ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

BPS 6385 SPRING 2005

Class Meeting Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Monday 1900-2145, SOM 2.102 SOM 4.212
Office Hours: Mon/Wed 3:00 – 4:00 PM Email: [email protected]
Or by appointment Phone (UTD office): (972) 883-4986
Phone (McKinney office): (972) 562-5401

COURSE OBJECTIVES:
This course is built around the most recent developments in the field of strategic management. Although framed in
the context of the entrepreneurial business, these ideas are also broadly applicable to the strategic challenges of
innovation and competitive dynamics faced by established firms in rapidly growing or evolving markets.
An existing firm in an established and stable industry is faced with a limited set of choices – in all likelihood, the
competitive landscape is reasonably well defined, the scope and segmentation of markets has been established, and
the firm’s competitive strengths and limitations are understood. Technology (“will it work?) and market (“will they
buy”?) risks are more or less manageable; competitive actions and the firm’s ability to execute are the principal
areas of uncertainty. Strategy options are partially constrained by established industry structure and prior choices.
In rapidly evolving competitive environments, entrepreneurs and established firms will often face multiple
unknowns (technology, market, and competitive risks) and possess limited resources to manage these risks. The
good news is that there are relatively few constraints on strategic choice; the bad news is that each choice is critical
and each in turn constrains future options and flexibility. Often, the innovator or entrepreneur is faced with a “David
and Goliath” challenge where the resources and legitimacy of incumbent(s) and established business models create
substantial barriers for a challenger firm with limited resources and capabilities. The strategic choices that are made
in these situations have much to do with the ultimate success or failure of the innovator or entrepreneurial firm.
This course will examine these strategic choices utilizing recent case studies and the latest concepts of strategic
management from the Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review and similar sources.

REQUIRED COURSE MATERIALS:

§ Coursepack: Cases and Readings
§ Moore, G.A. 2002. Crossing the Chasm. Revised Edition. HarperBusiness. ISBN 0-06662-002-3.

SELF INTRODUCTION
Each student should post a Self-Introduction in the Discussion area of WebCT prior to the first class. Guidelines are
provided on the WebCT Discussion page. This information will be used to set up my gradebook and assist in the
formation of groups for the course.

FORMATION OF GROUPS
Much of the work in this course will be performed in groups. Students should form small groups (3 members)
during the first two weeks of the course. It is important that you select your groups to include a diverse set of skills
and make sure that at least one member is proficient in accounting and spreadsheet analysis. A list of the members
of each group (with name, email and telephone contact information) should be turned into the instructor at the
beginning of class on January 24th.

LECTURE NOTES
The MS Powerpoint slides used in lectures and case discussions and other course-related materials will be posted on
WebCT (http://webct.utdallas.edu) under course ID BPS 6385. You should be able to access WebCT with your UTD
Unix ID and password. Call computer services at (972) 883-2911 if you need assistance.

BPS 6385 Spring 2005 1

Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005
 BPS 6385.501
ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

COURSE REQUIREMENTS & GRADING:

The list of assigned readings and cases is attached. Supplemental materials may be provided or posted electronically.
Advance preparation and enthusiastic participation in class discussions is an important part of the learning
experience in this course and will be evaluated.
The course has been designed to allow flexible management of your time. There will be no quizzes or exams. Your
grade will be based on group and individual written assignments and your contributions to class discussions. These
assignments, their due dates and page limits, and their relative weights in determining your final grade are
summarized in the table below:
Length
Case Due Date Type (pages) Weight
1. Scott Cook & Intuit HBS 9-396-282 Feb 7, 2005 Group (outline form) 4-5 10%
2. TIVO HBS 9-501-038 Feb 14, 2005 Individual (outline form) 4-5 10%
3. Browser Wars 1994-1998 HBS 9-798-094 Feb 28, 2005 Group (outline form) 4-5 10%
4. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. in 1999. SM-35 March 21, 2005 Individual (outline form) 4-5 10%
5. Firefly Network (A) GSBSU OIT-22A April 4, 2005 Group (outline form) 4-5 10%
6. Handspring – “Partnerships” SM-79(A) April 11, 2005 Individual (outline form) 4-5 10%
7. Vinod Khosla and Sun Microsystems (A) HBS April 25, 2005 Group (outline form) 6-8 15%
9-390-049
8. Wild Card Presentation (sessions 06, 08, 10, 13) As assigned Group (outline form) + 4-5 15%
Powerpoint Presentation
9. Class Participation Individual 10%
Overall Course Grade 100%

