Skip to content
BUSI1764Study Hub

Search the study hub

Weeks, sections, frameworks, cases, key terms and course files

30% of the module1,000 words

Learning Diary

Individual learning diary (report)

Choose one venture run by an Ashoka Fellow in a South American, African or Asian country. In 1,000 words, explain why, in your opinion, the venture is innovative and how it could be internationalised into a new market as an SME.

The diary is analytical and reflective at the same time. You classify the venture’s type of entrepreneurship, isolate one innovative element, name its type and level, and then show how the tutorial mini-cases in Weeks 1–5 (and your COIL team work) shaped the way you spotted innovation.

The last part is a cross-border plan: a named new market, the type of SME and innovation that fit it, the most appropriate entry mode, the adaptations needed (the brief suggests the TOE-I framework) and the partners involved.

Every concept must come from the module’s teaching resources. Support claims with a mix of the venture’s own information (Ashoka profile and website), contextual data such as country statistics, and academic references, all in Harvard style.

Learning outcomes assessed

  • LO1Synthesise and interpret entrepreneurship theories to develop innovative solutions for enhancing international competitiveness.
  • LO2Critically evaluate the market entry strategies that entrepreneurs can follow to internationalise their operations.

Requirements checklist

Tick each item once your draft covers it. Saved on this device.

0 of 18 done

Rules

Conditions every submission must meet.
  • Region rule: the venture must be run by an Ashoka Fellow in a South American, African or Asian country. Do not select ventures from the EU or from outside these regions.
  • Module theories only: “Do not use any concepts, theories, or frameworks that are outside the scope of the module. All concepts must be drawn from the module’s teaching resources.”
  • Sources: combine primary sources (the venture’s Ashoka profile and website), contextual data (e.g. country statistics) and academic references, and use only reliable sources. The top band for Venture Selection and Analysis mentions “a wide range of reliable sources, including social media”.
  • Referencing: Harvard style, in the text and in a reference list. Referencing support is available from the Academic Study Hub (gre.ac.uk/academicskills).
  • Length and pass mark: maximum 1,000 words; pass mark 50%. To pass the module you need an overall mark of 50% across all assessments.
  • Own work: coursework is marked on the understanding that it is your own work and has not, in whole or in part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Acknowledge all material from other sources in line with the University’s regulations on Assessment Misconduct. COIL is a team activity, so reflect on it in your own words.
  • Resit: if you are offered a resit, the mark is capped at 50% unless extenuation has been granted. Revise your work using the feedback and add a 200-word reflection at the start explaining the changes made or lessons learned. If it is your first submission because you did not submit before, state that clearly instead of writing the reflection.
  • Deadline: 12 October 2026 (Module Handbook). Some slides show deadlines from earlier cohorts — ignore them.

Plan and word budget

6 sections · 1,000 words planned of 1,000
Word budget by section
  1. 1. The venture at a glance150 words · 15%
  2. 2. What type of entrepreneurship — and what it is not150 words · 15%
  3. 3. One innovative element: type and level250 words · 25%
  4. 4. What the tutorials taught me about spotting innovation150 words · 15%
  5. 5. Taking the venture abroad as an SME250 words · 25%
  6. 6. Conclusion50 words · 5%

  1. 1. The venture at a glance

    150 words

    Show the marker you chose an eligible venture and understand how it works before you analyse it.

    What to include

    • The Fellow’s name, the venture’s name, the country and the region (South America, Africa or Asia).
    • Nature and size of the business: small or medium, family firm, social enterprise, non-profit or for-profit.
    • The product or service, who benefits and who pays for it.
    • Two or three sources of different kinds: the Ashoka profile, the venture website or social media, and one contextual statistic about the problem it tackles.

    Theories to use

    Earns marks for

    Venture Selection and Analysis

  2. 2. What type of entrepreneurship — and what it is not

    150 words

    Classify the venture with a module definition, then rule out the other three types one by one.

