Connect Yorkshire

TechTalk Speakers

2008-06-09T10:51:00.002+01:00

We've got a great line up for TechTalk which will be held on the afternoon of our Investment Forum on the 18th June in Leeds. Deidre Bounds Founder of i-to-i; Kevin Walsh group Executive Director of Kingston Communications; Jonathan Straight Founder of Straight plc; and Neil Gaydon of Pace plc.

The TechTalk afternoon allows you to hear these high-tech businesses leaders give their provocative thoughts on the challenges facing the sector today. TechTalk 2008 offers the opportunity for you to debate topical issues and share valuable knowledge and experience. Find out how they succeeded and what they feel makes for a formidable business opportunity.

Who Should Attend? Anyone with an interest in the technology scene! Whether you are a leader of an established or SME technology business or an aspiring entrepreneur, TechTalk is the perfect opportunity to develop strategies for success. Equally if you are an investor or service provider with a passion for developing and investing in innovative ideas, TechTalk will help you hone your strategies for success.

Registration for TechTalk, including lunch and the champagne reception, is £75 plus vat. To register online, please Click Here. Alternatively, contact Connect Yorkshire with your full contact details on email: events@connectyorkshire.org or Tel: 0113 384 5640.

Does Cream Rise To The Top?

2008-05-16T11:00:00.006+01:00

The Richard Report has a major theme that brokering 'something' is best achieved by the market deciding who or what is best using the 'wisdom of crowds' rather than the seal of approval of the broker. But is it that simple?. At Connect, a key selling point of our service is that we help put forward the best propositions to investors so they don't waste their time filtering out the 'bad uns'. Can Web technology ensure the cream of the crop rise to the top without the broker being the ultimate discriminator of what is best?

How do you find 'good uns'? If you follow the natural selection approach, you need an innovation ecosystem that encourages mutations and experimentation and let the marketplace decide those that are best i.e. most likely to survive and hence reproduce. As Nobel laureate Linus Pauling said: “have lots of ideas and throw away the bad ones…. You aren't going to have good ideas unless you have lots of ideas and some sort of principle of selection.”

With MyDealMaker we are trying to develop this approach to complement and extend our physical pitching events. Within reason anyone with what they think is a bright idea can put up their profile. We can try to give some quality assessment based on our engagement with the entrepreneur. Have they gone through our Investor Readiness Programme? Have they taken the trouble to fill out a detailed profile etc. But where it gets interesting is if, as Richard's suggests, the portal offers the functionality necessary for the market or software itself to promote the best and demphasise the rest.

But lets not get too carried away with all this. Online screening is just that: its a filtering process that can reduce the many to a few based on something more than a one dimensional view of quality or who you stood next to in the queue for the food at a networking event. But just like you don't buy an house based on its profile on RightMove, entering into a meaningful relationship with a business advisor or investing in what appears to be a bright idea on paper requires a little more interaction than can be done online. Physical engagement is still needed to seal any deal!

So I'm with Doug Richard on this - the brokerage need to provide the marketplace first and foremost and this provision and any signposting ideally should not consume a signicant percentage of the transaction it facilitates. Online brokering portals that match those with a need with those best able to provide it have the potential to change the balance of responsibility between brokers, providers and consumers and more importantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the marketplace.

Small but Perfectly Formed

2008-05-13T16:48:00.004+01:00

When I was in merger talks with a larger company (OK read takeover!) I commented to their CEO that they had muscles in placed we didn't even have places! When things get big, do they really need to become more complex or does it go with the territory?

When businesses grow to more than eight people, holding company meetings in the rest room is no longer as feasible as it once was. Structure need to be put in place and when a job becomes bigger than one person, departments evolve.

The trick is to align related functions together and put in process orientated 'glue' to make sure the external world doesn't get exposed to (necessary) internal complexity. 'Join up thinking' and 'non-silo mentality' seems to be the in vogue phrases. Trying to have one department doing everything, so no glue is required, is about as bad as having individuals pulling in different directions and having loads of gaffer tape holding them together (which to be fair is what is invariably the end result of any growth phase for a business).

So I am not quite sure how to react to the government target of reducing 3,000 support projects down to 100 by 2010. Don't get me wrong, I am sure this can be done but why stop at 100? I thought 42 was the answer to life the universe and everything. But as Einstein said: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.