Wild Card Presentation. Each group will be assigned one or more “wild card” presentations (see course outline).
The group will prepare an outline form paper for the assigned case and lead the class discussion with a 25-30 minute
Powerpoint presentation of their analysis of the case.
Peer Evaluation. A peer evaluation process will be utilized to adjust individual grades on all group assignments.
The peer evaluation form (attached) should be completed individually, sealed in an envelope and turned in with the
final written assignment on April 25th.
Written Assignments
• Evaluation: Ninety percent (90%) of your grade will be based on group and individual written
assignments. Written assignments will be evaluated on multiple factors, including (a) fully addressing
the requirements; (b) critical evaluation and effective insights into the case situation; (c) demonstrated
ability to apply the course concepts and frameworks in your analysis; (d) logical conclusions and
effective recommendations; and (e) effective communications. Particular care should be taken to fully
address the requirements for each paper as detailed in the assignment. A written evaluation and critique
will be provided on all graded papers.
• Format. Each written assignment should comply with the page length guidelines specified for the assignment.
The use of charts and exhibits is encouraged, to the extent that they help you make your points. Cover pages,
charts or exhibits, and lists of references will not be included in the page count. Charts and exhibits should be
numbered and appropriately referenced in the body of the document. A list of references should be attached as
required. The manuscript should use 11-12 point type, double-spaced, with 1” margins all around. Appropriate
titles and section headings should be used. Binders and report covers are neither necessary nor desired.
Number the pages, put the course number and your name(s) at the top of each page and staple in the
upper left corner.
• Outline Form Response. Some assignments specify an outline form response. I will expect a statement of the
question followed by a bulleted or numbered list of the key items in your response.
• Essay Form Response. Some assignments specify an essay form response. I will expect a well organized paper
that addresses the case questions and uses section headings, bulleted lists, charts and exhibits as appropriate to
clearly communicate your message.

BPS 6385 Spring 2005 2

Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005
 BPS 6385.501
ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

• Electronic Submissions. If you submit a paper by email, the file name should identify the course,
assignment number and your name or group ID. For example, “BPS6385_2_JSmith.doc” would identify
John Smith’s written assignment #2.
• Due Dates and Late Paper Policy: Written assignments are due at the beginning of class on the date
assigned. Group assignments will not be accepted late. Individual late papers turned in within one week
after the due date will be graded, but 10 points will be deducted; papers turned in within two weeks will be
graded, but 15 points will be deducted. Late papers received more than two weeks after the due date will
receive a zero. Exceptions may be made if circumstances warrant.
Case Analysis Guidelines
Many of the written assignments and class discussions will require the analysis of case situations. Discussion
questions for each case are provided below to help you to focus your analysis. You are encouraged to work
together in your study groups to discuss the cases, including the individual written assignment cases, with the
understanding that individual assignments (including tables and figures) are to be prepared and written by
yourself. The following general approach to case analysis is recommended:
• Read the case quickly. Identify the key issues and decisions/actions required (the case preparation questions will
help you to focus on the key issues). Prioritize the issues in terms of urgency and importance.
• Decide what kind of recommendations should be made (and to whom)
• Choose appropriate analytical tools/frameworks from those introduced in the course
• Analyze the situation thoroughly using the frameworks and theoretical frameworks provided in the readings
• Draw logical conclusions based on your analysis
• Make specific recommendations for action in response to the questions posed in the case or the preparation
questions (what should be done, who should do it, when and in what sequence).
In general, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers for a specific case – different approaches and insights are
possible, depending on your individual perspective and approach. Regardless, I will expect you to draw logical
conclusions and (if appropriate) make recommendations that: (a) address the identified strategic issues; (b) follow
logically from your analysis and conclusions; and (c) make sense (are feasible) in the context of the case situation.
Class Participation
Ten percent (10%) of your grade will be based on the quality of your preparation and active participation in class
discussions and exercises. From time to time, it may be necessary to miss a class due to illness or personal business.
Please let me know in advance. Keep in mind that written assignments must be emailed by the due date, regardless. If
participation becomes an issue, your grade will be impacted.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR CASE ANALYSIS