    What to include

    • One sentence naming the type, backed by its module definition.
    • Evidence from the venture that matches the definition (mission, main drive, how surplus is used).
    • One sentence each on why it is not the other three types, each with its own definition and source.
    • If the venture has a secondary flavour (e.g. environmental side-benefits), say why the primary classification still holds.

    Theories to use

    Earns marks for

    Entrepreneurial ClassificationApplication of Theories

  3. 3. One innovative element: type and level

    250 words

    Isolate a single innovation, classify it, rule out the other types and place it on the innovation-level spectrums.

    What to include

    • Describe the one element precisely (a specific model, process, service or product — not the whole organisation).
    • Name its type using the module definition and show the fit with evidence from the venture.
    • Rule out each of the other three types in turn: what would have to be true for it to be that type, and why it is not.
    • State the level on each spectrum you use — incremental to radical, new to a firm or region to new to the world, sustaining to disruptive — and give a reason for each.
    • Optionally frame it as Schumpeter’s recombination of existing elements.

    Theories to use

    Earns marks for

    Innovation AnalysisApplication of Theories

  4. 4. What the tutorials taught me about spotting innovation

    150 words

    Connect how your group identified innovation in the Weeks 1–5 mini-cases to the innovation in your Ashoka venture.

    What to include

    • One or two specific mini-cases, e.g. Dialogue Social Enterprises, RUR Greenlife, Ooni or Calendly (Week 1), Airbnb or Toyota (Week 2), Lammsbräu or Grameen (Week 4), the Keurig soda machine, Rent the Runway or the Infant Warmer (Week 5).
    • What your group identified as innovative, which innovation you judged most impactful and why.
    • The theory or tool you used in the tutorial (PESTEL, Business Model Canvas, innovation types) and what it revealed.
    • An explicit link: how that discussion helped you see the innovation in your venture. COIL insights can be added here.

    Theories to use

    Earns marks for

    Cross-Border Transfer ReflectionInnovation AnalysisApplication of Theories

  5. 5. Taking the venture abroad as an SME

    250 words

    Give a concrete, theory-backed plan for transferring the innovation to one named new market.

    What to include

    • The named target country and why it fits: a short PESTEL screen and psychic distance from the home market.
    • The type of SME the venture would enter as (e.g. small or medium social enterprise) and the type of innovation it would carry.
    • The most appropriate entry mode, with its trade-offs against at least one alternative (e.g. licensing or social franchising vs joint venture vs wholly-owned subsidiary vs digital entry).
    • The adaptations and resources needed for entry (the brief suggests organising these with the TOE-I framework).
    • Key partners and who supports the internationalisation in the new market, justified with network theory.

    Theories to use

    Earns marks for

    Cross-Border Transfer ReflectionApplication of Theories

  6. 6. Conclusion

    50 words

    Close the argument in two or three sentences.

    What to include

    • Restate the classification, the innovation (type and level) and the entry plan in one line each.
    • No new material or sources.

    Earns marks for

    Application of Theories

Marking rubric

5 criteria · open one to see every band
Weight of each criterion
  1. Venture Selection and Analysis20%
  2. Innovation Analysis25%
  3. Cross-Border Transfer Reflection25%
  4. Entrepreneurial Classification15%
  5. Application of Theories15%

What good work does

Drawn from the sample works.

  • The classification paragraph is a model of “is / is not”: it argues ecopreneurship with Schaltegger (2002), then rules out social entrepreneurship (Dees, 1998), intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003) and international entrepreneurship (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005) in one sourced sentence each.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 1

  • It isolates one element (the Cacu Project), calls it process innovation, and then rules out product, business model and service innovation one by one before stating the level (incremental and new to the region) and why it is neither radical nor disruptive.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 1

  • The internationalisation section lists concrete adaptations (cultural attitudes to wildlife, local ecology, partner networks), chooses strategic alliances with local organisations as the entry mode and justifies it with network theory and Uppsala psychic distance.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 1

  • The overview answers the brief’s inventory quickly — founder, year, city, legal form, main service, partner universities — drawing on both the Ashoka profile and the venture’s own website.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 2

  • It anchors the Uppsala argument in a real fact from the Ashoka profile (the founder’s links with the Black movement in Colombia), showing a psychically close first market rather than a hypothetical one.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 2

  • Lecture learning is made visible and referenced: mini-lectures are cited in Harvard style (lecturer, year, Mini-Lecture number, BUSI1764, University of Greenwich, unpublished), and a tutorial mini-case (Calendly) opens the innovation discussion.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 2

Common pitfalls

What went wrong, and how to fix it.

