I don't do resolutions, but reminders are another thing altogether. And before I head out to celebrate the arrival of Twenty-Ten, I thought I'd make a special note of the one consistent criterion for success (especially for entrepreneurs).
A few years ago I'd met the owner of an insurance company (he brokered our company's insurance needs) and he mentioned that his guiding principle for success in business was 'showing up every day'. I must confess that at that time I was unimpressed and thought that what worked for his industry surely couldn't apply to the dynamic world of startups.
With a little more startup experience under my belt, I now believe that the guy was on the money (and I'm more open to non-traditional sources). What I have seen over and over again is that success comes to those who stay engaged, those who 'show up' to get the job done - those who don't give up or get side tracked. The past year has been a tough one for many, especially early stage entrepreneurs, but the ones who have ridden it with some degree of success are those who decided to stay in the game and just play it, without hankering for spectacular moves or quick wins. Companies with limited funds hunkered down and focused on the basics and those with no funds got creative. The teen entrepreneurs I mentor (read more about them here) are a shining example of this: they don't have a smooth-talking CEO or snazzy marketing material or even an eye-catching product, but they did make it to every single meeting and diligently worked on their weekly checklist - and managed to outsell all other teams, even ones with more flash.
As an added bonus this concept could apply to just about anything - from startups to Pilates to making new friends. So, a simple new year's resolution/reminder: just 'show up' to whatever you choose to do in your life and all kinds of goodness will follow. Cheers!
Channeling the inner entrepreneur who views life as a startup. Musings about people, their spirit, the startup ethos and the entrepreneurial attitude, with an emphasis on education and social ventures. The 'how-to'? Not so much. But definitely the why, the what and the whatever.
Innovation matters
Innovation is must-have for entrepreneurs for sure, and entrepreneurs have been anointed the potential saviors of our sluggish economy so innovation's been rather news-worthy lately. There was a recent Newsweek article on how Americans and the rest of the world (the part that was polled that is) view the state of innovation and the American economy and this stuck with me:
On some issues there is widespread agreement: two thirds of respondents believe innovation will be more important than ever to the U.S. economy over the next 30 years. But the survey shows some striking contrasts as well. Eighty-one percent of Chinese believe the U.S. is staying ahead of China on innovation; only 41 percent of Americans agree. To find the next big breakthrough, Americans are focused on improving math and science education, while Chinese are more concerned about developing creative problem-solving and business skills.
(You can read the article here.)
Good news: we believe that innovation is important. Bad news: many Americans believe we are not staying ahead of China in this. Worse news: more Americans focus on science and math education while more Chinese are thinking about 'creative problem-solving'.
Why is it bad if Americans think they're falling behind? True, you don't want to be smug or delusional, but perceptions should be based on reality and the reality may be not that the US is falling behind, but that the others are catching up faster. The downside of this belief is the rush to change the way we do things, even the ones we do well, particularly the good part of US education (yes, it's there!) that develops non-conformist creative thinkers.
Math and science are important, actually, critical - in fact they are the foundation for problem-solving and there's not only a knowledge deficiency in these subjects among US students, there's a marked lack of interest in these purportedly nerdy areas (something that is not the case in most of Asia). But the US didn't get to be an innovation leader sticking to a "just the facts ma'am" approach. Facts are within the box and need to be known, but it is the ability to look beyond the facts and think outside the box that drives new concepts and quantum jumps in innovation. Innovation is not a bunch of theorems and formulas - it is spotting opportunities and then knowing enough about theorems/formulas to build on them. So the US should not only focus on math/science skills, but also on creative thinking and make sure students have plenty of unstructured time when they can exercise their right brains and dream up new ideas.
But, it's not all bad news. One of the best stories of 2009 is this one about DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and it's forty red balloons challenge to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Internet (also a DARPA result). The balloons were tethered in 40 locations across the US and the first team (it was just not possible for an individual to do it) to identify all locations won a substantial cash prize. The goal? To learn how the power of crowds can be gathered quickly and productively - and possibly more things that are not even understood yet. You can read more about the red balloons and the MIT team that won it by checking the press release from here. What is amazing is the idea that the Department of Defense, which one would assume would be stodgy and secretive, created this wacky public challenge. It is so cool and I believe this is how the US can stay ahead - being innovative about driving innovation and making it fun.
