped with understanding the importance of acquiring diverseresources (in general) for entrepreneurial endeavors. The undergraduatesmean response was 4.41 (sd = .57) and the MBA student's meanresponse was 4.15 (sd = .55). Regarding new venture teams, participantswere asked to respond to two items (questions 10-11) regarding theimportance of having effective teams in entrepreneurship and theimportance of good teamwork. The mean evaluations from the undergraduatestudents were 4.68 (sd = .46) and 4.65 (sd = .48) and for the MBAstudents 4.43 (sd = .49) and 4.35 (sd = .74), respectively. Finally,participants responded to an item asking if the exercise helped them tounderstand the importance of creativity in entrepreneurship.Undergraduate students mean response was 4.52 (sd = .59) and the MBAstudents mean response was 4.42 (sd =.75). The final set of questions asked students their general impressionsof the exercise as well as whether they would recommend using theexercise in subsequent entrepreneurship course offerings. The results ofthese items correspond questions 13-17 in Table 1. Specifically, themean evaluations of the undergraduate students for these items were 4.65(sd = .57), 4.39 (sd = .58), 4.32 (sd = .69), 4.45 (sd = .58), and 4.74(sd = .44), respectively. The mean evaluations of the MBA students forthese items were 4.07 (sd = .86), 4.00 (sd = .70), 4.10 (sd = .64), 3.85(sd = 1.06), and 4.00 (sd = .91), respectively. The results of the feedback received from both undergraduate andMBA entrepreneurship students who completed the exercise suggest that,overall, the exercise is perceived as being effective for communicatingthe desired entrepreneurial topics. In addition, results stronglysuggest that the students enjoyed completing the exercise, found theexercise to be appropriate to and effective for a course onentrepreneurship, and would recommend the exercise for subsequentcourses in entrepreneurship. CONCLUSION Entrepreneurship students are a challenging audience for thosecharged with educating them (Fiet, 2001a; 2001b). The purpose of thispaper was to describe an engaging in-class exercise that communicatesseveral entrepreneurial topics. Specifically, the entrepreneurshipegg-drop exercise provides a teaching tool that can communicate lessonsassociated with customer value propositions, creativity, new ventureteam competencies, resource accumulation and management, bootstrapping,industry structures, competitive intelligence, and networking. Eachtopic can be emphasized or deemphasized relative to theinstructor's goals for the course. Throughout the paper, the exercise was described and instructionsfor running it were provided. Teaching notes and debriefing instructionswere also detailed. Data were collected from both undergraduate andMBA-level entrepreneurship students regarding their perceptions ofrelevant learning outcomes associated with the exercise. Overall, thefeedback suggests that for both undergraduate and graduate students,learning outcomes are achieved, students enjoyed completing theexercise, and student would recommend using the exercise in futureentrepreneurship courses. In conclusion, the results from the student feedback I havecollected coupled with my experiences in developing and facilitatingthis exercise over a number of years suggest that the egg-drop exerciseis a fun, challenging, novel and effective method for engaging theentrepreneurship student audience. It is one that I shall continue toemploying in my entrepreneurship courses in the future and it is my hopethat this article might inspire others to do the same. APPENDIX A: EXERCISE TIMELINES 45-minute Class Timeline 5-minutes introduce exercise, review instructions 25-minutes students work on vehicle construction Note: when 12.5 minutes are remaining, make new value propositionannouncement 15-minutes vehicle launch and debrief 75-minute Class Timeline 5-minutes introduce exercise, review instructions 30-minutes students work on vehicle construction Note: when 15 minutes are remaining, make new value propositionannouncement and extend construction time frame by 15-minutes 15-minutes additional student work time for vehicle construction 25-minutes vehicle launch and debrief APPENDIX B: NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS "LAUNCH"TASK WITHIN AN EMERGING INDUSTRY You are a part of a new venture team that is developing a newproduct to "launch" within an emerging industry. Because theindustry is emerging, your team has decided to capitalize on anentrepreneurial opportunity present due to this industry'sstructure. Specifically, the team is going to try to become a technologyleader in the industry by creating an innovative "vehicle."The vehicle must be able to house a raw egg such that when it is droppedfrom an unidentified location and height, the egg does not break.Numerous other companies currently have designs under development. Yourproduct will help your new venture only if your design is completed inthe time allocated and the vehicle actually works. Additionally yourteam's recent assessment of the market's product perceptions(e.g., what they value), has lead you to realize that increased marketshare and a first-mover advantage can be expected if the design isaesthetically pleasing. Thus, this task requires technologicalcapability, coordination, and creativity for successful completion. Thebest design will be judged after you have created and"pitched" the venture's offering to the market (e.g.,your instructor). Consequently, being able to effectively address thetarget market's value propositions is extremely important. At thispoint in the construction of your venture's opportunity, you knowthat the market values 1) a safe landing and 2) creativity. Addressingthese market-level value propositions could help your venture gainsustainable market-potential for the foreseeable future and a moredesirable network of resource providers. Because the raw materials(e.g., resources) used to produce vehicles like the one your team isdeveloping