The following discussion questions are provided to help you complete a structured analysis focusing on the key
issues in each case. It is important, in written assignments, to address each of these points.
Scott Cook and Intuit HBS 9-396-282
1. What are the key elements of Intuit’s business strategy? Consider it from the perspective of Hamel’s
“Strategy as Revolution”. How does Intuit create competitive advantage? Is their advantage sustainable?
2. Consider Intuit’s strategy in the context of Porter’s “What is Strategy”. Does this model fit? If so, why? If
not, why not?
3. Evaluate Intuit’s approach to the market and relationship with its customers in terms of the ideas contained in
“Crossing the Chasm” and “Knowing a Winning Business Idea When You See One”? How important has
Intuit’s unique relationship to customers been to the success of their strategy?
4. Consider how Intuit’s competitive environment had changed from its early days (1984-1992) to its later
period (beginning with the ChipSoft acquisition). What had changed compared to the original strategy? What
had remained the same?
Tivo HBS 9-501-038
1. What are the key elements of Tivo’s business strategy? How is their strategy different from those of their
competitors? How does Tivo create competitive advantage? Is their competitive advantage sustainable?
2. Consider Tivo’s marketing strategy in the light of the Technology Adoption Life Cycle model. Where are
they in the process? What have they done right? What have they done wrong? What do they need to do next?
3. Would you characterize Tivo’s business strategy as a true “Blue Ocean Strategy” or merely the introduction
of a substitute product that replaces and upgrades the functionality of the VCR?

BPS 6385 Spring 2005 3

Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005
 BPS 6385.501
ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

