1

Humans, Machines, & Entrepreneurship An Agenda to Harness the Potential of Emerging Technologies

by

Joshua Creamer

B.A. Economics University of Notre Dame, 2007

Submitted to the Integrated Design and Management Program in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT AT THE

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SEPTEMBER 2020

© 2020 Josh Creamer. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now

known or hereafter created.

Signature of Author: ______________________________________________________ Josh Creamer

Integrated Design and Management Program August 28, 2020

Certified by: ____________________________________________________________

Julie Shah Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Associate Dean, Social & Ethical Responsibilities of Computing Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by: ___________________________________________________________

Matthew S. Kressey Executive Director, Integrated Design & Management Program

2

3

Humans, Machines, & Entrepreneurship An Agenda to Harness the Potential of Emerging Technologies

by

Joshua Creamer

Submitted to the Integrated Design and Management Program on August 28, 2020 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of

Science in Engineering and Management

Abstract We live at a time of technological change that is unprecedented in its pace, scope, and breadth of potential impact. Technological progress, specifically general purpose technologies, is the main driver of aggregate economic growth. It increases productivity, which is what determines the wealth of nations and the living standards of individuals. However, despite impressive technological advancements, productivity growth has actually slowed. Entrepreneurship, particularly innovation-driven entrepreneurship, is recognized as the central change agent to unlocking technological advances, driving productivity improvement, and advancing social transformation. However, literature demonstrates that despite stories in the media, innovation-driven entrepreneurship and business dynamism has steadily declined over the past twenty years. We provide four recommendations aimed towards helping society harness recent technological advances and translate them into improved living standards. We then apply these recommendations to contribute to our understanding of how we might best accelerate the development of entrepreneurs and new entrepreneurial ventures that leverage AI and digital technologies for good of society in ethical ways.

Thesis Supervisor: Julie Shah Title: Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Associate Dean, Social & Ethical Responsibilities of Computing

4

5

Acknowledgements I would like to express my deep gratitude to all the people who contributed to my MIT

experience. My path to MIT began several years ago when I was introduced to the

reading of four influential scholars and entrepreneurs.

Thank you Geoff Parker, Erik Brynjolfsson, Andrew McAfee, and MIT’s Initiative on the

Digital Economy.

Thank you Bill Aulet and the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship.

Special thanks to my advisor, Julie Shah, for her guidance and continuous support of my

research. I value your expertise and mentorship, and I am incredibly grateful for the

opportunities you have afforded me during my time at MIT.

Finally, thank you to my family for their love, support, and encouragement throughout

this process.

6

1.

2. Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 5

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 8

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 9

1. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 10 1.1 Objective................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Underpinning Methodologies ............................................................................................... 12

2. CHAPTER 2 RELATED WORK ................................................................................. 12 2.1 Invention, Innovation, & Diffusion ....................................................................................... 13 2.2 Link Between Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Growth ........................... 15 2.3 Distinguishing Between Two Distinct Sets of Entrepreneurship ................................... 16

3. CHAPTER 3 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, INNOVATION, & ENTREPRENEURSHIP........................................................................................................ 20

3.1 Engines of Progress ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Where We Are Now ................................................................................................................. 22 3.3 The Current Challenges ......................................................................................................... 22

4. CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE HUMAN-MACHINE ENTREPRENEURSHIP........................................................................................................ 24

4.1 Innovation-Driven Entrepreneurship Development & Education ................................... 24 4.1.1 Distinguishing Between Two Types of Entrepreneurs Is Critical ............................... 24 4.2 Improve Access to Capital .................................................................................................... 27 4.2.1 How Institutional Venture Capital Firms Work ............................................................... 27 4.2.2 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 27 4.2.3 How Venture Capital Firms Invest: Risk and Portfolio Construction ......................... 28 4.2.4 Major Criticisms of the Venture Capital Industry ........................................................... 29 4.3 Creating Future of Work Entrepreneurial Ecosystems .................................................... 30 4.4 Integrating Human-Centered Design Methodologies and Processes .................... 31

5. CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENT 1: ENTREPRENEURSHIP MINDSET + SKILLSET 31

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 31 5.2 Experiment Objective ............................................................................................................. 32 5.3 Participants .............................................................................................................................. 33 5.4 Experiment Task ..................................................................................................................... 35 5.5 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 41 5.6 Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 42 5.6 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 42

7

5.7 Thesis Contributions .............................................................................................................. 43

6. CHAPTER 6 EXPERIMENT 2: ENTREPRENEURSHIP MINDSET EXPERIMENT 45

6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 45 6.2 Experiment Objective ............................................................................................................. 46 6.3 Participants .............................................................................................................................. 46 6.4 Experiment Task ..................................................................................................................... 47 6.5 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 48 6.6 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 49 6.6.1 Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 49 6.7 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 49 6.8 Thesis Contributions .............................................................................................................. 50 6.9 Future Work ............................................................................................................................. 50

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 51

8

List of Figures FIGURE 3.1: WHAT BENT THE CURVE OF HUMAN HISTORY? THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ........................................... 21 FIGURE 4.1 THE TYPES OF SMALL ENTERPRISE .................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 4.2 NATIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATION ....................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 5.1 COMPETITION PROGRAM OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 33 FIGURE 5.2 PRELIMINARY COMPETITION PROGRAM TIMELINE ................................................................................ 36 FIGURE 5.3 6.S977 COURSE SYLLABUS ............................................................................................................ 37

9

List of Tables TABLE 2.1: SAMPLE DEFINITIONS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ...................................................................................... 16 TABLE 2.2: SAMPLE DEFINITIONS OF THE ENTREPRENEUR ...................................................................................... 17 TABLE 5.1 COMPETITION EVENT STRUCTURE ..................................................................................................... 38 TABLE 5.2 COMPETITION JUDGES .................................................................................................................... 39 TABLE 5.3 HIGH-LEVEL JUDGING CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 39 TABLE 5.4 ILLUSTRATIVE COMPETITION RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 40 TABLE 5.5 POST-PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................... 42 TABLE 5.6 ILLUSTRATIVE FEEDBACK RECEIVED (FROM PARTICIPANTS) ....................................................................... 43 TABLE 6.1 REGISTRATION BREAKDOWN ............................................................................................................ 47 TABLE 6.2 COUNTRY REPRESENTATION ............................................................................................................. 47 TABLE 6.3 PROGRAM STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................... 48 TABLE 6.4 POST-PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 6.5 ILLUSTRATIVE FEEDBACK RECEIVED (FROM PARTICIPANTS) ....................................................................... 50

10

1. Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Objective

We live at a time of technological change that is unprecedented in its pace, scope, and

breadth of potential impact. This thesis first addresses three urgent, inter-related

economic challenges relating to the current state of technological advancement:

A Lack of Productivity Growth. Technological progress, specifically general purpose

technologies, is the main driver of aggregate economic growth (Romer 1990, Aghion

and Howitt 1992, Weitzman 1998). It increases productivity, which is what

determines the wealth of nations and the living standards of individuals. However,

despite impressive technological advancements, productivity growth has actually

slowed.

Decline in Business Dynamism. Entrepreneurship is recognized as the central

change agent to unlocking technological advances and driving productivity

improvement (e.g. Schumpeter 1949; Knight 1921; Acs and Audretsch 1988; Kortum

and Lerner 2000; Aulet 2013). Extensive literature demonstrates that new firms

contribute disproportionately to job creation, and account for an outsized share of the

innovation and aggregate productivity that raises living standards (Curtis and Decker

2018; Haltiwanger et al 2013; Adelino et al 2017; Pugsley and Sahin 2015;

Bartelsman and Doms 2000; Foster et al 2001; Petrin et al 2011; Alon et al 2017).

However, further literature documents that innovation-driven entrepreneurship and

business dynamism has steadily declined over the past twenty years.

11

Unsustainable Inequity. There is no economic law that says that everyone will benefit

from technological advances or productivity growth (Brynjolfsson 2019). The benefits

of economic growth have become increasingly unequal in recent decades.

The two primary objectives of this thesis was to (1) provide recommendations

towards helping society translate recent technological advances into improvements in

living standards, and (2) apply these recommendations through two entrepreneurial

experiments. The Disciplined Entrepreneurship process, employed by MIT’s Martin Trust

Center for Entrepreneurship, was utilized in both experiments. It emphasizes a

combination of mindset and skills that must be studied, applied in practice, and

continuously refined.

The first experiment was a collaborative machine intelligence entrepreneurship

competition at MIT to (1) accelerate the development of entrepreneurs and new

entrepreneurial ventures that leverage AI for the good of society in ethical ways, (2)

integrate human-centered design methodologies and disciplined entrepreneurship

processes, and (3) facilitating the development of responsible “habits of mind and action”

for those who create and deploy computing technologies, and the creation of

technologies in the public interest.

The second experiment was an 8-part speaker series hosted by the Martin Trust

Center for MIT Entrepreneurship titled, “Antifragile Entrepreneurship – Antifragile Teams,

Organizations, & Society: A How-To Speaker Series”. This program experiment was

designed and conducted to (1) democratize and apply in practice (at scale and in rapid

cycle), the process of developing an antifragility as a mindset among individuals, teams,

organizations, and society, and (2) provide a feedback loop to inform and refine the

entrepreneurial mindset component of the Disciplined Entrepreneurship methodology

12

and process – for future MIT and edX course offerings. This program experiment was

structured as eight-installment “how to” speaker series, taught in logical sequence,

whereby world experts equipped learners with practical lessons and skills to cultivate a

culture of antifragility across their teams, organizations, and society.

1.2 Underpinning Methodologies

This thesis was pursued based on the design and development teachings from several

sources: MIT’s Integrated Design and Management program (MITidm), MIT’s Interactive

Robotics Lab (Human-Machine Collaboration), MIT’s Martin Trust Center for

Entrepreneurship (Disciplined Entrepreneurship), and MIT’s Initiative on the Digital

Economy, as well as original processes I’ve developed throughout my career.

2. Chapter 2 Related Work This study relates to entrepreneurship and several inter-related strands of literature:

technological innovation, entrepreneurship, economic growth, interdisciplinary

collaboration, ecosystem development, and innovation financing. While there is an

understanding of the theoretical relationships between these strands, it is clear from

literature that the causal relationships among them are complex and are underpinned by

forces that simultaneously impact one another. Furthermore, the strands of literature on

micro-foundations (e.g. entrepreneurial activities, innovation, etc.) and the macro-

economy (e.g. technological transformation, economic growth, etc.) are still evolving and

remain sources of active debate (e.g. Prad, R.P., et al 2020; Huggins and Thomson

2015; Baumol 2014; Wong, et al 2005).

13

2.1 Invention, Innovation, & Diffusion

Schumpeter’s (1934) framework to model technological change specified three parts:

invention, innovation, and diffusion. The concepts of invention and innovation are often

incorrectly used synonymously while the concept of diffusion gets treated separately. s

viewed the invention phase as having less of an impact while the diffusion process has a

much greater influence on the economy.

