| Course | EDO 812 Innovation and Entrepreneurship |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Doctoral corporate entrepreneurship analysis |
| Length | About 1,062 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDO 812 Module 5
The Clinic Nobody Approved: Corporate Entrepreneurship and an Internal Venture Pathway for a Public Extension Service
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDO 812: Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Clinic Nobody Approved: Corporate Entrepreneurship and an Internal Venture Pathway for a Public Extension Service
In the spring of 2021, two soil specialists at Plains State Extension noticed that farmers kept bringing them yield monitor files and sensor printouts they could not interpret. On their own time, the specialists began meeting farmers one evening a week in a county office conference room, using a server borrowed from a campus lab to process the data. Word spread. Within a year a county extension director in the western district had given the clinic a corner of her office and part of an assistant's time, and by the time the dean's office learned of it, the clinic served about 300 farms and had a waiting list. It now has a modest budget line. This paper uses the clinic's story to analyze corporate entrepreneurship at the service and to design a better path for the next venture. The service, the clinic and the figures are invented.
How Internal Ventures Arise
Burgelman (1983) studied six internal corporate ventures in a large diversified firm and developed a process model of how they developed. New ventures began as autonomous strategic behavior by people at the operational level, who pursued opportunities outside the firm's current strategy, often without formal approval. Middle managers played the critical role: they recognized promising initiatives, provided resources and protection and argued for them to top management, a process Burgelman called strategic context determination, in which the venture's place in the firm's strategy was negotiated. Top management's role was mainly retroactive, rationalizing successful autonomous initiatives by incorporating them into the strategy after the fact. Burgelman argued that this autonomous process was a source of strategic renewal that formal planning could not provide.
The clinic followed the model closely. The specialists acted autonomously, outside any approved program. The county director acted as the middle-level sponsor, supplying space and staff time and vouching for the clinic to her district leader. The dean's office recognized the clinic only after it had proven itself and then wrote it into the service's strategic plan as an example of digital agriculture.
Entrepreneurship as Organizational Behavior
Covin and Slevin (1991) proposed that entrepreneurship be studied as a behavior of the firm rather than only as a trait of individuals. Their model linked an organization's entrepreneurial posture, its tendency toward risk taking, innovation and proactive action, to the external environment, to strategic variables such as mission and competitive tactics and to internal variables such as culture, structure and top management values, and connected posture to performance. Because posture can be observed in what the organization does, it can also be changed by leaders.
Seen this way, the clinic's survival depended less on the specialists' personalities than on what the organization did and did not do. It did nothing to help the clinic start, and a county director happened to protect it. A service that wants more ventures cannot rely on such luck.
Entrepreneurial Orientation at the Service
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) clarified the concept of entrepreneurial orientation as the processes, practices and decision-making activities that lead to new entry. They described five dimensions: autonomy, independent action to bring forward an idea; innovativeness, the tendency to support new ideas and experimentation; risk taking, willingness to commit resources to uncertain ventures; proactiveness, acting in anticipation of future needs; and competitive aggressiveness, challenging rivals directly. They argued that the dimensions can vary independently and that the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance depends on the organization's environment and structure.
The last dimension needs comment. A public extension service exists partly to serve farmers private advisers will not serve profitably, so aggressive competition with those advisers would conflict with its mission. Lumpkin and Dess's contingency argument supports adapting the construct: for this organization, the relevant dimensions are the first four.
| Dimension | Rating at the service | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | Low | The clinic began without approval; staff report no route for proposing new programs |
| Innovativeness | High | Educators experiment within programs constantly |
| Risk taking | Low | No funds for uncertain projects; failures draw legislative questions |
| Proactiveness | Mixed | Some districts anticipate needs, others wait for requests |
| Competitive aggressiveness | Poor fit | The service competes for farmers' attention with private advisers but avoids open rivalry |
An Internal Venture Pathway
| Stage | What happens | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal | Any employee submits a one-page idea at any time | District leader within thirty days |
| Seed | Up to $15,000 and 10% of the proposer's time for one year | District leader with a named sponsor |
| Sponsorship | A middle-level sponsor commits to protect and advocate for the venture | Sponsor and proposer |
| Review | At two years, continue, expand, fold into a program or close | Associate dean with sponsor |
| Learning | Closed ventures report what was learned, without penalty | Shared across districts |
What the Pathway Must Not Do
A pathway can smother what it is meant to encourage. If the proposal form grows to ten pages, if district leaders treat it as a gate rather than an invitation, or if every venture must fit the current strategic plan, the autonomous behavior Burgelman described will retreat to evenings and borrowed servers again. Three safeguards follow. The one-page limit is fixed in policy. A district leader who declines a proposal must say why in writing, and the proposer may take it to another district's leader instead. And at least two of each year's eight seed grants are reserved for ideas outside the strategic plan, keeping room for the kind of venture that would never have been proposed from the top.
