**This is an old revision of the document!**
Disruptive Entrepreneurship
MDST 2011
Disruption has become a hallowed achievement in contemporary business culture, to the point that we forget it used to be a bad thing. What, exactly, do entrepreneurs, investors, and internet evangelists mean by the word? What have been the great disruptions of our time, and who wound up disrupted?
This course is a hands-on exploration of disruptive media cultures, intended for entrepreneurs, critics, and activists alike. We will encounter disruptions in the world around us and devise some of our own. Students should expect to enlarge their entrepreneurial repertoires, but also to experience fresh trepidation about entrepreneurship's possible effects.
Instructor
Nathan Schneider (“Nathan” or “Professor Schneider”)
nathan.schneider@colorado.edu
Office hours: Wednesday at 2-4 p.m., or by appointment (via email)
Website: nathanschneider.info
Objectives
- Gain familiarity with discourses surrounding media entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation
- Encounter the social impacts and enablers of economic disruptions
- Cultivate habits of ethical entrepreneurship in media economies
The business model
The course consists of six evaluated components; three are consecutive and three are ongoing.
Phase one: Report
20 percent
Early in the course, each student produces a brief, researched report on a past disruption. Write an internal memo by an employee of an incumbent organization as it comes to terms with the disruption taking place. Explain it clearly to colleagues and suggest possible responses that the incumbent organization might take. The report should be between 1,200 and 1,500 words, formatted and written appropriately (and creatively) in the guise of an official document from the organization. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Completion of the assignment with clarity, stylistic correctness, and creativity
- Comprehension of the disruption and explanation of what qualifies it as disruptive
- Evidence of self-directed research beyond assigned materials, including at least two peer-reviewed scholarly sources and relevant market data, using appropriate citation
- Meaningful engagement with at least two assigned materials from the course
Phase two: Presentation
20 percent
The second project for the course is a presentation to the class about the effects of a disruptive innovation. Students should interview at least two people (outside the CU community) with direct experience of having their way of life or livelihood challenged by the disruption. In the presentation, students will share interviewees' insights, alongside an explanation of the nature of the disruption and its broader context. This assignment is conducted in pairs, who will present 10-to-12 minute presentations with slides. Students may form groups of three as well; these will required to present three interviews and three peer-reviewed sources, rather than the otherwise required two.
Each presentation should cover a unique topic. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Completion of the assignment with clarity, stylistic correctness, and creativity
- Comprehension of the disruption and explanation of what qualifies it as disruptive
- Evidence of self-directed research beyond assigned materials, including at least two peer-reviewed academic sources, and appropriate citation
- Meaningful engagement with at least one assigned material from the course
Phase three: Whitepaper
20 percent
At the conclusion of the course, students produce a whitepaper outlining an original proposal for a disruption involving networked digital media. In between 1,500 and 1,800 words, describe the nature of the disruption, its economic and technological context, and the means of its financing and growth. Be sure to also consider its potential social effects.
Students will twice present their ideas to the class—first as a one-minute practice run for feedback and, second, as a two-minute pitch with one parsimonious slide.
Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Completion of the assignment with clarity, stylistic correctness, and creativity, including an in-class pitch during the final week
- Comprehension of the disruption and explanation of what qualifies it as disruptive
- Evidence of self-directed research beyond assigned materials, including at least two peer-reviewed academic sources and relevant market data, using appropriate citation
- Meaningful engagement with at least two assigned materials from the course
Class participation
15 percent
All students should contribute to class discussions as active listeners, question-askers, commentators, and critics. Respectful disagreement with the instructor and fellow students is welcome and encouraged. Students will also pitch their own disruptive ideas to the class. Attendance will not be taken formally, but meaningful participation is not compatible with absence. Be prepared to discuss each week's assigned materials by the start of that week's first meeting.