Schumpeter (1934) characterized five different types of innovation: introduction

of new products and/or services, introduction of new methods of production, opening of

a new market, acquiring new sources of supply of raw material or inputs, and the

creation of a new business model and organizational structure. To Schumpeter,

innovation was measured by economic gain achieved through new and/or improved

products, changes in production systems, or expanding distribution networks.

Furthermore, he viewed innovation as being central to economic change, causing

“creative destruction” – whereby innovation is a “process of industrial mutation, that

incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the

old one, incessantly creating a new one.”

Freeman and Perez (1988) later distinguished between four categories of

innovation based upon their impact upon the economy and society: (1) Incremental

innovations – innovations that build on existing technologies and occur more or less

continuously; (2) Radical innovations – what Lundgren (1995) later described as

“discontinuous events unattainable through incremental adjustments of the pre-existing

state of affairs”; (3) New technology systems – basic changes in technology used by

several sectors of the economy that impact upon these sectors; and (4) New techno-

economic paradigms – fundamental technological revolutions that have far-reaching

effects on the entire economy and that transform society.

14

“Disruptive technologies” and “disruptive innovations” were later defined and

popularized by Christensen and Bower (1995). Disruptive innovations are characterized

as those that cause an upheaval in the existing market structure and dominate firms by

being cheaper, simpler, and more convenient than the dominant technology

(Christensen and Bower 1996).

A practitioner literature developed (Roberts 1988) and adapted (Aulet 2013) by

MIT’s Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship, while leveraging the previous academic

contributions highlighted above, provides a succinct definition:

Innovation = Invention x Commercialization

In this definition, innovation is described not as a sum of invention and

commercialization, but as a product. For context, if there is commercialization but no

invention (invention = 0), or invention but no commercialization (commercialization = 0),

then there is no innovation. While seemingly simplistic, practitioner literature such as that

described here, illustrates two additional two distinctions of innovation often overlooked

by scholarly literature: (1) while invention (e.g. an idea, a technology, intellectual

property, etc.) is important, it is not necessary that the entrepreneur always create the

invention, and (2) the capability to commercialize an invention is necessary for real

innovation. Thus, when examined collectively, while specific innovations and innovation

terminology change over time (due in large part to the nature of the specific innovation),

the idea of innovation remains relatively consistent.

Perez (TBD) emphasized that in order to assess the impact of technological

change on society, technological change should be viewed not as an engineering

phenomenon, but as a complete social process involving technical, economic, social and

institutional factors in a mesh of interactions – single inventions don’t change the world;

widespread diffusion of innovation does. To that end, leveraging Shumpeter’s invention,

innovation, and diffusion classifications, the invention of a new product or process

15

occurs within what could be called the techno-scientific sphere and it can remain there

forever. By contrast, an innovation is an economic fact. The first commercial introduction

of an innovation transfers it into the techno-economic sphere as an isolated event, the

future of which will be decided in the market. In case of failure, it can disappear for a

long time or forever. Vast diffusion is what really transforms what was once an invention

into a socioeconomic phenomenon.

2.2 Link Between Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Growth

There is an extensive literature that has examined the inter-relationships between

entrepreneurship, technological innovation, and economic growth. Long-term economic

growth, productivity gains, and human progress (particularly of an advanced economy) is

determined by the behavior of technological progress (Romer 1990, Aghion and Howitt

1992, Weitzman 1998). In describing the importance of productivity gains and

innovation, Krugman famously noted, “productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it

is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time

depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker.” Innovation is how

productivity growth happens (Krugman 1994).

The central role of entrepreneurship as a vital element for economic growth and

development has long been acknowledged in economic literature. New firms contribute

disproportionately to job creation, play a major role in economic cycles, and account for

an outsized share of the innovation and aggregate productivity that raises living

standards (Curtis and Decker 2018; Haltiwanger et al 2013; Adelino et al 2017; Pugsley

and Sahin 2015; Bartelsman and Doms 2000; Foster et al 2001; Petrin et al 2011; Alon

et al 2017).

A literature and active debate exists among leading academic scholars in regards

to the pace of technological change and our economic future. Brynjolfsson and McAfee

16

(2013) argue that we are at a “point of inflection” towards faster technological change

while Gordon (2011) shares a more pessimistic view that we are at a technological

plateau. These opposing arguments are rooted in deeper considerations: ICTs and their

ability to usher in new innovation and growth vs. the economy having potentially already

captured most of their new innovation; differing views on recombinant innovation;

underlying rationale on recent productivity declines; etc.

2.3 Distinguishing Between Two Distinct Sets of Entrepreneurship

Due to the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurship, it is studied from multiple disciplinary

perspectives --- representing a variety of research traditions, perspectives, and methods.

Furthermore, while it has a long tradition, it is still relatively new and emerging as an

academic field (Landstrom 1999, 2000, 2005). As a result of these factors, a multitude of

definitions of “entrepreneur” and “entrepreneurship” have emerged and created

confusion (Casson 1982; Audretsch, Kuratko, and Link 2015). Table 2.1 and 2.2 below

illustrate various definitions among scholarly researchers about what entrepreneurship is

and what it is not.

Table 2.1: Sample definitions of entrepreneurship

Source: Reproduced from Mwatsika, Kambewa, & Chiwaula (2018) then adapted

Author Definition

Sheen (1950) Entrepreneurship is the basic decision making regarding the combination and use of human

labor, natural resources and capital instruments, for producing goods and services that men need and want for living

Cole (1950) Entrepreneurship - the purposeful activities (including) an integrated sequence of decisions of an individual or group of individuals, undertaken to initiate, maintain or aggrandize a profit -oriented business unit for production or distribution of economic goods and services

Leibenstein (1968) By routine entrepreneurship we mean the activities involved in coordinating and carrying on a well-established going concern in which the parts of production function in use (and likely alternatives to current use) are well known and which operates in well-established and clearly

defined markets. By N-entrepreneurship, we mean the activities necessary to create or carry on an enterprise where not all the markets are well established or clearly defined and/or in which the relevant parts of the production functions are not completely known

Howell (1972) Entrepreneurship is the act of founding a new company where none existed before. Entrepreneur is a person and entrepreneurs are a small group of persons who are new company founders

Kirzner (1973) Entrepreneurship is related to seizing opportunities in the economy, where the entrepreneur is characterized by “alertness to hitherto undiscovered opportunities”

Timmons (1989) Entrepreneurship is the creation, building and distribution of something of value from

practically nothing

17

Gartner (1988) Creation of organizations is entrepreneurship

Stevenson and Jarillo (1990)

A process by which individuals either on their own or inside organization’s pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control

Shane and Venkataraman (2000)

Entrepreneurship is the process of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities

Acs and Audretsch (2003)

All businesses that are new and dynamic, regardless of size or line of business, while excluding businesses that are neither new nor dynamic as well as all non-business organizations

Stevenson (2004) The pursuit of opportunity beyond the resources you currently control

Dollinger (2008) The creation of an innovative economic organization or network of organization’s for the purpose of gain or growth under conditions of risk and uncertainty

Hisrich et al. (2009) Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic and social risks and

receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and independence

Gries and Naude (2011)

The resource, process and state of being through and in which individuals utilize positive opportunities in the market by creating and growing new business firms

Berglund and Holmgren (2013)

Entrepreneurship is a dynamic and social process, where individuals, alone or in cooperation, identify opportunities and do something with them to reshape ideas to practical or aimed activities in social, cultural, or economical contexts (p.18)

Carlsson et al. (2013)

Entrepreneurship refers primarily to an economic function that is carried out by individuals, entrepreneurs, acting independently or within organisations, to perceive and create new opportunities and to introduce their ideas into the market, under uncertainty, by making

decisions about location, product designs, resource use, institutions and reward systems

Aulet and Murray (2013)

The formation of a new venture that produces a product offering that creates value for which your new venture can capture the value to make it economically sustainable.

Identifies and distinguishes two distinct types of entrepreneurship: - Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Entrepreneurship - Innovation-Driven (IDE) Entrepreneurship

Table 2.2: Sample definitions of the entrepreneur

Author Definition

Schumpeter (1934) The carrying out, of new combinations we call, 'enterprise', the individuals whose function it is to carry them out we call entrepreneurs, the market introduction of a technical or organizational novelty, not just its invention

Ely and Hess (1937) A person or group of persons who assume the task and responsibility of combining the factors of production into business organization and keeping this organization in operation...he commands the industrial forces, and upon him rests the responsibilities for their success or

failure

Davids (1963) Entrepreneurs are founders of new business

Hornaday and Bunker (1970)

A man/woman who started a business where there was none before - success is based on the business employing 8 people and staying in operations for 5 years

Brockhaus (1980) An entrepreneur is defined as a major owner and manager of business venture not employed

elsewhere

Hull, Bosley, and Udell (1980)

A person who organizes and manages a business undertaking assuming the risk for the sake of profit

Lachman (1980) Entrepreneur is perceived a person who uses a new combination of production factors to produce the first brand in an industry

Mescon and Montanari (1981)

Entrepreneurs are, by definition, founders of a new business

Casson (1982) Someone who specializes in making judgmental decisions about the coordination (not just

allocation) of scarce resources

Carland et al. (1984) An individual who establishes and manages a business for the principal purposes of profit and growth

Drucker (1985) A person who looks out for change, responds to it and exploits the opportunity generated by the change

Herbert and Link (1989)

Someone who specializes in taking responsibility for making judgmental decisions that affect the location, form and the use of goods, resources or institutions

Baumol (1990) Persons who are ingenious and creative in finding ways that add to their own wealth, power,

and prestige

Baron and Shane (2005)

Someone who recognizes the opportunity to create something new

Kuratko and Hodgetts (2007)

One who undertakes to organize, manage and assume the risks of the business

18

Scarborough (2013) One who creates a new business in the face of risk and uncertainty for the purpose of achieving profit and growth by identifying significant opportunities and assembling the

necessary resources to capitalize on them

The innovative process that affects economic progress stresses the significance

of the entrepreneur as the change agent necessary to unlocking technological advances

and driving improvement (e.g. Schumpeter 1949; Knight 1921; Acs and Audretsch 1988;

Kortum and Lerner 2000; Aulet 2013). However, an academic literature argues that

despite this long-standing research interest, the disparities among scholarly research

highlighted in the above definitions result, in part, from there having been much less

effort devoted to studying the actual entrepreneurs who are the agents of this change

and the heterogeneity among these individuals. Instead, researchers and policy makers

treat entrepreneurs as a homogeneous group of actors that are uniformly affected by

economic conditions or policy interventions (Schoar 2010, Aulet and Murray 2013). As

both literature argue, and is discussed extensively in this study, this misses the

fundamental differences among the types of entrepreneurs active in the economy, and

that it is critical to distinguish between two distinct sets of entrepreneurs as they differ in

their economic objectives, skills, impact on the economy, and response to policy

changes and economic cycles.