  • Issue: It names several innovations — product innovation, an incremental level, then process innovation as “most impactful” — instead of one element with one type.

    Fix: Choose one element, give it one type and one level per spectrum, and use the other types only to say why they do not fit.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 2

  • Issue: The “not international entrepreneurship” point is a single sentence (activities “currently focused” on Brazil) with no definition.

    Fix: Finish every “not” argument with the module definition (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005) and one piece of evidence from the venture.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 2

  • Issue: The internationalisation part picks digital entry for cost reasons but names no SME type and no partners for the entry, and mentions adaptation only in passing (content in other languages).

    Fix: Cover all four elements the rubric names — SME type, entry mode, adaptations (TOE-I) and key partners — for one named market.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 2

  • Issue: The target market stays vague (“other areas”, “within South America”), so the entry mode cannot be tested against a real context.

    Fix: Name one country, screen it with PESTEL and psychic distance, and make the entry mode and adaptations specific to it.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 1

  • Issue: The tutorial reflection is brief: one mini-case, no account of how the group decided what was “most impactful”.

    Fix: Use the handbook template: which case, what the group identified, why it was most impactful, which theory you applied, and how it maps onto your venture.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 1

  • Issue: Some citations do not match the module sources — e.g. Schumpeter (1947) is listed as The Theory of Economic Development, while the slides cite it as “The creative response in economic history” — and several authors (e.g. Christensen et al., 2015; Schilling, 2020) are not the sources the slides use.

    Fix: Check each theory and reference against the slides’ own citations; where the slide gives the definition, cite that author or the mini-lecture itself.

    From Learning Diary — Sample 1

Templates

Copy a frame, then replace every {placeholder} with your own evidence.

Tutorial reflection template (Module Handbook)

“During the tutorial, my group and I worked through the {XXX} mini case and identified {YYY} as innovative due to {ZZZ}. We discussed that {YYY} was most impactful innovation because… Reflecting on {XXX theory/framework}, we concluded that {YYY} enables... In the case of {Ashoka Venture} ”

Longer tutorial reflection template (Week 4 tutorial slides)

“During the tutorial my group and I worked through {XXX} case and we thought that {XXX} was innovative because of the way they did {YYY}, but we also discussed that {ZZZ} was quite innovative of them. We discussed that {YYY} was most impactful because of ______. Thinking about {XXX theory} we came to the decision that {YYY} enables ____. In the case of {Ashoka Venture}…”

Entrepreneurship type: why it is — and why it is not the others

IS: {Venture} is best classified as {type} because {evidence from the venture}, which matches {author}’s definition of {type} as {short definition} ({Author, year}). NOT SOCIAL: It is not social entrepreneurship because its main drive is {x}, not the pursuit of social improvement over profit (Dees, 1998). NOT ECOPRENEURSHIP: It is not ecopreneurship because environmental performance is {supplementary to / absent from} its core business rather than central to it (Schaltegger, 2002). NOT INTRAPRENEURSHIP: It is not intrapreneurship because {venture} was founded independently, not as entrepreneurship within an existing organisation (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003). NOT INTERNATIONAL: It is not (yet) international entrepreneurship because it does not discover, evaluate and exploit opportunities across national borders; its activities are confined to {country} (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005).

Innovation type: why this type and not the others

The most innovative element of {venture} is {one specific element}. It is {type} innovation because it {changes how the venture creates, delivers and captures value / redesigns how the service is produced or delivered / is a new or significantly improved product / changes the service experience for users} ({source}). It is not product innovation because {no new or significantly improved product is involved / the product is only a tool}. It is not process innovation because {the internal way of producing or delivering is unchanged}. It is not business model innovation because {revenue streams, customer relationships and key activities stay the same}. It is not service innovation because {the service delivered to end users is unchanged}.