Evaluation takes place at the midterm and the end of the course, with each evaluation period weighted equally. Evaluation is based on the following:
- Comments and questions that advance the conversation, with evidence of listening to others and engagement with assigned materials
- In-class pitch exercises
- Flash quizzes at random intervals
Annotation
15 percent
Each week, students should engage with the assigned materials by using the Hypothesis annotation platform, where technically possible. Both quality and quantity will be taken into account. Annotations for each week's assigned materials are due by the start of that week's first meeting. Evaluation takes place at the midterm and the end of the course, with each evaluation period weighted equally.
It may not be necessary to read every assigned word with equal care. Expect to read effectively but strategically. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Volume of annotations and distribution throughout assigned materials; annotate every (annotatable) reading at least once and go deep on at least one of the readings each week
- Evidence of reflection and insight
- Engagement with fellow students' annotations
Entrepreneurial events
10 percent
Part of the course is participation in two synchronous events in CU's and Boulder's entrepreneurial community. Before the end of the day after each event, submit a discussion post in Canvas about your experience there. With this, include proof of participation (such as a photo of yourself there or of you and your screen). Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Compelling proof of attendance at:
- The Innovation & Entrepreneurship Fall Kickoff on September 23
- A second event, on or off campus, of your choosing
- Insightful, 300-500 word analysis of an aspect of each event
- Engagement with at least one of the assigned materials in each analysis
Entrepreneurship-related events can be found at the campus Innovation & Entrepreneurship Initiative website, Silicon Flatirons, Startup Digest, and Meetup.
Grading
Based on the stated percentage structure, grades will be awarded as follows: A (94-100), A- (90-93), B+ (87-89), B (83-86), B- (80-82), C+ (77-79), C (73-76), C- (70-72), D+ (67-69), D (63-66), D- (60-62), F (0-59). The minimum passing grade is 60 for undergraduates and 70 for graduate students.
Terms and conditions
Together, we agree to:
- Work together to foster a respectful, mature, convivial community based on mutual learning, diverse perspectives, and accommodation
- Adhere to all university policies regarding academic integrity, accessibility, behavior, discrimination, misconduct, and religious observances; we take responsibility for understanding them and the relevant procedures
- Respect student privacy, keeping any materials or statements shared in class confidential unless permission is granted to do otherwise
- Be present in our online interactions, keeping cameras on and attention on each other
If you find yourself in a position where lack of access to food, housing, health care, or other basic necessities interferes with your studies, consider seeking support from the Dean of Students and, if you feel comfortable doing so, your instructor. We will work to assist you however we can.
Fall 2020 calendar
Due dates are at 2 p.m.:
- Select Phase One report topic (Canvas discussion): 9/15
- Phase One report (Canvas dropbox): 10/1
- Select Phase Two presentation topic and date (shared document): 9/22
- Innovation & Entrepreneurship Fall Kickoff (due at midnight): 9/23
- Midterm participation evaluations: 10/13
- Phase Two presentations (Canvas dropbox): Various dates
- Phase Three pitch practice: 11/19
- Phase Three pitch presentation: 12/3
- Phase Three whitepaper (Canvas dropbox): 12/3
Topics
The course topics, like the assignments, proceed in three phases. First, we acquaint ourselves with some processes and ideologies associated with Silicon Valley-style entrepreneurial culture and discourses of disruption. Second, we consider the human impacts of disruptive change. Third, we step back and explore some broader social, philosophical, and political consequences of disruptive thinking.
Phase one: Disruption
What does this overused word even mean?