What are the two different sets of entrepreneurship and how are they defined?

Schoar refers to the distinction as subsistence vs. transformational

entrepreneurship. She describes them as follows: subsistence entrepreneurs are

those who become entrepreneurs as a means of providing subsistence income,

whereas transformational entrepreneurs aim to create large, vibrant businesses

that will grow much beyond the scope of the individual’s subsistence needs.

19

Aulet and Murray refer to the distinction as small-and-medium entrepreneurship

(SME) vs. innovation-driven entrepreneurship (IDE). They describe the two sets

as follows: SME businesses are likely started by one person to serve a local

market and potentially grow to be a small or medium-size business that

continues to serve the same local market. IDE businesses are more ambitious,

focusing on global market opportunities.

Why is distinguishing between the two important? Policy makers and researchers

treat entrepreneurs as a homogeneous group of actors that are uniformly affected by

economic conditions or policy interventions. This view, as Schoar notes, misses very

fundamental differences among the types of entrepreneurs who are active in our

economy. These types of entrepreneurship are distinct – they vary in their economic

objectives, skills, and impact on the economy. More importantly, they respond differently

to policy changes and economic cycles -- for instance, regulations and policy

interventions that positively affect subsistence entrepreneurs can often have the

opposite effect on transformational entrepreneurs, and vice versa. Many policies aimed

at promoting job creation and economic growth via entrepreneurship focus on

subsistence/SME entrepreneurship assuming that it will lead to transformational/IDE

entrepreneurship – yet evidence from these literatures suggest that only a negligible

fraction of them transition from subsistence/SME to transformation/IDE

entrepreneurship. Therefore, in absence of more clearly understanding and recognizing

the existence of these very different types of entrepreneurship, policies risk having

unintended consequences of influence the economy in the opposite way from what they

were intended to do.

20

3. Chapter 3 Technological Change, Innovation, & Entrepreneurship

3.1 Engines of Progress In The Second Machine Age, to illustrate the dramatic impact that has resulted from prior

periods of technological transformation highlighted above, co-authors Erik Brynjolfsson

and Andrew McAfee (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014) pose two questions, “What have

been the most important developments in human history?”, and “How might we get

clarity about which of these developments is the most important?” As they illustrate,

these are difficult questions to answer. To start, when does ‘human history’ even begin,

and what criteria should be used to constitute an important development? To…, the

authors characterize an ‘important development’ as an event and/or advance that

significantly changes the course of things – one that ‘bends the curve’ of human history.

The list of important developments throughout human history is exhaustive1. To

address these questions, the authors draw from the work of Ian Morris, author of Why

the West Rules – For Now. Morris developed a numerical social development index2 in

an attempt to quantify and rank human development throughout history. To illustrate his

1 An initial, albeit noncomprehensive, survey the authors provide of the most important developments in

human history is sure to include some variation of the following: the domestication of work animals sped the transition from foraging to farming; agriculture enabled plentiful and reliable food sources, which in turn enabled larger human settlements, and eventually, cities; great wars and the empires they yielded; transformative schools of thought brought to major civilizations (Indian, Chinese, European) by philosophers living in similar time periods (Buddha, Confucius, Socrates); the establishment of major faiths (Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.); the invention of writing and the modern numbering system; Columbus’ voyage and the ensuing interactions between the New Land and Old that would transform both; etc. 2 Morris’s characterizes social development as “a group’s ability to master its physical and intellectual

environment to get things done”. He defines social development on four attributes – energy capture (per-person calories obtained from the environment for food, home and commerce, industry and agriculture, and transportation), organization (the size of the largest city), war-making capacity (number of troops, power and speed of weapons, logistical capabilities, etc.), and information technology (the sophistication of available tools for sharing and processing information). Morris uses archaeological, historical, and current government data to quantify patterns.

21

results, as pictured in Figure 3.1, Morris graphed the total worldwide human population

over time with social development– the two lines are almost identical. The graph shows

humanity progressing at an incredibly slow rate for thousands of years until just over two

hundred years ago when the curve of human history was bent at a near 90-degree angle

– population and social development – due to the development of the Industrial

Revolution.

Figure 3.1: What Bent the Curve of Human History? The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution, which was the sum of several nearly simultaneous

technological developments, was indeed the most important development in human

history. No other development, before or since, has bent the curve of human progress in

a comparable manner. By overcoming the limitations of human and animal muscle

power, the mechanization that began with the Industrial Revolution enabled dramatic

economic growth and improvements. Furthermore, it ushered in humanity’s first machine

22

age3 – the first time our progress was driven primarily by technological innovation – and

the most profound time of transformation our world has ever seen.

3.2 Where We Are Now We live at a time of technological change that is unprecedented in its pace, scope, and

breadth of potential impact. In fact, the last time there was this much technological

innovation hitting us was the first. It was the Industrial Revolution, when new machines

bent the curve on commerce, capitalism, and human history (Westerman, Bonnet, and

McAfee 2014). Digital, artificial intelligence, and robotic technologies are advancing at

astonishing rates and are poised to fundamentally alter the structure of our economies,

transform our workforce, and reshape our social fabric. As Peter Diamandis and Steven,

co-authors of Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think write, “Humanity is now

entering a period of radical transformation in which technology has the potential to

significantly raise the basic standards of living for every man, woman, and child on the

planet.”

3.3 The Current Challenges

We currently face three 4 urgent economic challenges relating to the current state of

technological advancement: (1) a lack of productivity growth, and (2) unsustainable

inequity, and (3) decline in business dynamism. To illustrate:

3 The term Second Machine Age was coined by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, co-authors of The

Second Machine Age. They refer to the Industrial Revolution as the first machine age. However, “the machine age” is also a label used by some economic historians to refer to a period of rapid technological progress spanning the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This same period is also referred to by others as the Second Industrial Revolution. 4 During a 2019 congressional hearing, Erik Brynjolfsson addressed there being two urgent economic

challenges – lack of productivity and too much inequality. This paper argues there is a third, a decline in business dynamism

23

Technological progress, is the main driver of economic growth and improvements

in living standards (Romer 1990, Aghion and Howitt 1992, Weitzman 1998). More

specifically, general purpose technologies (GPTs) 5 (e.g. steam engine, electricity,

computers) are recognized as the biggest drivers of economic growth – not only do they

have important direct effects, but they also enable myriad complementary innovations. In

each prior wave of industrialization, GPTs have contributed to fundamental economic

transformation and help reshape the world (Ng 2017). Technological progress increases

productivity (boosting per capita income and consumption), which is what determines the

wealth of nations and the living standards of individuals. In describing the importance of

productivity gains, Krugman famously noted, “Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long

run it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time

depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker.” Widespread use of

technological innovation is how productivity growth happens (Krugman 1994).

However, despite impressive technological advancements, productivity growth

has actually slowed – from an average of 2.4% per year between 1995-2005 to less than

1.3% per year since then (Brynjolfsson and McAfee 2014). What’s the reason for that?

Interestingly, the bottleneck isn’t the technology. As we previously highlighted, we’re

living at a time of rapid technological change. However, while advances in technology

are the catalyst of productivity growth, history demonstrates that productivity gains from

new technologies have significant delays, growth is not realized unless, and until, a

cascade of complementary innovations are implemented (Bresnahan and Trajtenberg

1995). For instance, in the case of the Industrial Revolution, it took some seven decades

for gains mechanization to show in people’s pockets. Instead, the bottleneck is due to a

5 GPTs are pervasive, they improve over time, and lead to complementary innovation (Bresnahan and

Trajtenberg 1995). Gavin Wright offered a concise definition: “deep new ideas or techniques that have the potential for important impacts on many sectors of the economy”.

24

lack of complementary process innovation, workforce reskilling, and business dynamism

(Brynjolfsson 2019). In other words, society isn’t translating the new technologies we

have into new products, services, organizational forms, and ultimately higher living

standards. In the digital economy, technology advances rapidly while technological

change proves difficult for people and institutions. Carlota Perez writes, “A society that

had established countless routines and habits, norms and regulations to fit the

conditions of the previous revolution does not find it easy to assimilate the new one. So

a process of creative destruction will take place” (Perez 2002).

4. Chapter 4 Recommendations to Enhance Human-Machine Entrepreneurship

4.1 Innovation-Driven Entrepreneurship Development & Education

4.1.1 Distinguishing Between Two Types of Entrepreneurs Is Critical

Although entrepreneurship, as detailed previously, is recognized as the central change

agent to unlocking technological advances and driving productivity improvement, an

academic literature argues there has been much less effort devoted to studying the

actual entrepreneurs who are the agents of this change and the heterogeneity among

these individuals. Instead, researchers and policy makers treat entrepreneurs as a

homogeneous group of actors that are uniformly affected by economic conditions or

policy interventions (Schoar 2010). This view, Schoar argues, misses very fundamental

differences among the types of entrepreneurs who are active in our economy. The two

types of entrepreneurship can be described as follows:

25

Schoar refers to the distinction of as subsistence vs. transformational

entrepreneurship. Her work differentiates them as follows: subsistence

entrepreneurs are those who become entrepreneurs as a means of providing

subsistence income, whereas transformational entrepreneurs aim to create large,

vibrant businesses that will grow much beyond the scope of the individual’s

subsistence needs.

Aulet and Murray refer to the distinction as small-and-medium entrepreneurship

(SME) vs. innovation-driven entrepreneurship (IDE). Their work differentiates

them as follows: SME businesses are likely started by one person to serve a

local market and potentially grow to be a small or medium-size business that

continues to serve the same local market. IDE businesses are more ambitious,

focusing on global market opportunities.

These types of entrepreneurship are distinct in their economic objectives, skills,

and impact on the economy. More importantly, they respond differently to policy changes

and economic cycles -- for instance, regulations and policy interventions that positively

affect subsistence entrepreneurs can often have the opposite effect on transformational

entrepreneurs, and vice versa. Many policies aimed at promoting job creation and

economic growth via entrepreneurship focus on subsistence/SME entrepreneurship

assuming that it will lead to transformational/IDE entrepreneurship – yet evidence from

these literatures suggest that only a negligible fraction of them transition from

subsistence/SME to transformation/IDE entrepreneurship. Therefore, in absence of more

clearly understanding and recognizing the existence of these very different types of

entrepreneurship, policies risk having unintended consequences of influence the

economy in the opposite way from what they were intended to do.