4. Subsequent to the events described in the case, satellite TV providers have entered the market with their own
versions of the Tivo device, bundled into a basic satellite receiver. Could this evolution of the competitive
market been reasonably foreseen by Tivo? How significant is the threat? How should they counter these new
entrants?
Compaq Computer 1995 IVEY 9A95A011
1. Evaluate Compaq’s early marketing strategy (1982-1985) in view of the ideas outlined in “Crossing the
Chasm”. How do you explain the Company’s early success (relative to IBM and its other competitors).
2. How did their strategy change/evolve with the introduction of the Deskpro 386 line? Did this product
represent a disruptive innovation? How did the competitive rivalry with IBM influence their strategy?
3. How did their strategy change/evolve with the introduction of the 80486 microprocessor?
4. How would you characterize the evolution of their strategy over the period of the case, from the perspective
of “Three Strategies for Managing Fast Growth” and “Growth Outside the Core”?
Browser Wars 1994-1998 HBS 9-798-094
1. The first-mover in the browser market was Mosaic, which was quickly eclipsed by Netscape, which was
ultimately bested by Microsoft. Trace the evolution of the strategy of “creative imitation” in the drive to
market leadership during the period 1993-1997. Did the concepts of knowledge-brokering as expressed in
“Building an Innovation Factory” come into play in this case? How did the competitors learn from each
other’s successes and failures?
2. Evaluate the strategies of Netscape and Microsoft based on the ideas contained in “Value Innovation”. How
did each market leader, in turn, create competitive advantage? How did the each successor, in turn, negate
those advantages and create a new “value curve” for the industry? Plot the “value curve” for Netscape vs.
that of Mosaic (using an appropriate set of parameters) to illustrate how Netscape created new value for its
customers. Plot the “value curve” for Microsoft’s Internet Explorer vs. that of Netscape to illustrate how
Microsoft changed the bases of competition in the Browser wars.
3. Late in the battle, Netscape posted its source code on a public Web site, in an effort to enlist customers and
other developers in the technology battle. Did Netscape successfully “Skate to Where the Money Will Be” as
their strategy evolved over the period of the case?
Case: Disruptive Technology a Heartbeat Away: Ecton, Inc. HBS 9-699-018
1. Does Ecton, Inc. have a truly disruptive technology? Consider the criteria set forth in the three readings
about disruptive technologies.
2. Develop a “value curve” for Ecton’s product and for the industry standard products following the
methodology laid out in “Value Innovation”. Does Ecton’s product really have a very different package of
attributes? To what market segments might this different package appeal?
3. Does Ecton’s technology have a chance of sufficient price/performance improvement to challenge the
established market leaders?
4. Given Ecton’s broad strategic objectives (sale of the company to a major player), what kind of product
launch strategy should they pursue, assuming that the patient trials were successful?
5. If Ecton decided to go it alone, what should their product launch strategy be (which markets, channels, etc.)?
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. in 1999 SM-35
1. For nearly 30 years, Charles Schwab & Company has pursued a strategy of technology-enabled innovation in
challenging traditional brokerage firms. Have core elements of the strategy been consistent over the years?
Has Schwab driven, or been driven by changes in the competitive market environment? How have the ideas
of time pacing been illustrated in their approach to innovation and ability to “turn on a dime” in the industry?
2. Evaluate Schwab’s competitive positioning vs. its competitors using the ideas reflected in Kim and
Mauborgne’s 1999 article “Creating New Market Space”. Use value curves to plot Schwab’s position: (a) in
1995 (pre-internet) vs. Merrill Lynch and the other full-service brokers; and (b) in 1999 vs. E*Trade, Merrill
Lynch and WingspanBank.com. How did Schwab’s positioning create competitive advantage in 1995? How
did this positioning change by 1999? Do you expect it to change further in response to the changing
competitive dynamics?
3. Can the evolution of Schwab’s strategy and competitive positioning be explained in the context of Prahalad
and Ramaswamy’s ideas, as articulated in “The New Frontier of Experience Innovation”? To what extent has
the behavior of consumers played a role in the evolution of Schwab’s strategy and service offerings?
Dell Computer Corporation HBS 9-596-058
1. Dell Computer’s strategy has evolved significantly over the years, as the company has continued to
experience rapid growth to a current position of market leadership. Trace the evolution of Dell’s strategy in
the context of a changing competitive landscape from its inception in 1983 to the end of the case in 1994.
2. Show how many of the ideas contained in “Judo Strategy” “Mastering Strategic Movement at Palm” and
“Maneuver Warfare” were important in Dell’s strategy.
3. Why was Dell’s entry into the retail channel unsuccessful? What can we learn from this?

BPS 6385 Spring 2005 4

Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005
 BPS 6385.501
ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

