Curriculum design with MIT ENT Educators

[hyunjimoon]

participants: MIT designX, Scott Stern, Erin Scott,

• diagramming, probabilistic reasoning,

---

goal: launch sub-organization database (person, company) conditioned on organization (e.g. designX, delta-v) for initiating its reinforcement loop.

reinforcement loop: more samples of entrepreneurs, the smaller selection bias. smaller selection bias leads to better quality of (generalizable) education, and increases the sample of entrepreneur that succeeds and return to share insights (esp. on operational decision making)

mechanism of learning:

• initial: webinar offering operations and ai for startups
• update: re-training organized based on LinkedIn organization (where person are connected with company)

action:

1. what event would be most helpful for entrepreneurs?

• networking and discussing directions (how did the engine organize the ecosystem - Fiona's help?)
• the event should put more focus on entrepreneurs (longer duration), than startups

2. how can database reveal pivots?

• entrepreneurial level: post-delta-v data exists - change of industry?
• startup level: change of strategy which we can teach from re-education (disruptor, architectural, value chain, IP)?
• how to embed ten keywords from Charlie's paper as database columns?

[hyunjimoon]

survey edit: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1gnKYKkmE7fkHzXTc9u5yAIhJcq1fmN4n3tt-5Y60YfY/edit

survey: https://forms.gle/yaoFWD22FGsCniZA9

Different snakes (supply-nailers vs demand-nailers) can be implemented via google form's go to section based on answers function (right).

So far the survey includes scaling tools part and I wonder what the best way to:

1. weave the tools with business model features (customer, technology, organization, product, competition) we've discussed.
2. order the tools in the survey

For 1, am trying to learning compass team's language to equip it with Charlie's tools
15.911 syllabus

[hyunjimoon]

Frank Pawlitschek's feedback on pivoting intervention level

Feedback from Frank on pivoting intervention level was helpful in developing my pivoting theory and tool. His startup ubitricity started at a larger scope intervention such as developing an EV meter, kept him from flexibly adapting to the new opportunities after his idea of turning lamp posts into EV charge points went viral. choose problem level.png is Frank's diagram to explain, to intervention level (triggered by my question of how ubitricity adapted operationally reacting to that virality). Learning startup operational examples of "level of intervention" (system vs product) was insightful which are relevant to concepts from book power and prediction (e.g. glued vs oiled system) and value chain vs architectural strategy proposed by Scott Stern/Joshua Gans' team.

[hyunjimoon]

formalizing REID'S THEORIES ON EMBRACING PLAN B (shift, switch, swerve, reboot, rebound)

• shift: Even the most focused entrepreneurs who are pursuing a particular vision must constantly shift and adjust to changes in technology, market, or the world in general. Pivoting in this way doesn't mean girving up on the vision: in fact, they're often more

• switch: Pivots often ocour within an existing business: for example, when the company switches from one strategy to a different one. It's important to get early feedback on changes like this or at least communicate those changes to as many of your stakeholders as you can before you flip the switch.

• swerve: Some pivots are reactions to an unexpected development: a new problem or opportunity that suddenly manifests itself. It might be blocking the path forward, requiring a deft sideways maneuver to avoid a crash, or it could be something compelling that has cropped up on the side of the road. You may find it's worth swerving to investigate and perhaps pursue this new possibility.

• reboot: A pivot can sometimes not often, but sometimes--be a complete departure from the original mission of the company. A total reboot like that can work, but it rarely goes off without some bumps.

• rebound: Pivoting in a crisis, Crises can cause some unwelcome pivots. But they also can offer opportunities to learn, experiment, and make improvements to your our cent business. So, even while navigating a crisis, look toward the future one ask questions like Within these constraints, what are the newer and creative possibilities? How can we make our business more flexible, and stronger, over the long run?"

to express this with mathethical three levels for operational, strategic, dynamic strategy (need better name) pivot:

• Operational Adjustment (Equation 1):

  • The shift
  • The swerve

• Strategic Realignment (Equation 2):

  • The switch

• Dynamic Strategy Adaptation (Equation 3):

  • The reboot
  • The rebound

claude's reason behind mapping:

1. Operational Adjustment- Shift↗ and Swere: they involve making smaller, tactical changes in response to market conditions, technological changes, or unexpected developments. These adjustments don't fundamentally change the business model or core strategy but optimize operations within the existing framework.