26

The significance of this misunderstanding, particularly in context to technology-

driven entrepreneurship, is further clear when we consider America’s decline in business

dynamism (Decker et al 2014). Despite stories in the media that talk about Bay Area

success stories, recent analysis conducted by Karen Mills (2020) provides perspective

as to which types of businesses are responsible for what kind of contribution. As she

demonstrates, of the 30 million small businesses in the U.S. 6, 24.8 million (81%) are

sole proprietorships – these are businesses with no employees. Of the remain 6 million

businesses that do have employees, 4 million operate in the local business-to-consumer

economy, and another 1.1 million are supplier businesses. Therefore, only a very small

fraction of small firms in America – approximately 200,000 – are high-tech / innovation-

driven ventures. This reality quickly demonstrates a significant part of our societies

current challenge with being unable to translate the new and emerging technologies we

have into new products, services, organizational forms, and ultimately higher living

standards.

Figure 4.1 The Types of Small Enterprise

6 The U.S. Small Business Administration defines a small business as any independent business with fewer

than 500 employees.

27

4.2 Improve Access to Capital

A widely held consensus exists among business leaders, policymakers and economists

that financing is a key determinant of innovation-driven entrepreneurship, and that a

vibrant venture capital market is the cornerstone of America’s leadership in the

commercialization of technological innovation. Entrepreneurs seek capital multiple ways.

Innovation-driven entrepreneurs typically seek through private markets – venture capital

is the most predominant source of funding these types of entrepreneurs seek. As an

industry, venture capital investment has been responsible for helping delivering huge

productivity gains to the U.S. economy by way of financing new information,

communication technologies, and innovations. According to a study by Stanford

University, 38% of the working population of America is hired by VC-backed firms.

4.2.1 How Institutional Venture Capital Firms Work A venture capital firm is a collection of professional, institutional managers of capital and

risk that provide resources that will enable the growth of innovative ideas, technologies

and companies. Typically, venture capital firms provide capital and resources to support

new companies and ideas that are deemed too early to be financed with traditional bank

financing and often require five to ten years to reach maturity or profitability. Venture

capital activities can primarily be broken intro three main groups: investing, monitoring,

and exiting.

4.2.2 Structure A venture capital firm is a Limited Partnership between external investors as LPs and the

VC firm itself as the General Partner. A venture capital fund is created when the VC firm

has received the necessary financial commitments from its external investors to meet a

28

certain targeted fund size. As the VC firm identifies and executes an investment

opportunity, capital will be invested out of the fund in exchange for equity ownership in a

company. The venture capital fund often has a targeted life span (7-10+ years) and will

make a series of investments over the life of the fund to create a portfolio of investments

in multiple companies. Over the life of the fund, the venture capital firm will work with its

portfolio companies to grow the company. Capital is returned to investors when a

portfolio company is acquired or goes public. Limited Partners are investors in venture

capital funds are often pension funds, financial firms, insurance companies, high net

worth individuals, family offices, endowments, and foundations. These investors allocate

a small portion of their total funds in a high-risk venture capital fund and expect a higher

return (25-35%) for the associated risk. General Partner are the venture capital firm

itself, and often represent the founding or managing partners of the VC firm. In addition

to the external Limited Partners, GPs will, and are often required to, invest in the venture

capital fund alongside the LPs.

Figure 4.2 National Venture Capital Association

4.2.3 How Venture Capital Firms Invest: Risk and Portfolio Construction

29

“Silicon Valley is a system for running experiments. It’s the nature of experiments that some fail—the key is for the ones that work to really really work.” Benedict Evans, Partner, Andreessen Horowitz

The traditional venture capital model is a game of outliers and home runs. Venture

capitalists take large risks on a lot of unproven companies and most startups fail.

Venture Capitalists know this and therefore focus on constructing a portfolio of

investments. The “typical” venture portfolio is often described as having the following

outcome: 1/3 of companies fail, 1/3 of companies return capital (or make a small amount

of money), and 1/3 of companies do well and provide returns for the rest of the fund. For

example, noted venture capitalist Fred Wilson, described this a few years ago, “I’ve said

many times on this blog that our target batting average is “1/3, 1/3, 1/3” which means

that we expect to lose our entire investment on 1/3 of our investments, we expect to get

our money back (or maybe make a small return) on 1/3 of our investments, and we

expect to generate the bulk of our returns on 1/3 of our investments. With this framework

1/3 of a venture capital firm’s investments must account for nearly 90% of the return of

capital in a fund.” Correlation Ventures has noted however that the data may be even

worse. Nearly 65% of venture financings return zero to one times the amount of invested

capital, meaning nearly 65% of those companies were unable to raise additional

financing or had to shut their doors. This data shows an even higher dependence on

outliers and homeruns in order to compensate for failed investments.

4.2.4 Major Criticisms of the Venture Capital Industry Venture capital can indeed play an outsized role in addressing the various technical and

societal challenges we face. However, the venture capital community faces criticisms

that must be addressed in order create an economy for all. Maryam Haque, Executive

Director of Venture Forward, an initiative with the National Venture Capital Association,

recently noted: “The venture ecosystem is at a critical crossroad. Over the last 50 years,

30

this industry has produced tremendous innovation and economic success – but

it has done so while systematically excluding the participation of women, people of color,

and other underrepresented minorities… While we honor and celebrate its

past accomplishments, we will work to ensure that the VC industry takes honest

account as we look to the future. The health and success of VC over the next 50

years depends on its focus on the human capital, culture, values, and narrative of VC

today.”

There currently exists a lack of effective structures to bridge the public and the

private – this hinders economic growth.

Venture capital has largely moved away from funding transformational

technologies. Instead, in recent decades, it’s focused more on incremental

technologies. Investment in areas such as the following need more funding and

support: artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and the application of molecular and

biological science, etc.

Geographic, gender, and minority gaps are prominent. For instance, over 80% of

venture capital funding in the US went to companies in just 3 states – California,

Massachusetts, and New York (NVCA 2019); only 12.1% of venture capital

money went to fund businesses co-founded by women (Pitchbook, 2019); and

only 23% of venture funding wen to minority founders (RateMyInvestor).

4.3 Creating Future of Work Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

The importance of collaboration and a long-term commitment is critical to supporting

entrepreneurship and driving economic growth and social transformation. Communities

of support and knowledge-sharing go in hand. However, although the importance of

collaboration, experimentation, and a long-term view continue to gain acceptance,

31

governments, large corporations, universities, and entrepreneurs are not collaborating

with each other as well as they could. In recent years, for innovation-driven businesses,

there has been a proliferation of innovation ecosystems, incubators, and accelerators.

Prior literature supports the importance of industry clusters in entrepreneurship and

economic performance and growth (Porter, 1998; Saxenian, 1994; Delgado, Porter, and

Stern, 2010, 2016).

4.4 Integrating Human-Centered Design Methodologies and Processes

The future of work is in hot debate throughout the world. The greatest potential from

artificial intelligence and digital technologies will come from tapping into the opportunities

for mutual learning between humans and machines. Furthermore, for these technologies

to be embraced in the workplace, it must be developed and deployed in partnership with

workers. Therefore, moving these technologies in the direction of complementing

humans, rather than replacing them, is a key priority. This thesis recommends

integrating design-centric processes into the redesign of work by engaging the

workforce. Extensive research shows best returns to technology are achieved when it is

integrated with redesign of work practices, not by designing technology first and treating

workforce issues as something to address later in the implementation process.

5. Chapter 5 Experiment 1: Entrepreneurship Mindset + Skillset

5.1 Introduction

In the Fall of 2019, MIT launched the $50K Collaborative Human-Machine Intelligence

Competition. Structured as a year-long competition program, it was run through the

32

combined efforts of the MIT Interactive Robotics Group and the Martin Trust Center for

MIT Entrepreneurship. The competition program was sponsored by Two Sigma (a New

York based investment firm), Schmidt Futures (a philanthropic initiative founded by Eric

and Wendy Schmidt), and The Tang Family Catalyst Fund. Executive sponsors of the

competition program were Professor Julie Shah (Associate Dean of Social and Ethical

Responsibilities of Computing for MIT’s Schwarzman College of Computing, and Head

of the Interactive Robotics Lab), and Bill Aulet (Managing Director of the Martin Trust

Center for MIT Entrepreneurship & Professor of the Practice at the MIT Sloan School of

Management). I served as the Managing Director of the inaugural competition program

where I was responsible for developing and leading all key aspects of the program,

including: program and curriculum development, operations, team development, venture

formation mentorship, events, external communication etc.

5.2 Experiment Objective The objective of the competition program was to advance the development of artificial

intelligence (AI) to complement, collaborate with, and augment humans vs. replacing

them. The competition program placed special focus on: (1) accelerating the

development of entrepreneurs and new entrepreneurial ventures that leverage AI for the

good of society in ethical ways, and (2) developing effective methods for human-

machine collaboration, and (3) employing an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to

serve MIT participants across all schools and disciplines.

This aligned with the vision/mission of the competitions supporting initiatives,

centers, and labs across the Institute:

MIT Interactive Robotics Group: Converge to a single goal of harnessing the

relative strengths of humans and robots to accomplish what neither can do alone.

33

Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship: Advance knowledge and educate

students in innovation-driven entrepreneurship in a manner that will best serve

the nation and world in the 21st century.

Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) for MIT’s Schwarzman

College of Computing: Facilitating the development of responsible “habits of mind

and action” for those who create and deploy computing technologies, and the

creation of technologies in the public interest.

An overview of the competition program is illustrated in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Competition Program Overview

5.3 Participants

The competition program consisted of 136 individual subjects, representing 30 teams:

34

98 men and women

109 graduate students and 27 undergraduate students

On average, teams were composed of 4-5 members

Primary disciplines of the individual subjects (per participant registration

submissions)7:

o 66 Engineering participants (EECS – 44; Mechanical – 10; Aero & Astro – 5;

Biological – 4; Civil – 3)

o 39 Business participants

o 18 Design participants

o 13 Other participants (Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Music, Philosophy,

Physics, Chemistry, Policy)

Due to the nature and length of the competition program, the number of

individual subjects and teams fluctuated throughout the program (e.g. teams joining

and/or exiting the competition program, teams adding and/or eliminating individuals from

teams). As a result, the age, gender, and primary discipline figures illustrated above

fluctuated throughout the competition program.

Participants for the competition program were recruited primarily from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Greater Boston Area. The primary

methods of recruitment were:

Email outreach to each MIT program department

Email outreach to 37 MIT student groups/clubs

Public advertising throughout campus – each MIT program department building,

the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, and the MIT Student Center

Email outreach to Harvard Business School and Harvard School of Engineering

7 The listed primary discipline was based on the registration form each participant completed. Numerous

participants identified as dual-degree candidates (e.g. MBA/Engineering, Engineering/Philosophy, Design/MBA). Additionally, this does not account for a participant’s prior professional experience (e.g. an engineer prior to pursuing an MBA, a scientist prior to pursuing engineering studies).

35

Eligibility requirements were: (1) Each team must be composed of at least one

currently registered MIT student. Currently registered MIT students include: all full-time

and part-time undergraduates and graduate students, including PhD/doctoral

candidates. (2) Each team must be composed of at least one member who brings an

interdisciplinary perspective regarding ethical and social implications of technology and

computation (e.g. prior professional and/or academic experience in design, social

science, humanities, philosophy, economics).