are commodities it is safe to assume that each competitor hasbasically the same resources from which to develop their vehicle.Therefore innovative thinking, resourcefulness, good team work, andventure team capabilities are likely to be keys for a successful"launch". Standards of the Industry (e.g., rules that you must follow) * When inserted in the vehicle and ready for flight, at least halfof the egg must be visible, unobstructed, and the physical state of theegg cannot be changed (nothing can be blocking, covering, or surroundingat least half of the egg; the egg cannot be drained, cooked, etc.). * The launch will occur from nothing less than the second floor ofa building and the vehicle must free-fall to the ground withoutassistance (e.g., you cannot be touching any part of the vehicle or itscomponents during flight). * Finished vehicles, with egg included, must be ready 30 minutes< 25-minutes for 45 minute length classes> after you begin theexercise. You will be penalized for any delays. * You cannot ask "the market" any questions about theirproduct preferences or about any other issues related to this task. Therules are clearly specified here and must be followed. Materials Note: You are not allowed to use the bag in which thematerials came. 1. 1 large raw egg 2. String (about 6-feet) 3. 1 Newspaper 4. 1 roll of masking tape 5. 3 Styrofoam cups 6. 6 drinking straws 7. Some pebbles (about a hand full) 8. 6 paper clips 9. 1 bottle quick-drying glue 10. 2 markers 11. 10 cotton balls 12. 1 pair of scissors REFERENCES ABC News (1999). The Deep Dive [Nightline]. Princeton: Films forthe Humanities and Sciences. Acs, Z., W. Parsons and T. Spencer (2008). High-impact firms:Gazelles revisited. Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small BusinessAdministration. Allen, J.R. (2006). Launching New Ventures: An EntrepreneurialApproach. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Amabile, T.M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation inOrganizations. In B. Staw & L.L. Cummings [Eds.], Research inOrganizational Behavior, 10, 123-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Audretsch, D.B. (2007). The Entrepreneurial Society. New York, NY:Oxford University Press. Baker, T. & R.E. Nelson (2005). Creating something fromnothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage.Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitiveadvantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Barringer, B.R. & R.D. Ireland (2008). Entrepreneurship:Successfully Launching New Ventures (2nd ed). Pearson Prentice Hall, NewJersey. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure ofcompetition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clarysse, B. & N. Moray (2004). A process study ofentrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spinoff.Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55-79. Cooper, A.C., F.J. Gimeno-Gascon & C.Y. Woo (1994). Initialhuman and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance.Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371-395. Ebben, J. & A. Johnson (2006). Bootstrapping in small firms: Anempirical analysis of change over time. Journal of Business Venturing,21(6), 851-865. Eisenhardt, K.M. & C.B. Schoonhoven (1990). Organizationalgrowth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth amongU.S. semiconductor ventures 1978-1988, Administrative Science Quarterly,35(1), 504-529. Fiet, J.O. (2001a). The theoretical side of teachingentrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 1-24. Fiet, J.O. (2001b). The pedagogical side of teachingentrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-118. Ford, C.M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action inmultiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142. Gartner, W.B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing thephenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4),696-706. George, J.M. & J. Zhou (2001). When openness to experience andconscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactionalapproach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513-524. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journalof Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Henricks, M. & D. Newton (2003). Can entrepreneurship betaught? Entrepreneur Magazine, April 2003. Retrieved August 3, 2009,from http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2003/april/60244.html. Heriot, K.C. & L. Simpson (2007). Establishing a campus-wideentrepreneurial program in five years: A case study. Journal ofEntrepreneurship Education, 10, 25-41. Katz, J.A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory ofAmerican entrepreneurship education 1876-1999. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 18(2), 283-300. Katz, J.A. & R.P. Green (2007). Entrepreneurial Small Business.McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston. Katz, J.A. & R.P. Green (2009). Entrepreneurial Small Business.McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston. Kawasaki, G. (2006). The top ten lies of entrepreneurs. RetrievedAugust 4, 2009, fromhttp://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_top_ten_lie_1.html Klink, R.R. & G.A. Athaide (2006). An illustration of potentialsources of concept-test error. Journal of Product Innovation Management,23, 359-370. Lechler, T. (2001). Social interaction: A determinant ofentrepreneurial team venture success. Small Business Economics, 16(4),263-278. Lechner, C. & M. Dowling (2003). Firm networks: Externalrelationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness ofentrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,15(1), 1-26. Lechner, C., M. Dowling, & I. Welpe (2006). Firm networks andfirm development: The role of the relational mix. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 21(4), 514-540. Litchfield, R.C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-basedview. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 649-668. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York,NY: Wiley. Plumly, Jr. L.W., L.L. Marshall, J. Eastman, R. Iyer, K.L Stanley& J. Boatwright (2008). Developing entrepreneurial competencies: Astudent business. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 11, 17-28. Shalley, C.E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativitygoals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 179-185. Shalley, C.E., J. Zhou & G.R. Oldham (2004). The effects ofpersonal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should wego from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933-958. Shamsie, J., C. Phelps & J. Kuperman (2004). Better late thannever: A study of late entrants in household electrical equipment.Strategic Management Journal, 25 (1), 69-84. Shan, W., G. Walker & B. Kogut (1994). Interfirm cooperationand startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. StrategicManagement Journal, 15(5), 387-94. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Cheltenham,UK: Edward Elgar. Warner, A.G. (2005). An egg-centric approach to teaching strategictypes: Adapting a classic exercise. Journal of Management Education,29(4), 583-592. Winborg, J. & H. Landstrom (2001). Financial bootstrapping insmall businesses: Examining small business managers' resourceaccumulation behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 235-254. Zhao, H. & S.E. Seibert (2006). The big five personalitydimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytic review. Journalof Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259-271. Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is relatedto creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmentalfeedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(3), 413-422. Diane M. Sullivan, University of DaytonTable 1: Student Feedback Descriptive Statistics Undergraduate Undergraduate Question Student Mean Student SD1 In developing our egg vehicle, our 4.30 0.87 team tried to meet the three value propositions important to our target market (e.g., vehicle creativity, vehicle accuracy of landing on a target, and the vehicle could actually work-be launched).2. This exercise helped me to 4.39 0.49 understand the importance of addressing the needs/desires of target market.3. This exercise helped me to 4.14 0.69 understand the importance of meeting the target market's value propositions.4. This context helped me to 4.44 0.58 understand the importance of entrepreneurs being innovative when entering into an emerging industry.5. This context helped me to 4.22 0.51 understand the importance of entrepreneurs pursuing technology leader opportunities when entering into an emerging industry.6. As a result of completing this 4.13 0.69 exercise, I better understand the importance of conducting competitive intelligence.7. As a result of completing the 4.17 0.57 exercise, I better understand the importance of networking for entrepreneurs.8. This exercise helped me to 4.17 0.71 understand the importance of acquiring diverse resources relative to competitors in entrepreneurial endeavors.9. This exercise helped me to 4.41 0.57 understand the importance of acquiring diverse resources for entrepreneurial endeavors.10. This exercise helped me to 4.68 0.46 understand the importance of having effective teams in entrepreneurship.11. This exercise helped me to 4.65 0.48 understand the importance of good teamwork.12. This exercise helped me to 4.52 0.59 understand the importance of creativity in entrepreneurship.13. I would recommend using this 4.65 0.57 exercise in future entrepreneurship course offerings.14. The egg-drop exercise was a good 4.39 0.58 exercise for learning about entrepreneurial topics.15. The egg-drop exercise was a novel 4.32 0.69 way to teach entrepreneurial topics.16. I think that other students could 4.45 0.58 benefit from completing this exercise.17. I enjoyed completing this exercise 4.74 0.44 in the course. MBA Student MBA Student Question Mean SD1 In developing our egg vehicle, our 4.65 0.47 team tried to meet the three value propositions important to our target market (e.g., vehicle creativity, vehicle accuracy of landing on a target, and the vehicle could actually work-be launched).2. This exercise helped me to 4.02 0.41 understand the importance of addressing the needs/desires of target market.3. This exercise helped me to 4.17 0.55 understand the importance of meeting the target market's value propositions.4. This context helped me to 4.15 0.68 understand the importance of entrepreneurs being innovative when entering into an emerging industry.5. This context helped me to 4.01 0.70 understand the importance of entrepreneurs pursuing technology leader opportunities when entering into an emerging industry.6. As a result of completing this 3.77 1.09 exercise, I better understand the importance of conducting competitive intelligence.7. As a result of completing the 3.85 0.80 exercise, I better understand the importance of networking for entrepreneurs.8. This exercise helped me to 3.62 0.86 understand the importance of acquiring diverse resources relative to competitors in entrepreneurial endeavors.9. This exercise helped me to 4.15 0.55 understand the importance of acquiring diverse resources for entrepreneurial endeavors.10. This exercise helped me to 4.43 0.49 understand the importance of having effective teams in entrepreneurship.11. This exercise helped me to 4.35 0.74 understand the importance of good teamwork.12. This exercise helped me to 4.42 0.75 understand the importance of creativity in entrepreneurship.13. I would recommend using this 4.07 0.86 exercise in future entrepreneurship course offerings.14. The egg-drop exercise was a good 4.00 0.70 exercise for learning about entrepreneurial topics.15. The egg-drop exercise was a novel 4.10 0.64 way to teach entrepreneurial topics.16. I think that other students could 3.85 1.06 benefit from completing this exercise.17. I enjoyed completing this exercise 4.00 0.91 in the course.