2. Strategic Realignment ~ Switch🎛️: they involve a more significant change in strategy while maintaining the overall vision or desirability theory (D). This could involve switching from one business strategy to another, potentially affecting multiple aspects of the business but not changing the fundamental mission (example??).

3. Dynamic Strategy Adaptation ~ :
   This highest level of pivot encompasses "The reboot" and "The rebound". It involves a comprehensive reevaluation and potential overhaul of the business, including its core mission, strategy, and operations. This level of pivot is often triggered by major crises or significant shifts in the business environment.

It's worth noting that these categories are not strictly mutually exclusive. For example, a "rebound" during a crisis might involve elements of all three levels - operational adjustments, strategic realignment, and potentially a full dynamic adaptation of the business model. The framework in the screenshot provides a more formalized, quantitative approach to these pivot decisions, allowing for a structured way to incorporate new information and balance between exploiting current knowledge and exploring new possibilities at each level of pivot.

[hyunjimoon]

claude mapping formal pivot model with reid's pivot

1. Operational Adjustment (Equation 1):
   This level aligns most closely with "The shift" and "The swerve". It involves making smaller, tactical changes in response to market conditions, technological changes, or unexpected developments. These adjustments don't fundamentally change the business model or core strategy but optimize operations within the existing framework.

2. Strategic Realignment (Equation 2):
   This level corresponds well with "The switch". It involves a more significant change in strategy while maintaining the overall vision or desirability theory. This could involve switching from one business strategy to another, potentially affecting multiple aspects of the business but not changing the fundamental mission.

3. Dynamic Strategy Adaptation (Equation 3):
   This highest level of pivot encompasses "The reboot" and "The rebound". It involves a comprehensive reevaluation and potential overhaul of the business, including its core mission, strategy, and operations. This level of pivot is often triggered by major crises or significant shifts in the business environment.

Here's how they map:

• Operational Adjustment (Equation 1):

  • The shift
  • The swerve

• Strategic Realignment (Equation 2):

  • The switch

• Dynamic Strategy Adaptation (Equation 3):

  • The reboot
  • The rebound

It's worth noting that these categories are not strictly mutually exclusive. For example, a "rebound" during a crisis might involve elements of all three levels - operational adjustments, strategic realignment, and potentially a full dynamic adaptation of the business model. The framework in the screenshot provides a more formalized, quantitative approach to these pivot decisions, allowing for a structured way to incorporate new information and balance between exploiting current knowledge and exploring new possibilities at each level of pivot.

[hyunjimoon]

bill autlet explains in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dlhuq4VtrY&t=2364s&ab_channel=MITSloanExecutiveEducation
ENT is mindset, skillset, way of operating

[hyunjimoon]

In 15.339, Angie Moon, Amy Han, Ariel Flasterstein, Cathy Wang, Tomas Guiloff, Mike S presented Make entrepreneurship MIT’s DNA.pdf which discusses making entrepreneurship part of MIT's DNA. The speaker begins with Uncle Ben's quote "great power comes with great responsibility" to emphasize MIT's responsibility to create solutions for the world. The presentation outlines MIT's advantages:

1. Culture: Including "Mens et Manus" philosophy, commitment to excellence, risk-taking mindset
2. Talent: World-class faculty, exceptional students, Nobel laureates
3. Infrastructure: Over 85 innovation programs, Martin Trust Center, research facilities

However, the speaker identifies a key gap: lack of a cohesive, interdepartmental approach to entrepreneurship. Currently, there are 143 courses across 21 programs with different approaches to teaching entrepreneurship (e.g., Bill Aulet's practice-driven vs. Scott Stern's theory-driven approach).