5.4 Experiment Task

The competition program was developed as an experimental task in which

interdisciplinary teams designed and built innovative products and entrepreneurial

ventures that leverage AI and computational technologies in a technically feasible,

commercially viable, and socially and ethically responsible manner. The teams were

tasked with building their entrepreneurial venture throughout the 2019-2020 academic

year. The competition program commenced in September 2019 and concluded in May

2020, as shown in Figure 5.2 8.

8 The 2019-2020 competition program timeline illustrated in Figure 5.2 was created as an initial, high-level

timeline. The timeline was continuously updated after each phase and/or checkpoint throughout the academic year to include new and/or revised information: program events and key dates, development and coaching sessions, pitch/demo sessions, etc. In addition, due to COVID-19 and MIT’s decision to move all activities virtual, the timing and format for the semi-finals and finals were significantly impacted.

36

Figure 5.2 Preliminary Competition Program Timeline

I constructed an integrated program curriculum, set of resources, and venture

mentorship that blended insights from the following: the technological frontier (e.g. AI

applications, robotics), human-centered design methodologies and processes (e.g.

human-machine collaboration), and entrepreneurship (e.g. frameworks and systematic

processes employed by the Disciplined Entrepreneurship methodology to bring a

venture to market). These curriculum, resources, and mentorship were provided on an

ongoing basis throughout the duration of the competition through numerous formats. The

competition teams were tasked with learning and applying these various methodologies

and processes in order build their entrepreneurial venture.

In addition, the executive sponsors of the competition program (Professor Julie

Shah and Bill Aulet) co-taught 6.S977 Entrepreneurship for Collaborative Machine

Intelligence. The course was taught in Fall 2019 was not required for competition

37

participants. However, per the course syllabus listed in Figure 5.3, it was provided and

encouraged as an additional resource to help competition teams continue to develop

foundational skills and tools to accelerate their venture.

Figure 5.3 6.S977 Course Syllabus

The competition program was structured to run as a series of three independent,

increasingly intensive contests. The three independent contests consisted of two

milestone events (December 2019 and March 2020), and the competition finale (May

2020). At each contest event, the teams were tasked with pitching their venture (and its

progress) to a panel of competition judges. The competition structure and corresponding

team tasks are listed in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 illustrates the group of judges, consisting of

diverse and extensive expertise. Table 5.3 illustrates the high-level judging criteria for

the competition program. Table 5.4 illustrates the type of venture creation resources

provided to the participants throughout the competition program.

38

Table 5.1 Competition Event Structure

Competition Event Team Task(s)

Innovation Showcase #1 (hosted Dec 2019)

Each team was tasked with preparing a PPT presentation (demo optional) and delivering a three-minute pitch, followed by a two-minute period of Q&A and/or feedback from the competition judges

Teams competed for $1K milestone awards

Up to 25 $1K awards were available; 20 teams were granted $1K awards

Innovation Showcase #2 (hosted Mar 2020)

Each team was tasked with preparing a PPT presentation (demo optional), based on progress made following Innovation Showcase #1, and delivering a five-minute pitch, followed by a five-minute period of Q&A and/or feedback from the competition judges

Teams competed for $5K milestone awards

Up to 5 $5K awards were available; 5 teams were granted $5K awards

Competition Finale (hosted May 2020)

The competition finale, where each team competed for the $50K grand prize, consisted of three rounds – Virtual pitch, Semi-Finals, and Finals. The virtual pitch was conducted two days prior to the Competition Finale, which consisted of the Semi-Finals and Final round. Virtual pitch: Each team was tasked with preparing and submitting a five-minute virtual pitch (via Zoom), based on all progress made throughout the program, two days prior to the final event. Competition judges evaluated the submissions and selected eight teams to advance to the live Semi-Finals event. Semi-Finals: The eight selected teams were divided into two groups/rooms (four teams per group, with separate judges). The teams were tasked with preparing a PPT presentation (demo optional) and delivering a five-minute pitch, followed by a five-minute Q&A session with the competition judges. Competition sponsors and all prior competition teams were divided between the two rooms. Competition judges evaluated the pitches and selected four teams to advance to the live Finals event. Finals: The four selected teams were tasked with presenting a five-minute pitch (same PPT, demo, and pitch from Semi-Finals). All competition judges, sponsors, and prior competition teams were present. Competition judges evaluated the pitches and selected the $50K grand prize winner.

39

Table 5.2 Competition Judges

Innovation Showcase #1

Innovation Showcase #2

Innovation Showcase #2

Competition Finale

Prof. Julie Shah

Assoc. Dean – SERC; Head of Interactive

Robotics Group

Prof. Julie Shah

Assoc. Dean – SERC; Head of Interactive

Robotics Group

Pete Moran

GP – DCM Ventures

Lindsey Grey

Partner – Two Sigma

Bill Aulet

Managing Director – Martin

Trust Center

Frances Schwiep

VC – Two Sigma

Jim Lawton

VP of Product – Universal

Robotics

Rama Ramakrishnan

Entrepreneur; MIT

Lecturer Mona Vernon

Head of Fidelity Labs

Haw Won Park

MIT Media Lab

Jonathan Ruane

MIT Lecturer, Entrepreneur

Laura Major

CTO – Motional Laura Major

CTO – Motional

Carly Chase

MIT MTC NYC Studio; MIT Lecturer; Entrepreneur

Eric Bromberg

Head of Dust Studios

Trish Cotter

Exec Director – MIT MTC; MT Lecturer

Josh Creamer

Investment Leader, Builder, Operator

Elaine Short

Tufts – CS Professor

Elaine Chen

MIT MTC EIR; MIT Lecturer

Rudina Seseri

Founder / VC – Glasswing Ventures

Jeg Sithamparathas

Google Product Mgr.

Elaine Short

Tufts – CS Professor

Kosta Ligris

Co-Founder -- Ligris

Stefanie Telex

Brown U. – CS Professor Bill Aulet

Managing Director – Martin Trust Center

Jennifer Jordan

Venture Investor; EIR -- Techstars

Josh Creamer

Investment Leader, Builder, Operator

Dip Patel

CTO – Soluna; MIT Lecturer, Entrepreneur

Jeg Sithamparathas

Google Product Mgr.

Brad McNamra

President – Freight Farms

Table 5.3 High-Level Judging Criteria

Clear Problem Statement

(1-10)

Solution Clarity (1-10)

Market Validation

(1-10)

Social / Ethical Considerations

(1-10)

Presentation (deck + pitch)

(1-10)

40

Table 5.4 Illustrative Competition Resources

Human-Machine Entrepreneurship Competition

Supplemental Notes / Context

Books

Get Backed - This book serves as a guide, providing a step-by-step process to building pitch decks

- Includes the building blocks of a pitch deck, "do's and don'ts", exercises, along with actual pitch decks from successfully funded startups

Pitch Deck Tools & Resources

Famous Pitch Decks - Includes actual pitch decks from some of the most well-known companies (e.g. Airbnb, YouTube, LinkedIn, etc.) from when they were in their early stages

"30 Legendary Startup Pitch Decks" - Article - Similar to above, includes actual pitch decks and takeaways

50Folds - Includes 130+ successful pitch decks. Note: when you click on a selected slide deck, you'll notice they provide a slide-by-slide review (tips, "do's/don't", etc.)

- 50Folds site includes tabs providing free tools, topic-specific blogs, free financial/valuation models, as well as consulting services

Slidebean - (see Template link) - Includes pitch deck templates + free tools/services, and pitch deck design & writing services, etc.

Pitch Deck Structure / Templates - Article - Supplement to the above links; includes high-level templates to leverage based on the setting in which you're presenting

Pitch Deck Tools & Resources --> from VC's to Entrepreneurs ** Several VC firms have published pitch deck templates they'd recommend entrepreneurs follow

Sequoia Capital Pitch Deck Template - Includes recommended pitch deck flow (slide-by-slide) and content to be included within each slide

NextView Ventures - Includes the full template slide deck, along with a slide-by-slide explanation (template download is available once you open the link)

"The Only 10 Slides You Need in Your Pitch" Template - Similar to above, includes a recommended pitch deck flow (slide-by-slide) along with key suggested content to be included within each

"Decks on Decks on Decks" - SlideShare link - Includes a sample process to follow/leverage, tips, and key slides to include in pitch decks

Demo Days / Pitch Videos / Pitch Tips ** Note: for additional videos, a quick Google search around "Demo Day Videos" will provide you a ton of examples

MIT Delta V Demo Days - Do a quick Google search --> tons of videos available to illustrate demo day / showcase presentations

Guide to Demo Day Presentations - Y Combinator article that provides tips and suggestions to live presentations

Y Combinator Demo 2019 - Day 1 & 2 - Y Combinator's Summer 2019 Demo Days --> includes/highlights the demo's of 160+ companies

- Note: this is the illustrate acutal demo's --> it's understood that many teams won't yet be to a place of having a demo to share; however, you might leverage thoughts here to

highlight the problem you're attempting to address

Pitch Lessons from TechStars - Provides guidance on essentials, pitch structure, etc.

TechStarts Archive - Archive of guidance on a variety of pitch-related topics

- Notice the "Pitch Checklist" at the top --> similar to the pitch deck links above, it highlights the key slides/content typically seen in pitch decks and showcase events

Books

Disciplined Entrepreneurship - Created by Bill Aulet --> taught by Bill and throughout the Martin Trust Center

- Incredible process & roadmap to building a successful venture (employs thorough, proven, and repeatable step-by-step processes)

Disciplined Entrepreneurship Workbook - Workbook to help guide teams through the Disciplined Entrepreneurship process

- Highly recommended tool as you progress throughout the competition and beyond

The Four Steps to Epiphany - Aside from the lame title, it's an important book --> Steve Blank's methodology laid the groundwork to Eric Reis' Lean Startup methodologies (widely practiced today)

- Quick backdrop/context: Blank developed the customer development methodology and integrated it with product development processes. Reid, who was taught by Blank (at

Berkeley), incorporated Blank's processes and integrated it with agile development processes

The Four Steps to Epiphany Workbook - Workbook providing a step-by-step guide to help teams through the the customer/user development process

The Lean Startup - Not much else to add based on above --> incorporates design principles, customer development processes, product development (agile) processes, etc.

Design a Better Business - Canvas-style book to supplement "Disciplined Entrepreneurship" with various strategies and tools to integrate design processes into new venture creatoin --> includes case

studies, tools, downloads, etc.

Business Model Generation - Canvas-style book to supplement "Disciplined Entrepreneurship" --> includes strategies, tools, downloads, etc. to help sharpen thinking following areas: customer

segmentation, value prop, sales & distribution channels, resources, activities, revenue streams, cost structures, etc.

