MDIA1007 Digital Entrepreneurship
The Complete Study & Assessment Guide · T3 2026MDIA1007 Overview
- UNSW Sydney
- Term 3 2026
- Fully online
- Two assessment tasks
Digital Entrepreneurship is a fully online UNSW Sydney course built around launching and testing a digital venture. The documented weekly journey begins with lean start-up thinking and minimum viable products, then moves through design thinking, unmet needs, risky assumptions, rapid research and a one-page digital prototype.
- Assessment Case Study at 40%, Entrepreneurial Journey at 60%
- Core method Build, measure, learn and revise from evidence
- Hardest step Turn mixed feedback into a bounded decision
- Submission Keep test cards, report, pitch and prototypes consistent
How MDIA1007 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Case Study | 40% | Individual visual slide-deck case study; due at the end of Week 4 in the captured T3 2026 Moodle course |
| Start-Up Proposal and Entrepreneurial Journey | 60% | Individual grade based on group venture work; video pitch, report and test cards, landing pages, leadership and participation; due at the end of Week 10 |
The official 2026 UNSW Handbook lists these two assignments at 40% and 60%. Check the live Moodle task pages for current submission settings and any operational requirements.
Current MDIA1007 dates
| Date | Item | Control |
|---|---|---|
| 11 October 2026 | Case Study due | Sunday 11:55 PM, end of Week 4 |
| 22 November 2026 | Entrepreneurial Journey due | Sunday 11:55 PM, end of Week 10 |
Dates are as published in the T3 2026 Moodle course. Confirm exact deadlines and submission settings in the live LMS.
What MDIA1007 covers
The course follows a venture from a defined customer problem through an MVP, rapid research, a landing-page prototype, two test cycles, an evidence-backed revision and a final pitch. The guide mirrors that journey so each artefact can be traced to the assumption and decision it supports.
Lean Start-Up and Minimum Viable Products
Week 1: launch a focused learning test before the product feels completeThe first chapter turns Week One's accelerated launch into a method for learning. A minimum viable product is treated as a focused test of one important belief, not as a miniature version of every planned feature.
- Learning as the first output of a lean launch
- MVP scope around one consequential belief
- Landing-page roles: problem, solution, explainer and interest signal
- Observable behaviour instead of low-cost approval
- Version records that preserve the evidence trail
- Boundaries on what one small test can support
Problems, Niches and Value Propositions
Week 2: connect a specific audience, observable friction and credible benefitWeek Two connects design thinking and unmet needs to the first version of a venture idea. This chapter shows how a niche, problem statement and value proposition constrain one another.
- Niche definition through a shared situation
- Problem statements without embedded solutions
- Current behaviour and workarounds as research evidence
- Value propositions built around a concrete benefit
- Alignment between audience, friction, mechanism and action
- Alternative explanations for a weak response
Risky Assumptions and Rapid Research
Week 3: rank uncertainty and design evidence that can change a decisionWeek Three adds discipline to venture research by breaking a broad idea into beliefs and ranking them by consequence and uncertainty. The test-card method links one hypothesis to a method, metric and predeclared support and fail criteria.
- Assumption inventory across customer, problem and behaviour
- Priority through consequence and uncertainty
- Hypotheses written as necessary venture beliefs
- Method and metric alignment
- Support and fail criteria fixed before results
- Neutral reporting of disconfirming evidence
Digital Prototypes and Landing Pages
Week 4: build a one-page prototype whose action reveals useful evidenceWeek Four turns the venture claim into a digital prototype and version-one landing page. The page should help a defined audience recognise the problem, understand the proposed benefit and complete one meaningful action.
- Landing-page narrative from problem to action
- One call to action aligned with the risky assumption
- Prototype fidelity matched to the research question
- Audience, comprehension and action diagnosis
- Accessible interactions as an evidence-quality condition
- Version control for interpretable comparisons
Test Cycle One: Observe and Interview
Week 5: separate behaviour, participant explanation and team interpretationTest Cycle One takes place in Week Five and uses observation and interviews to close the first Build-Measure-Learn loop.
- Test Card One planning before participant sessions
- Neutral observation of pauses, errors and abandonment
- Follow-up interviews about expectations and current behaviour
- Outcome separated from analysis and limitation
- Audience boundary when classmates are not early adopters
- A traceable next step for Week Seven
Pivots, Experiments and Version Two
Week 7: turn first-cycle evidence into a proportionate venture revisionWeek Seven asks students to recalibrate the venture, consider pivots and launch version two. This chapter distinguishes a strategic pivot from a cosmetic redesign and shows how supported, mixed or weakened evidence calls for different levels of change.