The proposed strategy includes:

• Building a coalition with key stakeholders (MIT President, Deans, Bill Aulet & MTC, Students)
• Implementing broadly-themed entrepreneurship classes with mixed student backgrounds
• Organizing demo days and pitch competitions
• Creating lasting networks across disciplines

Q&A:

1. Q: What challenges do you expect in requiring students to take entrepreneurship classes?
   A: Viewed as another core skill requirement; execution is key to avoid issues like those faced with other requirements.

2. Q: Clarification about definition of entrepreneurship?
   A: Used Stevenson's definition: "pursuit of opportunity in our resource control"

3. Q: Question about quality vs. quantity of startups?
   A: Goal is teaching problem-solving approach, not just creating startups

4. Q: Comment about diverse practice and theory approaches
   A: Different perspectives can be strength, but need common foundation

5. Q: Advantage of making it required?
   A: Creates meaningful connections through working together on problems, better than casual networking

6. Q: Analogy provided about English classes
   A: Like English education, entrepreneurship's importance may not be apparent initially but proves valuable later

7. Q: Push back about entrepreneurship teaching
   A: Speaker argued that entrepreneurship teaching helps understand how society works and why laws exist

Instructor of this class (Thomas Malone) said he was skeptical about our argument "make entrepreneurship as requirement in MIT" at first but he changed his mind after our presentation. He think it'd meaningful if MIT could have do this for the first time. He gave advice I would need to get a lot of faculty (+ some Alumni's donation) support to initiate some change.

---

Motivation behind the above was urgency for MIT to develop entrepreneurship. From TBV conference, I felt the momentum in entrepreneurship science among Univ.Bocconi/Utah ($12m)/HEC ($10m)'s union (funded with Andrea Pignataro's donation).

---

Following Thomas' advice, Angie reached out to James Orlin

I'm reaching out to learn from your experience in implementing core curriculum changes at MIT. During Professor Tom Malone's IAP course (15.339 Developing Leadership Capabilities), six students shared the passion to transform MIT's entrepreneurship education based on our unsatisfactory experience. Professor Malone thought to move forward with this initiative, learning the history of computational thinking as a core course initiative might be helpful and mentioned you might know more about its history. We're particularly interested in learning from the history of the computational thinking initiative's journey, as we see interesting parallels with our current efforts. We'd love to learn: 1) The process of building faculty support for curriculum change, 2) What strategies were effective and ineffective in the implementation process

---

James answered that he was not involved in the process of implementation and was not aware of any strategies that were used, or even if there were efforts to implement it. He mentioned that he had been on a committee that was tasked with making a recommendation concerning a computational thinking requirement. He recalled some anecdotal evidence that suggested to him that the initiative was deeply unpopular within SHASS at that time. He noted that "one faculty member" had argued that most students already took computer science, questioning why MIT should require it.

P.S. If you want to transform MIT’s entrepreneurship education, I suggest that you talk extensively to those who created the entrepreneurship minor. They would have a deep understanding of why they created the minor in the way that they did. They may also have a good understanding of what the minor has or has not achieved.

P.P.S. It’s possible that entrepreneurship education can largely be outside of any degree program. By having entrepreneurship outside of a degree program, you would remove lots of constraints on the type and style of education.

---

Angie's reply:

Thank you for kindly sharing the history. Through your mail, I now have a clearer problem formulation. I'm reaching out to friends in Sloan who created entrepreneurship minor to collect data.

Most students already take computer science. Why should MIT require it?
The quote you introduced is interesting. I disagree. I think MIT should provide handbooks with definitions of the concepts we'd like to acculturate. For example, From the basement to the dome book organizes our cultures as 1. bottom-up, 2.academic excellence, 3.problem-solving, 4.belief in experimenting and tolerance of failure, 5.geek pride, 6.multidisciplinary, 7.desire for impact.

MIT members would have a somewhat overlapping but different sense of our culture and vision. Having it explicitly agreed upon and written down even reciting them would help us preserve them.

P.S. As a member, I'm longing for a unified MIT definition of computational and entrepreneurial thinking!