Firefly Network (A) GSBSU OIT-22A

1. How has Firefly Network positioned itself in the competitive market space? Consider two different models:
“Crossing the Chasm”, Chapter 6; and “The New Frontier of Experience Innovation”. How does their
positioning differ from that of Broadvision?
2. How does Firefly’s current strategic direction conform to the idea of a “toll gate” strategy, as defined in the
lecture notes? What are the risks, issues and potential rewards of such a strategy? Is this direction
appropriate?
3. If you were a member of Firefly’s Board of Directors, what are the top three questions you would pose to
Nick Grouf, regarding the strategic direction of the company?
4. What recommendations would you make?
Handspring – “Partnerships” SM-79 (A)
1. What is Handspring’s basic strategy? What is their goal? How do they intend to create and sustain
competitive advantage?
2. Evaluate Handspring’s strategy from the perspective of “Leveraged Growth”. How closely do they follow
the model? Where have they taken a different path? What are the implications?
3. At the time of the Visor’s launch, Palm was clearly the platform leader in the industry. In the beginning, did
Handspring support or challenge that leadership? How do you anticipate that the Springboard modules will
impact the industry’s platform architecture?
4. Evaluate Handspring’s channel strategy in the light of the observations contained in “Crossing the Chasm”,
Chapter 7). Consider the changes in distribution channels between the time “Chasm” was originally written
(1991) and the time of the case.
Staples: A Year in the Life of a Startup HBS 9-800-241
1. What is Staples’s fundamental business strategy? How do they plan to create and sustain competitive
advantage? What actions do they plan to ensure that these advantages are sustainable?
2. The traditional office products industry was essentially “unbundled” already. Staples’ strategy is based on
“rebundling” this industry in a way that fundamentally changes the industry structure – in effect creating a
new market space. In what ways does Staples’ strategy reflect the ideas from “Creating New Market Space”.
3. Construct the value curves for: (a) the traditional office supply industry; and (b) Staples. Can you clearly
demonstrate how Staples created a new value proposition for its customers?
Case: Vinod Khosla and Sun Microsystems (A) HBS 9-390-049
1. This description of the early years of Sun Microsystems provides insights into the early years of a bootstrap
startup, and outlines the key strategic principles Sun pursued in its initial business plan (see Exhibit 3).
Evaluate Vinod Khosla and the early startup against the criteria set forth in “The Questions Every
Entrepreneur Must Answer”.
2. Evaluate Sun’s initial strategy using the concepts from “What is Strategy” and “Strategy as Revolution”.
Does your analysis provide insights into the company’s ultimate success?
3. Evaluate Sun’s initial marketing efforts using the concepts articulated in “Crossing the Chasm”,
“Foundations for Growth” and “Blue Ocean Strategy”. Did they pursue the right strategy? Did they
implement effectively?
4. At the end of the case, Khosla has just learned that he has lost a critical sale to an established competitor.
Outline a competitive strategy for Sun Microsystems to compete effectively with Apollo using the concepts
outlined in “Judo Strategy”, “Maneuver Warfare”, and “The Elements of Platform Leadership”

COURSE OUTLINE

Date Preparation Assignments

Session 01 Entrepreneurial Business Strategies Come to class prepared to
1/10/05 1. Bhide, Amar. 1994. How Entrepreneurs Craft Strategies that Work. discuss the readings
Harvard Business Review. Mar-Apr 1994. 150-161. R94202.
2. Bhide, Amar. 1996. The Questions Every Entrepreneur Must Answer.
Harvard Business Review. Nov-Dec 1996. 120-130. R 96603
MLK
HOLIDAY

BPS 6385 Spring 2005 5

Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005
 BPS 6385.501
ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

Session 02 Perspectives on Strategy: Conventional Wisdom Come to class prepared to