- Supported, mixed and weakened first-cycle evidence
- Repairing a compromised test before abandoning a belief
- Perseverance supported by evidence rather than sunk work
- Pivots in audience, problem, channel or mechanism
- Constants that preserve comparison between versions
- A stronger behavioural signal for Cycle Two
Test Cycle Two: Evidence and Decisions
Week 8: test a different critical assumption with early adoptersTest Cycle Two takes the revised venture into a stronger evidence setting. The captured template requires a different critical assumption, five interviews and one additional experiment, while the toolkit specifies early-adopter participants.
- Early-adopter recruitment from hypothesis criteria
- A different critical assumption for the second cycle
- Five interviews that explain context and motives
- An additional experiment that creates observable comparison
- Triangulation without inflating weak signals
- A bounded final venture decision
Pitching the Entrepreneurial Journey
Weeks 9 and 10: connect the problem, tests, changes and next stepThe final chapter connects Week Nine pitching and next steps to the live Week Ten Shark Tank and AT2 submission. It builds a narrative from problem, first belief, test result, evidence-backed change, second-cycle finding and proportionate next move.
- A pitch arc driven by evidence rather than chronology
- Selective visuals that explain a venture decision
- A proportionate next ask based on unresolved risk
- Consistency across report, pitch, test cards and prototypes
- Internal AT2 shares versus official course-grade weights
- AI disclosure, privacy and working-link checks
Students complete a first test cycle using observation and interviews, use that evidence to recalibrate or pivot, and then run a second cycle with early adopters, interviews and an additional experiment. The final weeks focus on pitching, employability and the next step for the venture. The key skill is not predicting success.
It is making uncertainty visible, choosing evidence that bears on one important belief and changing the venture for a stated reason. Assessment has two official course-grade rows. The Case Study is worth 40% and profiles an existing company through its MVPs, first users, assumptions, tests and lessons.
The Start-Up Proposal and Entrepreneurial Journey is worth 60% and integrates an individual video pitch, report and test cards, two landing pages with explainer videos, plus leadership and participation. The source provides task templates and required components but no captured grading rubric or model solution, so this guide concentrates on traceable reasoning rather than invented marker bands.
Use each chapter to build a live evidence ledger: the current belief, audience, method, measure, criteria, outcome, limitation and next decision. That ledger should remain consistent across both test cards, the report, the pitch and the saved prototype versions. Mixed or disappointing evidence is not a reason to hide the result.
It is often the most useful material for explaining why a revised niche, proposition, interaction or next experiment is justified.
Worked example · free
From a broad idea to a testable MVP decision
- +1Name the uncertainty: will residents in larger shared houses record one borrowed item and choose a return reminder?
- +1Build only the test: a one-page explanation, one real-item entry and one reminder action. Leave ratings, deposits and social profiles for later assumptions.
- +1Predefine the interpretation: record completed entries, ask why people acted or stopped, then revise the next version without overstating one household context.
Key terms
- Lean Start-Up
- An evidence-seeking approach that treats progress as learning from small tests rather than completing a large product plan.
- Minimum Viable Product
- The smallest artefact that can expose an important assumption to meaningful user behaviour.
- Problem Statement
- A concise description of a specific audience, situation and observable friction without embedding the preferred solution.
- Niche Market
- A focused group sharing a context in which the same problem and motivation can be investigated.
- Value Proposition
- A claim about the concrete benefit a proposed mechanism may provide to a defined audience.
- Risky Assumption
- A belief that is both uncertain and consequential enough to threaten the venture if it is false.
- Test Card
- A structured record linking a hypothesis, method, measure, criteria, outcome, analysis and next step.
- Success Criterion
- A result fixed before testing that would increase confidence in the stated assumption.
- Fail Condition
- A predeclared result that requires the team to reduce confidence or change its next decision.
- Build-Measure-Learn
- A feedback loop in which a prototype produces evidence that informs the next version.
- Early Adopter
- A participant who already experiences the target problem strongly enough to provide relevant early evidence.
- Pivot
- An evidence-backed change to an organising venture assumption such as audience, problem or solution mechanism.
- Evidence Boundary
- The people, behaviour and conditions beyond which a test result should not be generalised.
MDIA1007 FAQ
How hard is the course?
The workload is continuous rather than exam-centred. The difficult part is keeping a venture, two test cycles and several AT2 components consistent while reporting mixed evidence honestly. Students who maintain a weekly evidence ledger and update the test cards during the cycle avoid reconstructing the whole entrepreneurial journey near the submission deadline.
What are the assessment tasks?
The official course-grade table has two rows: a 40% Case Study and a 60% Start-Up Proposal and Entrepreneurial Journey. The second task contains a video pitch, report and test cards, two landing pages with explainer videos, and leadership and participation. Its internal percentages divide AT2, not the full course grade.