---

James agreed with me that "one faculty member"'s argument against a computer thinking requirement was not very compelling. He thought that a more accurate reflection of what this person was thinking was that far too many students were taking computer science courses, and there was no way they would support a requirement for the others to take it too.
He mentioned that their study group had produced a report: A computational thinking requirement for MIT undergraduates Report of the working group on computational thinking January 2017

He explained that it was very difficult to give a complete description of what computational thinking was. He pointed out that their attempt had started on page 4. He expressed that while attempting to unify computational and entrepreneurial thinking might lead to some interesting ideas, ultimately, the two concepts were different. He concluded by noting that both were challenging to nail down.

---

Similar report like "MIT version of computational thinking" should be made for "entrepreneurial thinking". As such, I chose five papers and began digesting again by translating them into korean.

• A Perspective on Entrepreneurship (1983 Stevenson)
  Stevenson 1983_A_Perspective_on_Entrepreneurs.pdf's korean translation with my two translator's notes:

Regarding "how," several MIT scholars (Charles Fine, Scott Stern, Thomas Malone) believe that if the entrepreneurial process can be codified/programmed, it can be taught. Charles Fine's "Operations for Entrepreneurs: Can Operations Management Make a Difference in Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice?" is one of the first attempt to approach entrepreneurship from an operations management perspective. This paper will be introduced in the next blog.

In the above translation, entrepreneurship and startup spirit are used as equivalent concepts. Comparing entrepreneurs and businessmen helps explain why entrepreneurship has been "spiritualized." A businessman (Businessman) shows managerial tendencies focusing on efficient use of existing economic resources and stable profit generation. In contrast, an entrepreneur (Entrepreneur) acts as a creative destructor who creates new value through innovation and risk-taking. This distinction was systematized when Richard Cantillon defined the essence of entrepreneurship as risk-taking in the 18th century. In modern times, entrepreneurship has evolved into a comprehensive concept that pursues social value creation and sustainable innovation beyond simple profit-seeking. Through this evolution, the roles have become more clearly distinguished between businessmen who pursue stable management and entrepreneurs who lead innovative value creation.
While the term 'businessperson spirit' doesn't exist, 'entrepreneurship' is commonly used. This shows that entrepreneurship is recognized as a core driver of social development through innovation and challenge beyond simple business acumen, and as a social capability that should be fostered through systematic education and learning.

• Paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management 1990 (Stevenson, Jarillo)

Rank	Citations	Work
1	4.641	Stevenson & Jarillo (1990) A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management
2	4.032	Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern (2006) Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?
3	1.769	Stevenson & Gumpert (1985) The Heart of Entrepreneurship
4	1.390	Stevenson, Roberts, Grousbeck & Liles (1989) New Business Ventures and The Entrepreneur
5	818	Stevenson (1983) A Perspective on Entrepreneurship

• Fine22_OM4Entrep.pdf
• Foundations of entrepreneurial strategy 2019 (Joshua Gans, Scott Stern, Jane Wu)
• Theory-Driven Strategic Management Decisions 2024 (Arnaldo Camuffo; Alfonso Gambardella; , Andrea Pignataro)

[hyunjimoon]

my desired state of entrepreneurs: "I know how to implement imagination as my perception and utility develops"

for this, computational thinking skills with below summary is essential which James Orlin and I diagree on, but I intend to persuade.

Key Components of Computational Thinking (MIT Working Group)

Component	Explanation
Abstraction of Processes	Identifying common patterns across operations, creating generalizable methods applicable to multiple problems.
Abstraction of Data	Recognizing and structuring patterns and relationships in complex data, making it suitable for efficient use.
Decomposition	Breaking complex tasks into simpler, manageable sub-tasks and systematically combining these solutions.
Modularity	Designing solutions as a series of independent, reusable operations that combine to address larger problems.
Iteration and Recursion	Approaching complex problems by repeatedly simplifying them into smaller versions, enabling step-by-step resolution.
Design and Debugging	Developing systematic methods to build, test, refine, and ensure robustness of solutions.
Algorithmic Thinking	Structuring a detailed and logical sequence of steps to address and resolve specific problems effectively.
Modeling Physical & Social Worlds	Creating and interpreting structured representations of real-world systems to understand and manage complexity.
Managing Trade-offs and Complexity	Understanding and balancing trade-offs between detailed accuracy and efficiency in decision-making processes.
Communication of Structured Thought	Clearly articulating processes and relationships in a structured and logical manner to facilitate understanding.