Risk and Accountability
A public service spending tax dollars on ventures that may fail faces scrutiny. The pathway limits exposure with small grants, about $120,000 a year across eight ventures, and frames closed ventures as planned experiments with documented lessons. Reporting the portfolio as a whole, rather than defending each venture separately, makes occasional failures easier to explain to legislators and the university.
Conclusion
The farm data clinic succeeded through autonomous initiative and a middle-level sponsor, exactly as Burgelman's process model predicts, and despite an organization that offered neither autonomy nor tolerance for risk. Covin and Slevin show that entrepreneurship is organizational behavior that leaders can shape, and Lumpkin and Dess's dimensions, adapted for a public service, show where the service falls short. An internal venture pathway with seed funds, named sponsors and a two-year review can make the next clinic a product of design rather than chance.
References
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223-244. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392619
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568
Reading the EDO 812 Module 5 assignment instructions
Corporate entrepreneurship is the subject of EDO 812's fifth module, and the assignment generally wants an account of how new ventures arise inside an established organization and how leaders can encourage them. Treat your Module 5 classroom instructions as binding; the service and clinic are fictional. Describe how entrepreneurship currently happens in the organization, using a case. Explain it with a model of internal venturing. Assess the organization's entrepreneurial orientation. Consider how the organization's public or nonprofit status changes the analysis. Design structures or processes that would support future ventures, citing journal articles in APA 7 form.
Inside the EDO 812 Module 5 example
Two soil specialists began helping farmers interpret yield monitor and sensor data on their own time in 2021, using a borrowed server and a county office's conference room. By the time the dean's office learned of it, the clinic had a waiting list. Burgelman (Administrative Science Quarterly) explains the pattern: an autonomous initiative from below, a middle manager who sponsored it and a top level that recognized it only after it succeeded. Covin and Slevin (Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice) frame entrepreneurship as the service's behavior, not only the specialists' personalities. Lumpkin and Dess (Academy of Management Review) supply the five dimensions; the assessment rates the service high on innovativeness, low on autonomy and risk taking and mixed on proactiveness, and notes that competitive aggressiveness fits a public service poorly. The pathway offers small seed grants, a named sponsor for each venture and a two-year review.
EDO 812 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Corporate entrepreneurship papers earn credit when a model explains an actual case and the recommendations address what the model reveals. This example uses Burgelman's process model to explain the clinic step by step, showing why it survived despite the organization rather than because of it. The orientation assessment rates each of Lumpkin and Dess's dimensions with evidence and questions whether one dimension suits a public service, which is the kind of critical adaptation doctoral work requires. Covin and Slevin keep the focus on organizational behavior. The pathway design is specific about money, sponsorship and review, and it preserves the bottom-up energy the case showed.
EDO 812 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Papers on corporate entrepreneurship often describe an innovative culture in general terms without analyzing how a real venture began and survived. Use a case and trace it through a process model. Another weakness is applying entrepreneurial orientation dimensions without checking whether each fits the organization; public and nonprofit organizations may not compete aggressively at all. Avoid recommending a central innovation office that would replace the autonomous initiatives that produced the case. Specify how ventures will be funded, sponsored and reviewed. Finally, address risk honestly, since public organizations face scrutiny when ventures fail, and say how a closed venture's lessons will be kept.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDO 812 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDO 812 Module 1: Defining Innovation and Entrepreneurship
- EDO 812 Module 2: Theories of Innovation
- EDO 812 Module 3: Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations
- EDO 812 Module 4: Entrepreneurship and Opportunity
- EDO 812 Module 6: Leadership for Innovation
- EDO 812 Module 7: Systems and Structures That Sustain Innovation
- EDO 812 Module 8: An Innovation Leadership Plan
- EDN 818 Module 8: Ethics of a Health Care Innovation
- EDN 812 Module 3: Negligence, Malpractice and Crime
- EDO 818 Module 1: Culture and Leadership
- EDO 820 Module 7: Preventing Dysfunctional Leadership
EDO 812 Module 5 questions, answered
What does EDO 812 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDO 812 covers corporate entrepreneurship in this module, so analyzing how new ventures arise inside an established organization and how leaders can encourage them is typical. Read the Module 5 prompt.
What is internal corporate venturing?
Creating new businesses or programs inside an existing organization; Burgelman found such ventures often begin as autonomous initiatives below top management.
What are the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation?
Lumpkin and Dess named autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness.
Where can I find a free EDO 812 Module 5 sample paper?
Above, free and complete: corporate entrepreneurship in an invented extension service, with an orientation assessment and an internal venture pathway.
Can public organizations be entrepreneurial?
Yes. Covin and Slevin's view of entrepreneurship as organizational behavior applies, though some dimensions, such as aggressive competition, may fit poorly.