What makes a good MVP?
A useful MVP is small because it isolates an important belief, not because it is careless. It gives a defined audience enough information or interaction to produce an observable response. Features that do not help test that belief should wait, since they add cost and make weak results harder to diagnose.
How should the two test cycles differ?
Cycle One uses observation and interviews in Week 5 and may involve classmates who are not early adopters. Cycle Two uses a different critical assumption in Week 8, requires five interviews with early adopters and adds another experiment. The second cycle should follow from the evidence-backed revision made after the first.
Can AI be used in the assignments?
The course encourages informed experimentation with AI for activities such as brainstorming, summarising and simplifying, while warning against bypassing the learning process. The task templates request reflection on the tools, purposes, prompting and retained generated material. Keep a contemporaneous log and verify outputs against the course materials and your own evidence.
What should I check before submitting?
Compare the test cards, report, pitch and prototype versions side by side. They should use the same results, reasons for change and present venture state. Then check the report structure, both test-card appendices, working landing-page and media links, leadership evidence, AI reflection, privacy and the live Moodle submission settings.
Questions students ask in each MDIA1007 chapter
- Why should an MVP be smaller than the full idea?
- A smaller prototype isolates the belief being tested. When many features appear together, a weak response could have several causes and the team cannot tell which assumption needs revision. Focused scope lowers the cost of change and makes the link between response and next decision easier to explain. Chapter 01 · Lean Start-Up and Minimum Viable Products
- How narrow should the first niche be?
- It should be narrow enough that participants share a recognisable situation, problem frequency and motivation. The niche is a learning boundary, not necessarily the venture's permanent market. A focused group makes response patterns easier to interpret and allows later expansion to be supported rather than assumed. Chapter 02 · Problems, Niches and Value Propositions
- How do I choose the riskiest assumption?
- Select a belief that the venture depends on and for which reliable evidence is weak. A minor colour preference can be uncertain without being consequential. A central demand, trust or behaviour belief deserves priority when the venture would struggle if it were false. Chapter 03 · Risky Assumptions and Rapid Research
- What belongs on the first landing page?
- The captured practice launch specifies a problem, proposed solution, short explainer clip and a way for people to signal interest. Arrange those elements around one narrative and action. Founder biographies, multiple feature lists and competing calls to action usually distract from the first learning question. Chapter 04 · Digital Prototypes and Landing Pages
- What should observers write down?
- Record the task, sequence of actions, pauses, errors, questions, assistance and completion or abandonment. Avoid labels such as confused, uninterested or careless because those words assign motives. Follow-up questions can then explore what the participant expected and why the observed moment occurred. Chapter 05 · Test Cycle One: Observe and Interview
- What counts as a pivot?
- A pivot changes an organising assumption such as the audience, problem, channel, revenue logic or solution mechanism because evidence weakened the earlier direction. A new colour palette or name is not a pivot unless visual identity itself caused the tested failure and the change addresses that finding. Chapter 06 · Pivots, Experiments and Version Two
- Who qualifies as an early adopter?
- Use criteria derived from the problem and hypothesis, such as recent experience, frequency, urgency or an active workaround. Convenience and enthusiasm for the team are not enough. Record how each recruit meets the criteria so the report can explain why the evidence is relevant. Chapter 07 · Test Cycle Two: Evidence and Decisions
- What should the pitch focus on?
- Focus on the causal journey: a specific problem, the first risky belief, what the test revealed, why the venture changed, what the second cycle showed and what should happen next. Feature lists and founder biographies matter only when they help explain one of those decisions. Chapter 08 · Pitching the Entrepreneurial Journey
How to prepare for the assessments
Treat the course as one evidence trail rather than a series of weekly activities. At the start of each cycle, write the critical assumption, audience, method, metric and support and fail criteria. During the test, separate observations from participant explanations and your own interpretation. Afterward, record the result, limitation and next decision before redesigning the prototype.
Save each landing-page version and note exactly what changed and what stayed constant. For AT1, analyse how an existing venture moved from an early MVP through assumptions and tests; use that conceptual vocabulary to sharpen your own choices without copying the company’s path. For AT2, draft the report from the two test cards and change ledger, then build the pitch from the same facts.
Rehearse explaining why each revision occurred and what the evidence still cannot establish. Keep an AI-use log and verify any generated suggestion against your venture data. In the final week, spend more time checking consistency, links and claim boundaries than adding decorative features. A modest result described precisely is stronger than an ambitious claim that the tests did not earn.
Your AI Management tutor for MDIA1007
Stuck on a hard MDIA1007 question? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any MDIA1007 Digital Entrepreneurship question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how the course is actually taught and assessed. Read this whole study guide free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