Innovation level: one reason per spectrum

Incremental–radical: {element} is {incremental/radical} because it {refines existing practice / introduces an entirely new way of doing business}. New to a firm or region–new to the world: it is new to {region/the world} because {evidence, e.g. Ashoka describes it as the first in…}. Sustaining–disruptive: it is {sustaining/disruptive} because it {improves performance along dimensions mainstream users already value / starts in a niche with a simpler, cheaper or more convenient offer that could displace established providers}.

Internationalisation paragraph frame

Market: {Venture} could enter {country} because {two PESTEL factors}; its psychic distance from {home country} is {low/high} because {language, culture, institutions} (Vahlne and Johanson, 2017). SME type: it would enter as a {small/medium} {social enterprise/family firm/INV} carrying its {type} innovation. Entry mode: {mode} is most appropriate because {control, cost, risk, local knowledge}; {alternative mode} is less suitable because {reason}. Adaptations (TOE-I): {what must change in the solution, the organisation and its resources, and in response to the local environment}. Partners: {named partner types} would supply {resources, legitimacy, access}, consistent with network theory (Johanson and Mattsson, 1988).

Harvard: citing lecture and tutorial slides (adapted from Sample Diary 2’s format)

Format: Surname, Initial. (Year) Mini-Lecture X.Y: Title, BUSI1764 Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation. University of Greenwich, unpublished. Example: Costales, E. (2026a) Mini-Lecture 1.1: Entrepreneurship and Innovation, BUSI1764 Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation. University of Greenwich, unpublished. Example: Mujakperuo, S.O. (2026) Mini-Lecture 7.1: International Market Entry Strategies, BUSI1764 Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation. University of Greenwich, unpublished. Tutorial: Mujakperuo, S.O. (2026) Week 1 Tutorial: Main Theories of International Business and International Entrepreneurship, BUSI1764 Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation. University of Greenwich, unpublished. In text: (Costales, 2026a). Add a, b, c… when you cite several decks by the same lecturer in the same year. Year: use the year the slides were delivered to you (Sample Diary 2 uses 2024, the year of its cohort).

Harvard: Ashoka profile, venture website, journal article

Ashoka profile: Ashoka (Year or n.d.) {Fellow’s name}. Available at: {URL} (Accessed: {day month year}). Venture website: {Venture} (Year or n.d.) {Page title}. Available at: {URL} (Accessed: {day month year}). Journal article: Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (2005) ‘Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), pp. 537–553. In text: (Ashoka, n.d.); (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005).

Who presented which deck (for slide citations)

Dr Emilio Costales: Mini-Lectures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2; Tutorial 2 (Innovation and Global Competitiveness); Tutorial 4 case deck (Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change). Dr Munazzah Iqbal: Mini-Lecture 2.3. Dr Sylvester O. Mujakperuo: Week 1, 4 (revised), 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 tutorials; Mini-Lectures 6.1, 7.1 and 9.2; Week 8, 11 and 12 lectures. No presenter shown on the slides: Mini-Lectures 3.1–3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.2, 7.2 and 9.1, the Week 10 lecture, and the Week 3 and Week 6 tutorials. Sample Diary 2 attributes Mini-Lecture 7.2 to Mujakperuo; confirm the author with your tutor.

Resit opening reflection (200 words)

Resit reflection (200 words, placed at the start): 1. The main feedback I received was {…}. 2. In response I changed {section} by {…}, because {…}. 3. I also changed {…}. 4. The main lesson I take from this is {…}. If this is your first submission because you did not submit before, state that clearly instead of writing this reflection.

FAQs

Venture shortlist

5 candidate ventures compared
  1. 1.