First Footing In The North East

2008-04-29T11:35:00.005+01:00

The momentum behind the Connect network was given a lift in the North East with an inaugural Investment Conference held in Newcastle. Glenn Collinson, a co-founder of Cambridge Silicon Radio gave a keynote speech. CSR was a spin out from Cambridge Consultants in 1998 and was lucky to raise their seed funding before the technology bubble burst.

He emphasised that they started out with global ambitions and always believed as a team they could win against the likes of Intel by being more fleet of foot and innovative. They benefitted from Bluetooth being a royalty-free open standard and, as such, a great market to go for (and never having less than $30M in the bank having raised a total of $85M in VC funding!).

Glenn commented that being first is not necessarily good. Those that follow learn from your mistakes and the education/development of the market. Market pioneers take most of the arrows!

Creative Finance & Risk

2008-04-23T14:35:00.002+01:00

The Creative Industries sector lies at the intersection between business, the arts, and technology. The innovative marriage of technological advances and intellectual capital provides the main source of sustainable wealth creation in this sector. Learning from experimentation and failure are key to achieving success and sustained growth. Many Creative Industries participants are subject to shifting fashion and new technologies pose a constant threat to existing activities introducing a high degree of business uncertainty. At the same time, this inherent dynamism and change is constantly opening new opportunities and threats. As a result, the Creative Industries tend to be viewed by investors as inherently high-risk while potentially offering high rewards.

We are currently undertaking a project to identify the specific risks relating to investing in the Creative Industries and how they can be mitigated. If any creative types (either brave investors or bright entrepreneurs) out there might be interested in participating in this research, please get in touch...

Anarchy vs. Organisation

2008-03-28T13:47:00.004Z

Mary Walshock, the founder of Connect San Diego, argues that an innovation ecosystem should be more like a rainforest than a plantation. We want to encourage cross fertilisation, experimentation and, yes, endure some failure if we are to find a new species of business that can thrive by doing things and solving problems in new, improved ways.

Can you project manage this activity or plot a linear path towards success? Once something emerges from the 'forest' that works, then the emphasis needs to shift towards control, replication and nurturing with a 'plantation' mentality to leverage value. These stages of a companies development are very different and the people that revelled in the early-stage anarchy may not be best suited to raising things in straight lines to regimented schedule.

Maybe like organising your Outlook folders, falling between these two extremes may be the worst of all worlds. Let me explain: have you every tried searching for an email in Outlook? If you organise your folders you have to search each one in turn. Its much simpler just to put everything in one folder and rely on a global text search a la Google. Being either totally anarchic or amazingly organised is the perfect state in Outlook, but anything either way is less perfect.

My Outlook analogy says putting a plantation grower in charge of cultivating a forest isn't the most productive approach, but isn't this exactly what happens most of the time? Is partial cultivation as much an oxymoron as organised chaos?

Gender-Based Finance

2008-03-13T14:07:00.014Z

Budget 2008 introduces a package of measures to support small businesses access the finance and resources they need to start up and grow. What caught my eye was the announcement of a new £12.5M capital fund to invest in businesses started by women.

I have trawled the HMRC website to try to find out more about how is that going to work but to no avail. Most businesses are built around a team, not one individual. Can men be part of the management team and have any equity share? What if other outside investors gets involved that have more testosterone (chemical structure shown) than they should?

Plenty of companies relocate to access geographically-constrained finance. Are we now going to see the first sex change to gain funding? Surely there are better ways to encourage female entrepreneurs than this. Creating an ecosystem that nurtures and support people seeking to build a business would be a better use of this money than distorting the market in this way. Investors should be backing bright ideas and good people, not worrying about genetic makeup.

New Beginnings

2008-03-06T14:13:00.008Z

Seven of Yorkshire's most innovative companies were recognised for their enterprise at the Innovator/08 awards. Former politician Michael Portillo hosted the evening and presented the winners with their awards. Medipex took the Innovation Champion Award sponsored by Connect Yorkshire.

As one of the few people that has successfully made the transition from politics into the media, in his preamble to the prize giving, Mr. Portillio eluded to his 1997 election defeat and subsequent humiliation on a number of occasions, noting that failure offered new beginnings and that people that had only tasted success lack a certain roundness of perspective in their DNA. He also discussed the benefits of teamwork and camaraderie that those at the top might lack exposure to. Some pivotal moments in politics were the result of an isolation leader making fundamental errors of judgement, partly due to this isolation.