On some issues there is widespread agreement: two thirds of respondents believe innovation will be more important than ever to the U.S. economy over the next 30 years. But the survey shows some striking contrasts as well. Eighty-one percent of Chinese believe the U.S. is staying ahead of China on innovation; only 41 percent of Americans agree. To find the next big breakthrough, Americans are focused on improving math and science education, while Chinese are more concerned about developing creative problem-solving and business skills.
(You can read the article here.)
Good news: we believe that innovation is important. Bad news: many Americans believe we are not staying ahead of China in this. Worse news: more Americans focus on science and math education while more Chinese are thinking about 'creative problem-solving'.
Why is it bad if Americans think they're falling behind? True, you don't want to be smug or delusional, but perceptions should be based on reality and the reality may be not that the US is falling behind, but that the others are catching up faster. The downside of this belief is the rush to change the way we do things, even the ones we do well, particularly the good part of US education (yes, it's there!) that develops non-conformist creative thinkers.
Math and science are important, actually, critical - in fact they are the foundation for problem-solving and there's not only a knowledge deficiency in these subjects among US students, there's a marked lack of interest in these purportedly nerdy areas (something that is not the case in most of Asia). But the US didn't get to be an innovation leader sticking to a "just the facts ma'am" approach. Facts are within the box and need to be known, but it is the ability to look beyond the facts and think outside the box that drives new concepts and quantum jumps in innovation. Innovation is not a bunch of theorems and formulas - it is spotting opportunities and then knowing enough about theorems/formulas to build on them. So the US should not only focus on math/science skills, but also on creative thinking and make sure students have plenty of unstructured time when they can exercise their right brains and dream up new ideas.
But, it's not all bad news. One of the best stories of 2009 is this one about DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and it's forty red balloons challenge to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Internet (also a DARPA result). The balloons were tethered in 40 locations across the US and the first team (it was just not possible for an individual to do it) to identify all locations won a substantial cash prize. The goal? To learn how the power of crowds can be gathered quickly and productively - and possibly more things that are not even understood yet. You can read more about the red balloons and the MIT team that won it by checking the press release from here. What is amazing is the idea that the Department of Defense, which one would assume would be stodgy and secretive, created this wacky public challenge. It is so cool and I believe this is how the US can stay ahead - being innovative about driving innovation and making it fun.
Design the startup
I've been attending a course/lecture series at Stanford this quarter on 'the ecosystem of design'. It's been very enjoyable and almost always instructive and relevant. I do like the fact that it gets me to 'think different', something that one needs to be reminded about when in heads-down tactical mode.
This week the lecture was by Brenda Laurel, the chair at the graduate school in design at the California College of the Arts. She was entertaining and informative, and I found her perspective particularly interesting as she'd been an entrepreneur and done a couple of startups herself. When she stepped through the design methodology used in her design projects, I was struck by how similar the sequence was to what one goes through when launching a startup:
Though 'design' for many conjures images of cool post-modern shaped everyday kitchen gadgets in the MOMA, the process is still a structured exercise in defining a problem and designing a solution - just like a startup. And it is imperative that design be a part of the process when building that startup. It is a challenge for pre-funded early stage startups that don't have access to high-priced design outfits, but design principles and methodology can be adopted by just about anyone quite successfully to achieve at least a first level of design sense. I've found it helps to get everyone involved in the product to think of themselves as a potential user/customer and that has generated a ton of good ideas - mostly on what not to do. Though it does take a little bending of the mind to get an engineer to think like a designer, it can be lot of fun and the results are more, well, friendly.
This week the lecture was by Brenda Laurel, the chair at the graduate school in design at the California College of the Arts. She was entertaining and informative, and I found her perspective particularly interesting as she'd been an entrepreneur and done a couple of startups herself. When she stepped through the design methodology used in her design projects, I was struck by how similar the sequence was to what one goes through when launching a startup:
- opportunity space
- secondary research
- primary research
- analysis
- findings
- values
- design principles
- design
- change
Though 'design' for many conjures images of cool post-modern shaped everyday kitchen gadgets in the MOMA, the process is still a structured exercise in defining a problem and designing a solution - just like a startup. And it is imperative that design be a part of the process when building that startup. It is a challenge for pre-funded early stage startups that don't have access to high-priced design outfits, but design principles and methodology can be adopted by just about anyone quite successfully to achieve at least a first level of design sense. I've found it helps to get everyone involved in the product to think of themselves as a potential user/customer and that has generated a ton of good ideas - mostly on what not to do. Though it does take a little bending of the mind to get an engineer to think like a designer, it can be lot of fun and the results are more, well, friendly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)