    Lumni

    Felipe VergaraColombia

    Innovation
    Business model innovation: Lumni finances a student’s tuition in exchange for a share of their future income over a fixed period (an income share agreement, or human-capital contract), instead of a conventional loan. Your research suggests the level is radical or new to the region once it is taken to the target market.
    Market entry
    Vietnam, through a strategic alliance or pilot with a university or bootcamp and an impact investor. Adaptations to plan with TOE-I: education-finance regulation, protection of income data, repayment collection, student selection criteria and a cap on the income share.
    Why choose it
    Ranked first in your research. One central innovation makes the “why not product, process or service” argument easy, and there are several sources (Ashoka, the Lumni website, the IDB and the World Economic Forum). Ashoka describes Lumni as a node linking schools, investors and students; its website reports more than 24,000 students. It classifies cleanly as social entrepreneurship. One source places Lumni in Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile — choose a market outside these.
  2. 2.

    Digital Green (Farmer.Chat)

    Rikin GandhiIndia

    Innovation
    Service innovation: Farmer.Chat gives farmers localised advice through AI, using voice, text and images. The value is timely advice in the farmer’s own language and format; the AI is only the delivery infrastructure. Focus on Farmer.Chat alone, not on the whole of Digital Green.
    Market entry
    Vietnam, through a partnership-based pilot with cooperatives, agribusinesses, the agricultural extension service and mobile network operators. Adaptations: local agronomic data, Vietnamese language and regional accents, trust, digital literacy, checking AI answers and farmers’ data rights.
    Why choose it
    Your strongest technology and AI option. The venture has reached nearly 8.2 million farmers, and its 2025 annual report gives usage and practice-change data and says Farmer.Chat is used in India, Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria. The hard part is drawing the line between service and product innovation. One source in your research says Digital Green began as a project within Microsoft, so address this when arguing it is not intrapreneurship.
  3. 3.

    Quest Alliance

    Aakash SethiIndia

    Innovation
    Service innovation: self-learning and 21st-century-skills programmes that put learners’ voice and choice at the centre, delivered within public schools and ITIs (industrial training institutes). It changes the learner’s experience and capabilities rather than selling a tangible product; digital tools are only the means.
    Market entry
    Vietnam, through curriculum licensing and a strategic partnership or joint programme with vocational (TVET) institutions. TOE-I adaptations: digital infrastructure, teacher capability, curriculum autonomy, acceptance of self-learning, employer links and ways of measuring long-term employability.
    Why choose it
    The most balanced education–employment option. Ashoka confirms Aakash Sethi as a Fellow (since August 2019) and describes the programme as shifting the focus from short-term job placement to learning capability and long-term life outcomes. A recent annual report (2024–25) provides current data.
  4. 4.

    Digital Empowerment Foundation

    Osama ManzarIndia

    Innovation
    Process or business model innovation: community-owned digital infrastructure run with local “digital foot soldiers” and local resource centres. Pick exactly one of these elements for the diary.
    Market entry
    Indonesia, through partnership or licensing with community organisations and local government.
    Why choose it
    Ranked third in your research and strong for digital inclusion. Ashoka confirms Manzar as a Fellow and describes the community-owned model; UNESCO records more than 35 million people reached and over 2,000 centres. The risk is a sprawling answer — isolate one innovation, and argue the SME framing carefully given its scale.
  5. 5.

    RLabs

    Marlon ParkerSouth Africa

    Innovation
    Business model innovation: the “HOPE economy” model, which combines training, incubation, entrepreneurship and a social currency.
    Market entry
    The Philippines or Vietnam, through social franchising with youth hubs.
    Why choose it
    Ranked fifth in your research and a strong case for replication, networks and localisation. Ashoka confirms Parker as a Fellow and describes RLabs using information technology so that vulnerable young people create technology solutions. RLabs reports activity in 24 countries on 5 continents, so choose a market it has not entered and justify treating the expansion as an SME entry.

Related files

BUSI1764 Module Handbook 2026–27 (FA26)Module Handbook · DOCX · 25 pages · 0.1 MBLearning Diary — Sample 1Sample work · PDF · 5 pages · 0.2 MBLearning Diary — Sample 2Sample work · PDF · 6 pages · 0.2 MB