One engaging topic of conversation (amongst a few of us) was about making the startup market more efficient and effective …  more so around matching talent and opportunity. The Boston region has over 140 organizations catering to startup needs and interests. Yes, that is over 140! I did a market and product analysis involving 14 organizations, and found that most of them tend to overlap in terms of services and promised value-add.

There barely seems to be a month when there is not another startup-facilitation organization brewing.

Yet, you have what essentially is a market with a finite number of players that in the startup ecosystem at any given time. There is bound to be a point in time when we hit the problem of plenty.

So, instead of starting yet another startup oriented group or networking event … how about these 3 ‘obvious ideas’? (everything is obvious … after the fact) …

1) Find a way to identify Top 3 current pain-points and needs within existing funded ventures … and publish those ‘open source’ to invite other ventures / entrepreneurs / people that might have an interest and ability to address those needs. A healthy partnership and alliance strategy can go a longer way in creating synergies than more networking meets and events.

2) Find a way to socialize Top 3 goals and gaps within existing growth companies with over $10M revenue … and offer early stage ventures an opportunity to bid for real business with the potential to generate real revenue. A real customer with a real need met leading to revenue is more valuable than more idea-meets and products being developed without market validation.

3) Make a promise to ourselves that we wont just “talk the endless entrepreneurship talk” with a hue of ideas and promises, hoping to randomly find someone in networking events that could somehow, somewhere, someday add value. Believe me, I believe in the power of networking and mutual value add … yet, there is bound to be a point where you hit the problem of plenty.

This is really about finding focus … what do you think?

Obviously,

Sai

www.obviousideas.com

TiE Launchpad is a program that I co-chair, dedicated to helping first time entrepreneurs make the journey from an idea to a venture. Through a series of 7 – 10 workshops, TiE Launchpad will help leaders transform promising business ideas and technologies into commercial ventures.

Check out the Billion $ Idea Top 50 Takeaways DESH DESHPANDE file … for a crowd-sourced collection of take-aways collated within 24 hours of the event.

What do you think? How have you transformed an idea into a business venture? What lessons learned are you willing to share? Go ahead, join the conversation …

Obviously,

Sai

www.obviousideas.com

However, I did miss the artistic canvas to fully explore the treasures of ideation and express it in a form that did merit to the journey. As a poet, I admit, I missed the ability to pen sentences and see them come alive in the form of a new surprise.

I even tried a Twitter experiment to crowd-source leadership insights to put together an e-book. Had more people writing in seeking clarification, than engaging. One even debated that Twitter was so over-rated and he missed the good old telephone as a medium of communication. I’ll let you judge that one.

So, as I end this 100 day experiment, I begin the next phase of inspiration and expression. Where I will focus on the intersection of strategy and technology, my area of expertise and passion.

Because,

When Strategy and Technology Collide, Markets Happen!

As I begin wrapping up my Kellogg Executive MBA program (where I focused on strategy and marketing), I find myself passionate about this intersection. Whether you are a startup or a Fortune 100 organization, technology has an ability to

- Create new business models and opportunities, whilst

- Continuing to optimize and accelerate business outcomes.

So, join me as I continue to un-Twitter on this intersection … with a key eye on strategy, organization and execution.

Obviously,

sai@obviousideas.com

Someone asked a great question. “Kellogg is known for marketing, what are your strengths in other areas?”.

I think it is an ironic / intriguing / interesting question that Kellogg itself has been ‘branded’ the marketing school. As a student, I find the program to be focused on strategy with a clear C-Suite focus, with marketing being one of the functions that informs our body of study. While the school’s rich heritage and history might well be steeped in marketing, the coverage across other disciplines such as strategy, organizations and finance is truly excellent. The one area though that Kellogg does not focus on very strongly is technology and information systems, at least at the Executive MBA level.

I believe that the program prepares you to be a well-rounded ‘general manager’. Now dont get that to mean ‘a plain old generalist with no specialization’. Reality is that todays business needs and challenges dont come in neatly defined boxes. In order to lead in the complex ever-changing world we live in, one needs br0ad-based well developed intuition supported by strong skills across functions / disciplines. Kellogg provides just that.

Also, given that it has diversity in program-delivery, you are able to go beyond the case method to truly experience and imbibe the body of knowledge / practice through a wide variety of ways. Isn’t that how the real world works?

So, coming back to the question of the evening … yes, Kellogg has strong roots in marketing. But what do you say when I end up with 28 core courses and 4 electives?

Here’s my mix from Kellogg:

Core: Analytical Approach to Uncertainty, Operating Strategies for the General Manager, Teambuilding, Financial Reporting Systems, Leadership & Organizations, Marketing Management, Managerial Economics, Statistical Decision Analysis, Managerial Finance I, Managerial Finance II, Foundations of Strategy, Marketing Strategies, Accounting for Management Planning & Control, Consumer Insight & Marketing Strategy, Strategic Financial Management, Operations Management, Negotiation Strategies, Strategic Crisis Management, Macroeconomics, Economics of Competition, Creating and Managing Strategic Alliances, Management of Organizational Change, Law and the Corporate Manager, Corporate Governance, Ethics and Leadership.

Electives: Entrepreneurial Finance, Analytical Decision Modeling, Business Strategies in Asia Pacific (in Hong Kong!), Understanding Consumers (in Hong Kong).

Audits: Game Theory, Securities Analysis, Innovation Strategy & Management, Wall Street Hedge Funds & Private Equity.

How’s that mix? Oh, by the way, the program leads to a Masters in Business Administration, not an ‘Executive Masters’. Why not, with such a rich mix of coursework and an unbelievable cohort with rich experience/expertise. More on the cohort another day?

Obviously,

Sai

www.obviousideas.com

Immigrant founders + free markets = Innovation.

I spend quite a bit of time in the Boston area startup community. Whether its a 15 year old in a TYE Startup competition from TiE-Boston or a first time entrepreneur, or a serial entrepreneuer, the optimism, energy and vision seems boundless. Everyone wants to change the world. One startup or venture at a time. There is no sense of self-pity or entitlement.

Yet, the single biggest roadblock is source of quality funds. I am not talking big numbers. I am talking $50K to $500K to take a shot at starting the next innovative venture. I am talking solid business models with working technology and passionate teams.  Yet they are caught in a bind … unable to access capital at costs and dilution-levels that can continue fueling their passion.

So, here are my …

3 obvious ideas:

a. First-time venture fund: If we can have a first-time homebuyer tax credit, why not a first-time entrepreneur fund? where the government sets aside $50000 per year for 2 years for each first-time founder of a startup. not as a bailout. but as investible angel capital from the government of the usa. why not? If Techstars or Y-Combinator can do it, why not the tax-funded entity called the GOTUS? $50K is enough to feed a family in most cities, while keeping the entrepreneur hungry enough to want to start a company.

b. Tax-cut for entrepreneurs: Why not? In addition to ‘increasing G’ why not ‘cut T’? Mix the left and right here. For the same 2 years, give the entrepreneurs a deep tax cut so that there is incentive and ability to reinvest for growth. Growth that can create real jobs that in turn pay taxes. Neat, eh?

c. Startup-competition: If the GOTUS can fund primary research in leading universities, why not have a true startup competition where funding can be allocated as advocated above? Mix funding with classical financing stage gates, to ensure that even this $50K is allocated based on real outcomes. No vanilla bailouts.

Why not? If innovation means truly socially disruptive practices, and these ideas are disruptive, then so be the spirit of innovation … thoughts? Comments?

Obviously,

Sai

www.obviousideas.com