Tools / Resources (Note: STRONGLY recommend you dig through, and leverage the below resources)

MIT Orbit - Offered by MIT's MTC, it includes a wealth of knowledge on virtually all topics related to building a new venture

- Includes articles and tips on variety of topics, including: pitch/presentations, strategy, primary market research, product design/development, team/leadership, etc.

- It also includes links to resources and tools provided to MIT students (including free legal services, access to various research sources, and business systems discounts)

StartMIT - StartMIT is a 2.5 week program offered during IAP -->

- Provides students curious about entrepreneurship an intro to the various skills and mindset required; it also provides exposure to resources available throughout MIT

Techstars Entrepreneur's Toolkit - Educational resource to supplement as you learn the fundamentals of entrepreneurship (topics range from ideation and understanding your customer to launching and scaling

your venture)

- Includes topic-specific videos, guides, and exercises

Y Combinator

YC Resources - Y Combinator providers an incredible amount of information, tools, resources, etc. ranging from basics/essentials through advanced topics

- Including: articles, blogs, videos, lectures, documents, tools, podcasts, etc.

YC Startup School - Y Combinator's Startup School provides a week-by-week curriculum

- Includes a course syllabus, lectures/videos, slides, transcripts, on topics critical to entrepreneurship

YC Library - Similar to the Y Combinator resources above, leverage YC Startup School's Library

- Includes a wealth of topic-specific articles, research, etc.

Books

Sprint - Created by the founders/leaders of the design team at Google Ventures

- Provides tools and processes for teams to design, build, and test prototypes --> intended to foster quick-cycle, rapid progress (from problem to tested solution)

- Google Ventures design team puts their portfolio companies through these design sprints

Inspired - How to Create Products Customers Love - Provides an overview of product design & development processes (good for those new to product design/development)

Inspired - How to Create Tech Products Customers Love - Follow up to Cagan's first book; focuses on the design & development processes of technology/digital creation

The Design of Everyday Things

AI & Ethics Flash Card set (created by IDEO) - Flash card toolset that can be used throughout your process to ensure ethical and social considerations are integrated into your proposed venture

- Note: See link --> flashcards can be downloaded for free

IDEO Field Guide - Step-by-step guide to help teams leverage human-centered design processes to solve customer/end-user problems and build new ventures

Books

Venture Deals - Brad Feld is an MIT alum. "Venture Deals" is a "go-to" to understand the key players (entrepreneurs, VCs, lawyers, etc.), VC term sheets, funding structures, etc.

MIT 15.431 - Entrepreneurial Finance & Venture Capital - MIT class taught by Prof. Antoinette Schoar; incredible class taught both Fall & Spring

- Highly recommended for aspiring entrepreneurs --> geared towards equipping students/future entrepreneurs with the skills/tools needed to engage with the venture

ecosystem

Venture Capital & the Finance of Innovation - Textbook used in 15.431. While not recommended as the first book to read, it's great for learning VC valuation methods, structures, term sheet economics, etc.

The Entrepreneurial Bible to VC - Solid supplement / follow-up to "Venture Deals"; provides insight into how to think about VC from an entrepreneurs perspective

Secrets of Sandhill Road - Read for pleasure - more relevant at later stages; does a solid job of hitting on some high-level themes of the venture ecosystem in a easy-to-read manner

VC - An American History - Another read for pleasure - provides a history of venture capital and serves as a "primer" to the industry

Feld's Thoughts - Bred Feld's blog --> MIT alum, Co-Author of "Venture Deals", Founder of Foundry Group, Co-Founder of TechStars

Venture Deals Blog - Co-Authors of "Venture Deals" blog --> includes articles and tools/resources for both investors and entrepreneurs

Silicon Valley Product Group - Marty Cagan's blog --> Author of "Inspired - How to Create Products Customers Love"

For Entrepreneurs - David Skok's blog --> Matrix Partners

Startup Digest - Newsletter by Techstars --> includes tailored newsletters on a variety of entrepreneurial topics

A VC - Fred Wilson's blog --> Union Square Ventures

National Venture Capital Association - Includes research, education content, blogs, and tools/resources/documents --> for both entrepreneurs and investors

TechCrunch - Covers tech companies, including startups and VCs

Masters of Scale - Reid Hoffman's podcast --> Co-founder of LinkedIn; Partner at Greylock Ventures

NPR's "How I Built This" - Stories behind some of the world's best known companies --> narrative approach re: innovators, entrepreneurs, etc.

StartUp - What it's really like to start a new venture. Podcast about an entrepreneur starting a podcast company

a16z - By Andreessen Horowitz. Covers wide range of topics tech trends, news, and future

How to Start a Startup - Series of lectures (videos) from CS 183b at Stanford. Includes Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Ben Horowitz and others.

- Useful advice for entrepreneurs and VCs who want to better understand how to build a company

The Pitch - Shark Tank format with real companies and VCs

Category

Venture Capital / Capital Raising(includes: books, readings, tools, etc.)

Blogs(topics range all abovementioned themes)

Podcasts(topics range all abovementioned themes)

Guiding Thoughts/Considerations on Pitch Decks & Presentations:

While styles will vary slightly, successful pitch decks typically consist of a fairly standard structure, including some variation of the following --> Problem/Opportunity, Solution/Product, Market Size/Customers, Traction (if any), Business Model,

Competition, Go-To-Market, Team, The Ask (i.e. Funding Needs/Uses --> highlighting experiments to run and milestones to achieve)

Product Design & Development(includes: books, readings, tools, etc.)

Pitch Materials(includes: books, resources, articles, examples, etc.)

Building New Ventures(includes: books, readings, tools, etc.)

41

5.5 Procedure

The competition was divided into three phases – each phase aligned to the three

independent, increasingly intensive contests.

During the first phase, participants were tasked with a team formation exercise. The

participants formed teams through two primary methods:

(1) Individuals with prior working relationships (e.g. professional, course, or project

related) and/or aligned project interests registered for the competition as a team

(2) The competition program hosted a “Pitch2Match” event. During this event,

participants gather to pitch themselves in 60 seconds to the broad group. They

pitch either their venture idea if they are looking to form a team OR they pitch

their experiences, skills, and/or topics of interest if they are looking to join an

existing team. Immediately following the Pitch2Match session, a network event is

hosted where participants make connections and form venture teams based on

complementary skills and industry/project interests.

For participants unable to match with a team, we matched them based with a

team based on their stated interests and domain expertise. To ensure interdisciplinary

collaboration, each team was required to meet the eligibility requirements outlined above

in the “Participants” section.

Following the team formation period, teams were tasked with participating in the

integrated program curriculum throughout the academic year (as previously outlined

above in the “Task” section) to learn and apply the fundamentals of new venture

creation. The integrated program curriculum, set of resources, and ongoing mentorship

included topics that blended: emerging technologies and their corresponding social and

ethical implications (e.g. AI applications, robotics, human-machine collaboration); design

methodologies and processes; and entrepreneurship (e.g. frameworks and systematic

42

processes employed by the Disciplined Entrepreneurship methodology to bring a

venture to market). Leading up to each contest event – Innovation Showcase #1 (Dec

2019), Innovation Showcase #2 (Mar 2020), and the Competition Finale (May 2020) –

we conducted multiple checkpoint meetings and practice pitch sessions with each team.

Following each contest event, we collected evaluation data and feedback from the

competition judges and provided that to each competition team.

5.6 Surveys

One survey was administered to participants in this experiment. The survey was

administered at the completion of the competition program. The survey asked

participants to rate the program on a 1-10 scale: scores 1-2 (bad), 3-4 (below average),

5 (average), 6 (good), 7-8 (very good), outstanding (9-10). Additionally, the survey

provided a section for participants to provide feedback.

5.6 Results

The feedback provided by participants is presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4.

Table 5.5 Post-Program Survey Results

Rating Total Percent

Outstanding (9-10) 38 54%

Very Good (7-8) 21 30%

Good (6) 6 8%

Average (5) 4 6%

Below Average (3-4) 1 1%

Bad (1-2) 1 1%

Total 71

43

Table 5.6 Illustrative Feedback Received (from Participants)

Illustrative Survey Feedback Received

I had a great experience in the competition, one of the highlights of the year for me. I liked the breadth of different ideas that the different teams were pursuing. – Sloan MBA

The caliber of the teams and the problems they were tackling was really interesting. The pressure of the competition was a really good process to see how working together would be and I think really helped mature the company. – Sloan MBA

On a scale of 1-10, a solid 11. I loved the competition and the idea behind it. More and more, it is not just about AI but about how AI and humans can work together to break all kinds of barriers, do something that was previously impossible. This competition is a great venue for exploring opportunities in this area. – Sloan MBA

In terms of areas for improvement, I would suggest sharpening the focus a little bit. We had teams with projects that were only tangentially related to collaborative intelligence. Perhaps offering a menu of open research topics when teams are formed could be helpful? While the intent was human-machine collaboration vs. automation, some teams deviated. There needs to be a way to keep them on track, e.g. guiding them when selecting a topic and then helping in the process. – Sloan MBA

Loved the entrepreneurship / business design component. The disciplined entrepreneurship process is what makes MIT such a great place for the competition. The Martin Trust Center mentorship was invaluable. – MIT Engineer

Really enjoyed the competition. Overall experience 8/10. The structure of the program and the ongoing support was the best part. Interdisciplinary work is second nature for a designer. The business teammates on our team picked it up slightly quicker than the engineer teammates. – Design candidate

The direct feedback from the organizing team during the practice sessions were the most helpful. – MIT Engineer PhD

It may be helpful to have different tracks for teams that are starting the competition at different points in company development. Everyone says that winning isn't the end-goal of these things, but it can still feel pretty discouraging for new teams to be competing against teams that have been working on their venture for a while already. – MIT Engineer

5.7 Thesis Contributions

This chapter detailed the following of the Collaborative Human-Machine Intelligence

Competition program: its key objectives, program and curriculum structure,

interdisciplinary skill and mindset development methods, and results. Through direct

interaction with participants and observing survey results, the program proved effective

in achieving its intended objectives: (1) accelerate the development of entrepreneurs

and new entrepreneurial ventures that leverage AI for the good of society in ethical

ways, and (2) developing effective methods for human-machine collaboration, and (3)

employing an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to serve MIT participants across all

schools and disciplines. The Disciplined Entrepreneurship, employed by MIT’s Martin

44

Trust Center for Entrepreneurship and utilized in this competition program, emphasizes

a combination of mindset and skills. Core to developing an entrepreneurial mindset, the

Disciplined Entrepreneurship process aims create “antifragile” humans – people who

“grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love

adventure, risk, and uncertainty.” To that end, the participants demonstrated positive

mindset development throughout the program. While COVID-19 proved to be incredibly

disruptive, of the 30 registered teams, 18 remained engaged throughout the duration of

the program. Of the 12 teams that dropped out, 5 teams cited disruptions by COVID-19

as their primary reason for dropping out. Of the other 7 teams that dropped out, they

cited strained team dynamics. This was to be expected --- as noted in Disciplined

Entrepreneurship, due to time constraints of the academic year, the quick-cycle team

formation process isn’t optimal; however, it proves enough to the teams to gain

experience in team formation and for teams to implement the 24 steps over the course

of the program. In regards to representation, although communications were distributed

equally, there was a heavy orientation towards males vs. females and graduate

participants vs. undergraduates. In future competition programs, it will be critical to

explore how we might strike a more balanced representation. We did however

experience better background/domain representation than expected. Initially, we

assumed there would be more business candidates than engineering; however, that

proved to not be the case as engineering proved to be the dominant background. In

terms of competition performance, based on the award winners across each of the three

events, there proved to be a competitive advantage if a team had already either formed

prior to the competition or if they already had a prior working relationship. In terms of

skillset development, participant surveys (as noted above) responded most positively

responses to interdisciplinary team collaboration and gaining experience with both

human-centered design and disciplined entrepreneurship processes.