[hyunjimoon]

I applied to mit delta v to learn more about the education and practice.

It's selection criteria are: team, traction, ecosystem engagement, commitment beyond delta v, commitment to cohort. The emphasis on ecosystem engagement and developing together spirit in cohort based system reminds me of bill autlet emphasizing "system dynamics" during ed robert's memorial.

below is the summary of delta v info session with its slide.

• receive intensive and customized coaching (support team)
• develop entrepreneurial skill set (running company)
• broaden your professional network (mentor, guest lecturer; board individual)
• learn from peers and build lasting community
• get exposure at demo day upbeat
• make progress within a safe environment (no conflict of interest)

Monthly timeline

customer (June), product (July), company + pitch readiness (Aug); optional fundraising extension (remote add on)

Weekly timeline

coaching (Mon), workshop + social activity (Tues), office hours + guest speaker (Wed), workshop + guest office hour (Thurs) / no activity (Fri) monthly board meeting

Weekly timeline

⭐️simulated BOARD MEETING (with ~ 5 industry expert e.g. manufacturer, expert, b2b sales)

If I were to choose board members, I need the following to learn about financial structure around the equity

• lawyer with expertise in equity negotiation
• lawyer with expertise in patent
• different investors (vc, angel)
• founders
• lawyer with patent expertise

---

Product Understanding: EquiAI (=SupplyR)

From the Delta V one-pager, EquiAI appears to be a conversational AI tool powered by probabilistic programming that helps startup founders (especially those from underrepresented backgrounds) understand equity valuation and allocation. The product aims to:

1. Help founders construct and communicate their startup's cash value
2. Provide reasoning for equity decisions through probabilistic modeling
3. Balance founder and investor utility functions to identify win-win scenarios
4. Demystify complex financial terms and create comprehensive models of term sheets and cap tables

Feedback Summaries

Amu (Orbit Delta V)

• There's a gap between theory and practice in entrepreneurship that your tool could help address, particularly for founders who don't understand complex terms
• Targeting lawyers might be more effective than targeting founders since they have both knowledge and willingness to pay
• Consider exploring a second market for your tool: helping founders with hiring negotiations, which would be a much larger market

Peter Walker (Carta)

• Your approach seems overly academic for early-stage fundraising, as most founders primarily care about raising quickly on fair terms rather than complex optimization
• Most standard documents like post-money SAFEs already have fair terms; the main variable is typically just the valuation cap
• Instead of continuing to iterate, you should get your tool into the hands of actual founders (not friends) to see what's actually useful to them

Jeff Dotson

• Start with a simpler design to get a proof of concept working first - focus on a small set of attributes with orthogonal manipulation
• The concept of modeling temporal heterogeneity (how investors evaluate startups differently during different economic conditions) is interesting and could be a valuable future direction
• For development/validation, focus on creating clear visualizations of the relationships between different variables in your model

Synthesis of Advice

1. Focus on user validation first: Stop iterating on the theoretical model and get the tool into the hands of actual founders to see what problems they really need solved.

2. Consider expanding your target market:

   • Founders for educational purposes
   • Junior lawyers/VCs as an educational tool
   • Hiring negotiation scenarios

3. Simplify your initial approach:

   • Start with clear, focused use cases
   • Create compelling visualizations to communicate complex relationships
   • Build in steps rather than trying to model everything at once

4. Differentiate from existing tools:

   • Existing calculators like Carta's are descriptive but not prescriptive
   • Your probabilistic approach could add unique value if focused on clear, practical outcomes

For your Delta V application, I would emphasize the practical applications and how you plan to validate with real users, rather than the theoretical underpinnings of the probabilistic programming approach.