1/24/05 3. Porter, Michael E. 1996. What is Strategy. Harvard Business Review. discuss the readings
Nov-Dec 1996. 61-78. R9660
4. Collis, David J. and Cynthia A. Montgomery. 1995. Competing on
Resources: Strategy in the 1990’s. Harvard Business Review. Jul-Aug
1995. 118-128. R95403
5. Porter, Michael E. Strategy and the Internet. 2001. Harvard Business
Review. Mar 2001. 62-78. R0103D.
Session 03 Perspectives on Strategy: Challenging Conventional Wisdom Come to class prepared to
1/31/05 6. Hamel, Gary. 1996. Strategy as Revolution. Harvard Business Review. discuss the readings
Jul-Aug 1996. 69-82. R96405.
7. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Donald N. Sull. 2001. Strategy as Simple Rules.
Harvard Business Review. January 2001. 106-116. R0101G
8. Courtney, Hugh, Jane Kirkland and Patrick Viguerie. 1997. Strategy
Under Uncertainty. Harvard Business Review. Nov-Dec 1997. 66-79.
R97603.
Session 04 Understanding the Industry Context: Markets & Customers Written Assignment #1:
Group (outline form)
2/7/05 9. Moore, Geoffrey A. 2002. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling
High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. HarperBusiness. New
York. (3-59)
10. W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne. 2000. Knowing a Winning
Business Idea When You See One. Harvard Business Review. Sept-Oct
2002. 129-138. R00510.
11. CASE: Scott Cook and Intuit HBS 9-396-282
Session 05 Early Stage Strategies: Creating New Markets Written Assignment #2:
Individual (outline form)
2/14/05 12. Kim, W. Chan and Renee Mauborgne. 2004. Blue Ocean Strategy.
Harvard Business Review. Oct 2004. 76-84. R0410D.
13. Zook, Chris and James Allen. 2003. Growth Outside the Core. Harvard
Business Review. December 2003. 66-73. R0312E.
14. Kim, W.Chan and Renee Mauborgne. 1999. Creating New Market
Space. Harvard Business Revew. Jan-Feb 1999. 83-93 R99105.
15. CASE: Tivo HBS 9-501-038
Session 06 Early Stage Strategies: Driving for Market Leadership Wild Card #1
2/21/05 16. Moore, Geoffrey A. 2002. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling
High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. HarperBusiness. New
York. (63-130)
17. von Krogh, Georg and Michael A. Cusumano. 2001. Three Strategies
for Managing Fast Growth. Sloan Management Review. Winter 2001.
53-61. Reprint 4224
18. CASE: Compaq Computer 1995 IVEY 9A95A011
Session 07 Growth Stage Strategies: Fast Follower (Creative Imitation) Written Assignment #3:
Group (outline form)
2/28/05 19. Kim, W. Chan and Renee Mauborgne. 1997. Value Innovation: The
Strategic Logic of High Growth. Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb
1997. 103-112. R97108
20. Christensen, Clayton M., Michael Raynor, and Matt Verlinden. Skate to
Where the Money Will Be. Harvard Business Review. November 2001.
73-81. R0110D.
21. Hargadon, Andrew and Robert I. Sutton. Building an Innovation
Factory. Harvard Business Review. May-June 2000. 157-166. R00304.
22. CASE: Browser Wars 1994-1998 HBS 9-798-094
SPRING
BREAK

BPS 6385 Spring 2005 6

Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005
 BPS 6385.501
ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