45

6. Chapter 6 Experiment 2: Entrepreneurship Mindset Experiment

6.1 Introduction

In April 2020, during the time period of completing this thesis, the onset of COVID-19 in

the U.S. ushered in, expedited, and/or amplified a myriad of healthcare, humanitarian,

economic, and societal crises. As Susan Rice (former U.S. National Security Advisor)

recently wrote, “COVID-19 has laid bare our domestic divisions, unequal economy, and

glaring racial and socio-economic disparities as well as the fragility of our democracy.”

This sobering reality was further exacerbated by the reality that today’s institutions have

proven ill-equipped to address our most pressing challenges or seize opportunity amid

crises – demonstrating that it’s not enough to simply “get back to normal”. Instead, we

must seize opportunity amid these crises to build it back better – our economy, our

healthcare and education systems, our democratic institutions. Doing so requires a

combination of mindset and skill that must be studied, applied, and refined.

The Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship teaches entrepreneurship as a

discipline that can be taught and learned through an integrated, systematic, and

repeatable process. The Disciplined Entrepreneurship process employed by MIT’s

Martin Trust Center emphasizes a combination of mindset and skills that must be

studied, applied in practice, and continuously refined. Core to developing an

entrepreneurial mindset, the Disciplined Entrepreneurship process aims create

“antifragile” humans – people who “grow when exposed to volatility, randomness,

disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty.”

46

6.2 Experiment Objective

The Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship created and launched the “Antifragile

Entrepreneurship Speaker Series – Antifragile Teams, Organizations, & Society: A How-

To Speaker Series”. The 8-part speaker series hosted by The Martin Trust Center for

MIT Entrepreneurship. This program experiment was designed and conducted to (1)

democratize and apply in practice (at scale and in rapid cycle), the process of

developing an antifragility as a mindset among individuals, teams, organizations, and

society, and (2) provide a feedback loop to inform and refine the entrepreneurial mindset

component of the Disciplined Entrepreneurship methodology and process – for future

MIT and edX course offerings. This program experiment was structured as eight-

installment “how to” speaker series, taught in logical sequence, whereby world experts

equipped learners with practical lessons and skills to cultivate a culture of antifragility

across their teams, organizations, and society.

6.3 Participants

The entrepreneurial mindset speaker series program, conducted in April 2020, consisted

of 694 individual registrants. Attendance was represented by 23 different countries

across 5 continents. (Note: as of June 2020, there have been 7,000+ event registrations

with 9,000+ having watched and/or listened to the 8-part program experiment). This

program was not restricted to the MIT community – therefore, many participants had no

affiliation to MIT. This program was offered free of charge to all registrants and there

was no payment made to the speakers. This arrangement was made feasible due to the

program being hosted virtual. Additionally, all sessions were recorded and made

available for future viewing. Other regions took this content and built off it or created

similar programs – including Australia, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, as

well as domestic institutions such as the University of North Carolina.

47

Table 6.1 Registration Breakdown

Type Total Percent

No MIT Affiliation 401 58%

MIT Student 162 23%

MIT Alum 94 14%

MIT Staff 37 5%

Total 694

Table 6.2 Country Representation

Australia Brazil Canada

Cyprus Ecuador England

Finland France India

Indonesia Ireland Italy

Japan Luxemburg Mexico

Nepal Peru Philippines

Portugal Scotland Sri Lanka

U.S. Vietnam

6.4 Experiment Task The entrepreneurial mindset speaker series program was developed as an 8-installment

series hosted by The Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship titled, “Antifragile

Entrepreneurship Speaker Series – Antifragile Teams, Organizations, & Society: A How-

To Speaker Series”. The program provided actionable guidance, based on lessons from

world experts, to help people and teams (of all organizational types) not only survive

during times of adversity, but to thrive and get strong in the face of adversity. Each

session was moderated by Bill Aulet, Managing Director of the Martin Trust Center for

MIT Entrepreneurship & Professor of the Practice at the MIT Sloan School of

Management. The participants were tasked with joining each session virtually via Zoom,

listening to the speaker, and participating in Q&A with both the speaker and moderator.

48

6.5 Procedure

The eight-installment program was structured in the following logical sequence listed in

Table 6.3:

Table 6.3 Program Structure

Session / Topic Speakers

Decision Making in a Crisis

Jocko Willink – Retired Navy Seal & #1 NYT Bestselling author

Billy Campbell – Last person off “Miracle on the Hudson” flight

Staying Mentally Strong

Arlan Hamilton – Created a VC fund while homeless

Brad Feld – Co-founder of Techstars and Foundry Group

Kathleen Stetson – CEO and entrepreneurship coach

Making the Ethical Decision

Tom Byers – Faculty Director, Stanford STVP

Laura Dunham – Chair, U. of St. Thomas School of Entrepreneurship

Jon Fjeld – Entrepreneur, Prof. of Philosophy at Duke

Creativity in a Crisis

Tina Seelig – Best-selling author and Professor at Stanford

Dave Morris – Leading improv instructor, TEDx speaker

What are the Opportunities on the Other Side?

James McQuivey – VP, Principal Analyst, Forrester

Jean Hammond – Founder, LearnLaunch, Accelerator

Market Position In and After a Crisis

Chris Reitermann – CEO, Ogilvy Asia & Greater China

Allen Wang – CEO, Babytree

What are the Opportunities on the Other Side?

Scott Stern – MIT professor, Co-Creator Startup Cartography Project

Emily Canal – Writer at Inc., Surge Cities Index

Antifragile Teams, Organizations, & Society: A “How To”

Deval Patrick – Former Governor of Massachusetts

John Calipari – Kentucky Basketball Coach, NCAA Champion, Hall of Fame

The duration of the program was one month (April 2020). Two one-hour sessions

were hosted per week (Tuesday and Thursday) at 12pm ET. Each session was hosted

virtually via Zoom. At the beginning of each session, the moderator (Bill Aulet) would

introduce the topic, the rationale and sequence, and the speaker. Each session

consisted of the speaker providing a theme-based lecture, followed by Q&A between the

speaker, moderator, and participants. Each session followed a similar time format: a

~10-minute introduction and framing, a ~15-25 minute speaker lecture, followed by a

~15-25 minute Q&A session. All questions and/or comments by the participants took

49

place via Zoom’s virtual chat interface. The moderators team would them relay the

question.

6.6 Data Collection Data was collected from four sources: event registration, surveys, zoom chat message

logs, platform interactions, and submitted Q&A.

6.6.1 Surveys

One survey was administered to participants in this experiment. The survey was

administered at the completion of the 8-part entrepreneurial mindset speak series

program. The survey asked participants to rate the program on a 1-10 scale: scores 1-2

(bad), 3-4 (below average), 5 (average), 6 (good), 7-8 (very good), outstanding (9-10).

Additionally, the survey provided a section for participants to provide feedback.

6.7 Results The feedback provided by participants is presented in Tables 6.4 and 6.5.

Table 6.4 Post-Program Survey Results

Rating Total Percent

Outstanding (9-10) 128 89%

Very Good (7-8) 15 10%

Good (6) 0 0%

Average (5) 0 0%

Below Average (3-4) 1 1%

Bad (1-2) 0 0%

Total // Avg. Score 144 9.6

50

Table 6.5 Illustrative Feedback Received (from Participants)

Illustrative Survey Feedback Received

Deval Patrick was inspiring and the kind of leader that you get less exposure to at b-school, really surprising breadth of speakers that Martin Trust was able to get together – James, MIT MBA ‘21

John Calipari was awesome! I love hearing sport leaders give leadership lessons and his advice/tips on culture are some of the best I’ve heard over the past 12 months. I hope MTC keeps getting more of these diverse speakers who offer real advice that we can relate to us vs some of the very commercial leaders who tend to be focused on what they do” – Will, MIT IDM ‘21

At times, it can feel like we just look at lots of content and frameworks on leadership and entrepreneurship. It’s great but it’s all theoretical. This on the other hand was a super applicable and tangible way to understand how great leaders thinking holistically about leadership and actually have anecdotes and stories to point us back to the lessons. These kinds of lessons seem to be far rarer in school that I’d have hoped and I’m so grateful to the MTC for this series. It has been one of the best pieces of content during my time at Sloan so far” – Viv, MIT MBA ‘20

It was indeed an extraordinary program. The MTC organized one of the most enriching series of events I have ever attended- both from an intellectual and human point of view. – Nicoleta, PhD student at Princeton

“Deval Patrick was so thoughtful and clearly so decisive with his leadership style – I found him truly inspiring and appreciated his perspectives on both the public and private sector. I always thought it must be hard to be an effective leader in both but Deval really helped deconstruct that for me in a very genuine way” – Lea, MBA ‘21

John Calipari was awesome as everyone expected. I would love to have him in again; he was one of the best speakers I’ve seen at MIT to date! – Kenneth, MIT EECS ‘22

6.8 Thesis Contributions This chapter detailed the following of the entrepreneurial mindset speaker series

program: its rationale, design, program structure, data collection methods, and results. In

observing the feedback received from participants, the program proved effective in

achieving its intended objectives: (1) democratize and apply in practice (at scale) the

process of developing antifragility as a mindset among individuals, teams, and

organizations, and (2) provide a feedback loop to inform and refine the entrepreneurial

mindset component of the Disciplined Entrepreneurship methodology and process.

6.9 Future Work

In response to COVID-19’s global impact, MITx and Opening Learning launched an

initiative with a mission to “rapidly develop online modules for global learners on edX –

51

courses from MIT that will contribute to knowledge and society during these

extraordinary, trying times.” As a result of the experiment programs positive feedback

and widespread popularity, it was awarded a $20K grant by MITx and Open Learning to

launch an edX course that will be available in early Fall 2020. The curriculum is being

refined based on feedback received from the experiment’s participants and is co-taught

by myself (Josh Creamer) and Bill Aulet and offered via edX’s educational platform. The

course will be offered free of charge with the option to receive a credentialed certificate.

