1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
The plans that are involved with doing something like this in a large corporation. Unlike small businesses, where things can get done in a timely and relatively simple manner, larger corporations seem to need to account for many different factors and employees.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
I think the entire reading as a whole was very confusing compared to past readings. I didn't seem to really grasp what was being talked about here. I understand the importance of entrepreneurship, but with a company already established, how can it be considered "entrepreneurship" if the idea was already set in place? Innovation, to me, is what they are referring to.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
Is it possible for this type of "entrepreneurship" to hurt itself as a result of the findings? I feel that providing a corporation with the materials necessary to enhance their ideas or come up with new solutions could hurt themselves if the information isn't set in stone and falls into the hands of the wrong person.
How is this any different than a standard research and development team or a team dedicated to the innovation of its past products? The two seem incredibly similar and it is hard to draw the line between them.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
No, but as a whole the concept of corporate entrepreneurship still confuses me. I don't see a need to establish another term for something that was already defined.
No comments:
Post a Comment