Session 08 Growth Stage Strategies: Disruptive Technologies Wild Card #2

3/14/05 23. Bower, Joseph L. and Clayton M. Christensen. 1995. Disruptive
Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb
1995. 43-62. R95104.
24. Christensen, Clayton M., Mark W. Johnson and Darrell K. Rigby.
2002. Foundations for Growth: How to Identify and Build Disruptive
New Businesses. Sloan Management Review. Spring 2002. 22-31.
Reprint 4332
25. Gilbert, Clark. 2003. The Disruption Opportunity. Sloan Management
Review. Summer 2003. 27-32. Reprint 4443
26. CASE: Disruptive Technology a Heartbeat Away: Ecton, Inc.
HBS9-699-018
Session 09 Growth Stage Strategies: Continuous Innovation Written Assignment #4:
Individual (outline form)
3/21/05 27. Eisenhardt, Kathleen N. and Shona L. Brown. 1998. Time Pacing:
Competing in Markets that Won’t Stand Still. Harvard Business
Review. Mar-Apr 1998. 59-69. R98202
28. Prahalad, C.K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy. 2003. The New Frontier
of Experience Innovation. Sloan Management Review. Summer 2003.
12-18. Reprint 4442
29. CASE: Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. in 1999. SM-35
Session 10 Growth Stage Strategies: Entrepreneurial Judo (Speed & Agility) Wild Card #3
3/28/05 30. Yoffie, David B. and Michael A. Cusumano. 1999. Judo Strategy: The
Competitive Dynamics of Internet Time. Harvard Business Review.
Jan-Feb 1999. 70-81. R99110.
31. Yoffie, David B. and Mary Kwak. Mastering Strategic Movement at
Palm. 2001. Sloan Management Review. Fall 2001. 55-63. Reprint
4315
32. Clemons, Eric K. and Jason A. Santamaria. 2002. Maneuver Warfare:
Can Modern Military Strategy Lead You to Victory? Harvard Business
Review. April 2002. 57-65. R0204D.
33. CASE: Dell Computer Corporation HBS 9-596-058
Session 11 Niche Market Strategies: Building a Toll Bridge Written Assignment #5:
Group (outline form)
4/4/05 34. Moore, Geoffrey A. 2002. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling
High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. HarperBusiness. New
York. (131-188)
35. CASE: Firefly Network (A) GSBSU OIT-22A
Session 12 Niche Market Strategies: Unique Skills or Market Knowledge Written Assignment #6:
Individual (outline form)
4/11/05 36. Hagel III. John. 2002. Leveraged Growth: Expanding Sales without
Sacrificing Profits. Harvard Business Review. Oct 2002. 68-77.
R0210E.
37. Cusumano, Michael A. and Annabelle Gawer. 2002. The Elements of
Platform Leadership. Sloan Management Review. Spring 2002. 51-58.
Reprint 4335
38. CASE: Handspring – “Partnerships” SM-79 (A)
Session 13 Exploiting Change: Culture, Demographics, Industry Structure Wild Card #4
4/18/05 39. Hagel III, John and Marc Singer. 1999. Unbundling the Corporation.
Harvard Business Review. Mar-Apr 1999. 133-141 R99205
40. McGahan, Anita M. 2004. How Industries Change. Harvard Business
Review. October 2004. 87-94. R0410E
41. CASE: Staples: A Year in the Life of a Startup HBS 9-800-241
Session 14 Strategy Implementation: Making it Happen Written Assignment #7
Group (outline form)
4/25/04 42. CASE: Vinod Khosla and Sun Microsystems (A) HBS 9-390-049

BPS 6385 Spring 2005 7

Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005
 BPS 6385.501
ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS STRATEGIES

PEER EVALUATION FORM

INSTRUCTIONS
The peer evaluation process is intended to provide group members with an opportunity to contribute to the evaluation of
the performance of your team members on group activities. On the form below, you may rate the performance and
contributions of your team members (including yourself) in the preparation of the group assignments. Instructions
follow:
1. Enter the names of your group members (alphabetically by last name). Include yourself.
2. Evaluate each assignment separately. Each team member will begin with 100 points on each assignment.
3. You may reallocate the total number of points among team members within a range of 80 to 120 points for each individual,
based on their contributions to the group effort on that assignment.
4. The total number of points allocated on any single assignment must equal 100 times the number of members of the team. If
you have four members on the team, the total for each column should be equal to 400.
5. I will calculate an overall assessment as a weighted average of the individual ratings, using the percentage weights
indicated below.
Please sign your evaluation at the bottom of the page, place it in a sealed envelope, and turn it in with your final group assignment on
April 25th.

PEER EVALUATION
WA-1 WA-3 WA-5 WA-7 Wild Wild
Group Member (list alphabetically) 2/7/05 2/28/05 4/4/05 4/25/05 Card #1 Card #2

Total

COMMENTS
Group
Member Comments (please support and justify any assessment below 90% or above 110%) Continue on reverse if necessary.
1

Signature: ____________________________________
Print Name: ____________________________________
BPS 6385 Spring 2005 8
Dr. Joseph C. Picken
Revised: January 4, 2005