7. References

Acs, Z. J., and Audretsch, D. B. (1988). “Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An

Empirical Analysis.” American Economic Review 78, no. 4:678–90.

Acs, Z.J., Braunerhjelm, Audretsch, and Carlsson (2009), “The Knowledge Spillover

Theory of Entrepreneurship,” Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15-30.

Adelino, Manuel, Ma, Song, & Robinson, David T. 2017. Firm Age, Investment

Opportunities, and Job Creation. The Journal of Finance, 72(3).

Aghion, P. and P. Howitt: 1992, ‘A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction’.

Econometrica 60(2).

Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction machines: The simple

economics of artificial intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Akcigit, U., Dinlersoz, E., Greenwood, J. & Penciakova, V. (2019). Synergising ventures:

The impact of venture capital-backed firms on the aggregate economy. Retrieved

from https://voxeu.org/article/impact-venture-capital-backed-firms-aggregate-

economy

52

Alon, Titan, Berger, David, Dent, Robert, & Pugsley, Benjamin. 2017. Older and Slower:

The Startup Deficit’s Lasting Effects on Aggregate Productivity Growth. Working

paper.

Audretsch, Keilbach and Lehmann (2006), Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth,

Oxford University Press.

Audretsch, D., Kuratko, D., & Link, A. (2015). Making sense of the elusive paradigm of

entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 703-712.

Aulet, B. (2013). Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 steps to a successful startup.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bartelsman, Eric J, & Doms, Mark. 2000. Understanding productivity: Lessons from

longitudinal microdata. Journal of Economic literature, 38(3), 569–594.

Baumol, W.J. (2014). Stimulating growth amid recession: Entrepreneurship, innovation,

and the Keynesian revolution. Journal of Policy Modeling, 36(4), 629–635.

Birch, D. L. (1979). The job generation process, Cambridge, MA: MIT Program on

Neighborhood and Regional Change.

Birley, S. (1986). ‘The role of new firms: Births, deaths and job generation’, Strategic

Management Journal, 7, 361-376.

Bower, Joseph L., Christensen, Clayton M., 1995. Disruptive Technologies: Catching the

Wave. Harvard Business Review 73 (1), 506–520.

Bresnahan, Timothy F., and M. Trajtenberg. 1995. “General Purpose Technologies

‘Engines of Growth’?” Journal of Econometrics 65 (1):83–108.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2016). The second machine age: Work, progress, and

prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York, NY: W.W Norton &

Company.

53

Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the modern

productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. In Economics of

Artificial Intelligence. University of Chicago Press.

Cagan, M. (2017). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Christensen, Clayton M., Bower, Joseph L., (1996). Customer Power, Strategic

Investment, and the Failure of Leading Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17

(3), 197–218.

Crichton, D. (2016). The desperate waves of venture capital. Retrieved

from https://www.dannycrichton.com/2016/07/06/the-desperate-waves-of-

venture-capital/

Cowen, Tyler. (2011). The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-hanging Fruit

of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better. New York: Dutton.

Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy

in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. New York, NY: Harper

Business.

Curtis, E. Mark & Decker, Ryan. (2018). "Entrepreneurship and State Taxation," Finance

and Economics Discussion Series 2018-003, Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System (U.S.).

Davis, Steven, Haltiwanger, John and Schuh, Scott, (1998), Job Creation and

Destruction, vol. 1, 1 ed., The MIT Press.

Decker, Ryan, Haltiwanger, John, Jarmin, Ron and Javier Miranda. (2014). “The Role of

Entrepreneurship in US Job Creation and Economic Dynamism”. Journal of

Economic Perspectives. 28(3): 3-24

54

Disrupting venture capital: Accelerators, incubators and network effect platforms - part I.

(2017). Retrieved from https://www.thetrustedinsight.com/investment-

news/disrupting-venture-capital-accelerators-incubators-and-network-effect-

platforms-part-i-20170412398/

Fabozzi, F. J. (2016). Entrepreneurial finance and accounting for high-tech companies.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Feld, B., & Mendelson, J. (2019). Venture deals: Be smarter than your lawyer and

venture capitalist (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Fisher, S., & Duane, J. (2016). The startup equation: A visual guidebook for building

your startup (1st ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Foster, Lucia, Haltiwanger, John C, & Krizan, Cornell John. 2001. Aggregate productivity

growth. Lessons from microeconomic evidence. Pages 303–372 of: New

developments in productivity analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Gordon, R. J. (2016). The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. standard of living

since the civil war (1st ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gruber, J., & Johnson, S. (2019). Jump-starting america: How breakthrough science can

revive economic growth and the american dream. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Guijarro, J. (2019). Venture capital and design. Retrieved

from https://medium.com/@JimenaGuijarro/venture-capital-and-design-

e5b9e89aa9b

Guzman, Jorge and Stern, Scott, (2016), The State of American Entrepreneurship: New

Estimates of the Quality and Quantity of Entrepreneurship for 32 US States,

1988-2014, No 22095, NBER Working Papers, National Bureau of Economic

Research, Inc.

Haltiwanger, John, Ron Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. 2013. “Who Creates Jobs? Small

versus Large versus Young” The Review of Economics and Statistics. 95 (2).

347-361.

55

Hathaway, Ian, and Litan, Robert E. (2014). “Declining Business Dynamism in the United

States: A Look at States and Metros”. Economic Studies at Brookings Series.

May, 2014.

Helpman, E., & Trajtenberg, M. (1994). A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth

Based on General Purpose Technologies. Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of

Economic Research.

Huggins, R., & Thomson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: A

network theory. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 103–128.

Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2020). Competing in the age of AI: Strategy and leadership

when algorithms and networks run the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

Review Press.

Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test

new ideas in just five days (1st ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kolko, J. (2014). Well designed: How to use empathy to create products people love.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (2015). Valuation: Measuring and managing the

value of companies (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kortum, S. & Lerner, J. (2000). ‘Assessing the contribution of venture capital to

innovation’, RAND Journal of Economics, 31 (4), 674-692.

Krugman, Paul R., The Age of Diminished Expectations: U.S. Economic Policy in the

1990s (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1997), p. 11.

Kupor, S. (2019). Secrets of sand hill road: Venture capital and how to get it. New York,

NY: Portfolio.

56

Landström, H. (1999). The roots of entrepreneurship research. The intellectual

development of a research field. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 1(2),

9–20.

Landström, H. (2000). Entreprenörskapets rötter [The Roots of Entrepreneurship]. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Landström, H. (2005). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research. New

York: Springer.

Lawrence, J., Fulton, K., Narowski, P., & Hurwitz, J. (2019). The rise of startup

studios. ().Global Startup Studio Network. Retrieved from https://www.gan.co/wp-

content/uploads/2020/03/The-Rise-of-Startup-Studios-White-Paper.pdf

Makkonen, J., & Gracia, C. (2018). The lean marketplace: A practical guide to building a

successful online marketplace business Sharetribe.

Matamoros Carter, T., & Cheung, S. (2017). Meet the 3 types of venture studios eating

the startup world. Retrieved from https://tangelo.co/insights/blog/venture-studio-

types-in-house-production-full-stack

McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine platform crowd: Harnessing our digital

future (1st ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Metrick, A., & Yasuda, A. (2010). Venture capital & the finance of innovation (2nd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Mills, Karen G. & Dang, Annie. (2020). "Creating “Smart” Policy to Promote

Entrepreneurship and Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation

and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, National Bureau of Economic

Research, Inc.

Nicholas, T. (2015). Scale and innovation during two U.S. breakthrough eras.

Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/15-

038_993f3dab-6812-443b-a0ec-8290ca3a4982.pdf

Nicholas, T. (2019). VC: An American History. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

57

O'Sullivan, S., Ebersweiler, C. & Joffe, B. (2017). 70 years of VC innovation. Retrieved

from https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/70-years-of-vc-innovation/

Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How

networked markets are transforming the economy - and how to make them work

for you (1st ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Perez, C., and Freeman, C. 1988. “Structural Crises of Adjustment, Business Cycles and

Investment Behaviour”, in G.Dosi et al. eds. Technical Change and Economic

Theory, London: Francis Pinter, pp. 38-66.

Petrin, Amil, White, T. Kirk, & Reiter, Jerome P. 2011. The Impact of Plant-Level

Resource Reallocations and Technical Progress on U.S. Macroeconomic

Growth. Review of Economic Dynamics.

Pioneering the venture studio business model . Retrieved

from https://highalpha.com/venture-studio-business-model/

Pradhan, R. P., et al. The dynamics among entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic

growth in the Eurozone countries. Journal of Policy

Modeling (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.01.004

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2016). “PwC/NVCA Money TreeTM Report”. Retrieved

from https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/HistoricTrends/CustomQueryHistoricTrend

on March 2, 2016.

Pugsley, Benjamin W, & Sahin, Aysegul. 2015. Grown-up business cycles. US Census

Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No. CES-WP-15-33.

Ramsinghani, M. (2014). The business of venture capital: Insights from leading

practitioners on the art of raising a fund, deal structuring, value creation, and exit

strategies (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation

to create radically successful businesses. New York, NY: Crown Business.

58

Roberts, Edward B., “Managing Invention and Innovation,” Research Technology

Management 31, no. 1 (January/February 1988): 13, ABI/INFORM Complete.

Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political

Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.

Schoar, A. (2010). The Divide between Subsistence and Transformational

Entrepreneurship. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 10(1), 57-81.

Schwab, K. (2018). The global competitiveness report 2018–2019. Geneva: World

Economic Forum.

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits,

Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Summers, L. H. (2016). The age of secular stagnation. Retrieved

from http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-stagnation/

Takatkah, A. (2019). VC funds 101: Understanding venture fund structures, team

compensation, fund metrics and reporting. Retrieved

from https://vcpreneur.com/vc-funds-101-understanding-venture-fund-structures-

team-compensation-fund-metrics-and-reporting-152b02e8504a

Taneja, H. (2018). Unscaled: How AI and a new generation of upstarts are creating the

economy of the future. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Thiel, P. (2014). Zero to one: Notes on startups, or how to build the future. New York,

NY: Crown Business.

Tiwana, A. (2013). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and

strategy (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

59

Vereckey, B. (2019). New fund structures in private equity benefit top-tier investors.

Retrieved from https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/new-fund-

structures-private-equity-benefit-top-tier-investors

Weisul, K. (2016). Venture capital is broken. these women are trying to fix it. Retrieved

from https://www.inc.com/magazine/201611/kimberly-weisul/new-face-of-

funding.html

Weitzman, Martin L. (1998). “Recombinant Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics

113, no. 2 (1998): 331-60.

Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology

into business transformation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio , E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic

growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.