BBDM3093 Entrepreneurship Exam Postmortem - What Happened?

Another exam session finished and done with - now waiting for the Board of Examiners to confirm the set of results. For BBDM3093 Entrepreneurship, this is only the second time that we had the examination. The first time was last semester, the exam being taken by RCA, RIN, and RHR. This round, students from four programmes took the exam - RPA, RLM, REC, and RMK. The outcome is highly satisfactory, in terms of the passing rate (inclusive of coursework), but let us wait for the confirmation by the Board of Examiners before announcing it. As of now, let me just give you a feedback of what you had done for the exam.

Question 1(a) asked on the myths of entrepreneurship. I would say that you have done well, but not excellently. You have demonstrated an understanding of the subject matter as well as the ability to relate to the case study. Your answers are almost too mechanistic to me - explain and relate. Shows that you have studied your notes, listened to your tutors, and read my blogs (ha!!). But, nothing beyond that - you have not read widely, you have not shared your thoughts, you have not been "original". Okay, to be fair to you, you were too bogged down with coursework and you were simply just struggling to stay alive!!! I did come across one script where the candidate wrote one full page for each myth - there's one answer book for the five myths asked. The discussion was so thorough, that I simply had to give full marks. And this candidate managed to provide equally thorough answers for all the questions. One of a kind!!!

Question 1(b) touched on the success factors as experienced by Tan Sri Lim. Some candidates wrote on general success factors which were not related to the case. These candidates got very low marks. The instruction verb used in the question was "evaluate". Just explaining what a particular success factor is, is not sufficient. You should "evaluate" - can an entrepreneur do without this factor; is it really crucial to the success of an entrepreneur? For example, take integrity as a success factor. Besides explaining just briefly what integrity may be, you should also give your view as to what may happen to an organization if the integrity factor is not present. How would it affect relationships with stakeholders? Answers given by many candidates were generally scanty and lack depth. It is important to pay heed to the instruction verb. Otherwise, your answer lacks the adequacy to be awarded an excellent grade.

Question 2(a) required candidates to determine the source of the innovative idea and the type of innovation. There is no right or wrong answer, just that your explanation has to be well-justified. Most candidates picked process needs and perceptual change as the sources. As for type of innovation, many were on the side of invention and synthesis. Whatever, the important thing is to give sound reasons as to why you said it is this or that. Some candidates gave a whole list of possibilities - there is no necessity to do this; the instruction verb is not "discuss". It becomes a discussion if you are exploring so many angles.

Question 2(b) only needed you to outline some ways to create a climate of creativity in an organization. Because the instruction verb is "outline", you are just required to describe some proposals. It is not necessary to give a lengthy explanation. Most candidates were able to get high marks for this question. Still, there were some candidates who gave the stages of creative thinking as the answer!! I wonder what it is in the question that influence them to think that this is what was asked!!! Something not right upstairs!!!

Question 3 asked you to propose a marketing plan in order to increase the number of foreign students. Many who chose to answer this question got below average marks. Some proposals were to increase the student enrollment, which was not what the question wanted. You should propose the marketing goals (must be SMART), the type of segmentation to apply, the target market to focus on, and the marketing mix strategy. Common weaknesses - goals were ambiguous, explaining all types of segmentation, no specific target market, not knowing your products, letting foreign students enjoy government-subsidized fees, and lack of elaboration on promotional strategies. There is a suspicion that candidates running out of time during the exam chose to answer this question because there are no parts, unlike the other questions. Surprisingly, the RPA students, with no foundation in marketing, did quite well in this question and got good marks.

Question 4(a) and (b) asked on the Ansoff Matrix of Growth Strategies. I would say that most candidates answered well in this question. Many were able to propose the appropriate growth strategy for the burger company and followed by an adequate discussion. The other growth strategies were also well-rationalized. Overall marks for the answers to this question were on the high side.

Question 5 - what can I say about this question? LOL!!! Many candidates secured maximum marks for this quantitative question. Those who didn't get high marks for this question - what can I say about you? LOL!!!