1. A mindset
- In Michelle Ferrier and Elizabeth Mays (eds.), Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Rebus Community, 2017–2019): “Developing the Entrepreneurial Mindset,” “Pitching Ideas”
- Brad Feld, chapters 1-3 in Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City (Wiley, 2012)
- Conner Forrest, “Startup Jargon: 10 Terms to Stop Using,” TechRepublic (May 1, 2014)
2. Theory and cliché
- Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,” Harvard Business Review (January-February 1995)
- Clayton M. Christensen and Michael Overdorf, “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change,” Harvard Business Review (March-April 2000)
- Jill Lepore, “The Disruption Machine,” New Yorker (June 23, 2014)
3. Organizational vessels
- Jessica Livingston, “Grow the Puzzle Around You,” Posthaven (June 30, 2018)
- Steve Blank, “Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything,” Harvard Business Review (May 2013)
- In Michelle Ferrier and Elizabeth Mays (eds.), Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Rebus Community, 2017–2019): “Nonprofit Model Development”
4. Raising rounds
- Kim-Mai Cutler, “The Unicorn Hunters,” Logic no. 4 (2018)
- Paul Graham, “Startup = Growth” (September 2012)
- Jennifer Brandel, Mara Zepeda, Astrid Scholz, and Aniyia Williams, “Zebras Fix What Unicorns Break” (March 8, 2017)
5. Origin stories
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, preamble and chapter 1, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)
- Joseph A. Schumpeter, “The Creative Response in Economic History,” Journal of Economic History 7, no. 2 (November 1947)
- John E. Elliott, “Marx and Schumpeter on Capitalism's Creative Destruction: A Comparative Restatement,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 95, no. 1 (August 1980)
Phase two: Disrupted
This year, phase two will center around the context of disruption by plague
6. The mother of the modern
- Carrie Arnold, “The Viruses That Made Us Human,” NOVA (September 28, 2016)
- Silvia Federici, “All the World Needs a Jolt,” in Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Autonomedia, 2014)
- Charles C. Mann, “Why Billington Survived,” in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (Vintage, 2006)
7. What time is it on the clock of the world?
- Venkatesh Rao, “Pandemic Time: A Distributed Doomsday Clock,” Noema (June 8, 2020)
- Gene Demby, “Why Now, White People,” Code Switch podcast (June 16, 2020)
- Helen Rosner, “The Case for Letting the Restaurant Industry Die,” New Yorker (May 22, 2020)
8. Crisis as opportunity
- Kevin Sneader and Bob Sternfels, “From Surviving to Thriving: Reimagining the Post-COVID-19 Return, McKinsey & Company (May 1, 2020)
- Marc Andreessen, ”It's Time to Build,“ Andreesen Horowitz blog (April 18, 2020)
- Shanley Kane, ”People Are Dying, Marc. Stick Your Flying Cars Up Your Ass,“ Model View Culture (April 21, 2020)
9. Disaster entrepreneurship
- From Rebecca Solnit, ”Prelude: Falling Together,“ A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster (Viking, 2009)
- Naomi Klein, ”How Power Profits from Disaster,“ Guardian (July 6, 2017)
- Kaitlyn Tiffany, ”Pandemic Organizers Are Co-opting Productivity Software,“ Atlantic (May 28, 2020)
Phase three: Disruptionism
What, then, can we do?
10. Refusal
- The Salt of the Earth, directed by Herbert J. Biberman (1954)
- Noam Scheiber and Kate Conger, ”The Great Google Revolt, New York Times Magazine (February 18, 2020)
- “Tips on Unionizing Your Tech Workforce,” Model View Culture (April 30, 2020)
11. Design thinking
- “Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 25, no. 5 (September 2008)
- Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, “Design Thinking for Social Innovation,” Development Outreach (July 2010)
- Sasha Costanza-Chock (ed.), Design Justice for Action, Design Justice Zines #3 (n.d.)
12. Decentralize everything
- Tim Berners-Lee, “Information Management: A Proposal (March 1989, May 1990)
- Manoush Zomorodi and Jen Poyant, ”Blockchain. Block What?!,“ ZigZag (June 13, 2018)
- Malene Alleyne, Camille Canon, Amelia Evans, Yichen Feng, Nathan Schneider, and Mara Zepeda, Exit to Community: A Community Primer (2020)
13. The new citizen
- Zeynep Tufekci, ”How Social Media Took Us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump,“ MIT Technology Review (August 14, 2018)
- Andrew Leonard, ”How Taiwan’s Unlikely Digital Minister Hacked the Pandemic,“ Wired (July 23, 2020)
- Lilly Irani, ”Hackathons and the Making of Entrepreneurial Citizenship,“ Science, Technology & Human Values 40, no. 5 (2015)
14. Maintenance
- David Edgerton, “Introduction,” “Maintenance,” and “Innovation” in The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900 (Profile Books, 2008)