This has similar implications in business where the CEO can benefit from a sounding board for ideas and a sanity check on the direction he or she is taking the ship in. Our new Springboard initiative is worth a look with regard to this.

Not So Free Lunch

2008-02-26T16:16:00.004Z

We were delighted so many of our sponsors and partners joined us at our annual sponsors lunch.
Over lunch we asked attendees to discuss the topic "Where should Connect Yorkshire increase its momentum and focus?" An Albert Einstein quote:"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" always comes to mind when thinking about how to make the most impact with limited resource. My table didn't get much beyond debating the meaning of the word 'Where', but as someone new to Connect commented "Given that entrepreneurs can benefit from the activities of Connect pretty much for free, it should be a no brainer to become a member." If anyone in the blogosphere wants to have their two penny worth as to how the Connect network can be bigger and better, please feel free to add a comment to this post.

Nothing Ventured...

2008-02-08T15:22:00.001Z

Deirdre Bounds gave a passionate talk at the Venturefest Yorkshire 2008 dinner. As a former stand up comic I expected a few more laughs, but she mainly focused on her journey from 'bedsit to boardroom'.

What was her take home message? Well mainly that if you have got an idea just do it, even if no one around you gets it: if you believe in yourself you can succeed in realising your vision. This was rather at odds with Ajaz Ahmed's talk earlier in the day where he was lamblasting government support agencies for backing 'lame duck' ideas that were destined to fail and that people shouldn't be given 'false hope' that they can become 'supermodels'

I must admit to being more with Deirdre on this one. Sure, we need to screen out the ideas and people that are just plain daft and applaud the ones that are sure fire winners (because they, like Deirdre, will fly without any outside help or an outside investor getting a slice of the action). But in the beauty contest that is innovation and enterprise, the winners and losers will sort themselves out in the marketplace (think dancefloor, not stage). Out there it's execution and the audience vote that counts: the wisdom of crowds, not the opinion of experts. In my experience, most good ideas start off looking pretty ugly or just plain daft to conventional eyes. As Deirdre says 'We need to encourage weird'.

Building An Innovation Ecosystem: Rainforests vs Plantations

2008-01-30T10:23:00.000Z

Prof. Mary Walshok the founder of Connect in San Diego gave an inspiring talk at the Knowledge Capital Annual Lecture in Manchester focusing on the elements that led to their region to develop beyond tourism, real estate and agriculture into a powerhouse of technical innovation. She emphasised the need for regions to recognise and develop the assets they have but also to address the gaps then connect things together. As she note: "Like in Particle Physics when things collide you get reactions". The Connect program was that catalyst that brought people together. She emphasised the importance of community over company, shared purpose and a "sense of place".

Another interesting observation was that an innovation ecosystem should be more like a rainforest than a plantation. In this environment there is more uncertainty, density and diversity where the hybrid ideas arise from cross fertilisation and serendipity more than any organised linear process. Once a new idea has formed and proved itself to have something new and beneficial to offer to the market that's where cultivation and organisation become important.

Something for Nothing...

2008-01-26T07:30:00.000Z

Surely the best deal is the one that generates the greatest return on investment. But those apparently in the know keep telling me Proof-of-Concept funds can't make money. But aren't business angels tying to make money and they are managing their own mini -POC fund. If you can make money on a small scale why, I ask, doesn't this scale up?

If you watch Dragon's Den they are always looking for the largest percentage of equity they can get. But 100% of nothing is still nothing, so you could say that it doesn’t matter whether you get 20% or 40% (this has been the argument of a few VCs who seem to cut much more generous offers than the dragons do) given most will fail.

Surely the point is that for the 1 in 10 early stage deals that really do fly, what percentage you have of that one is very much the differentiator when you come to analysing the overall portfolio returns. Is the problem then that larger funds just aren't prepared to get down and dirty with regards to valuations whereas individual business angels are very much focused on getting more for less? The fact that an early stage business will often get the cheapest money it's going to get i.e. grant funding followed immediately by the most expensive in terms of equity investment does little to help the situation!

Web 2.0 Startup - Plain Sailing

2008-01-18T09:38:00.000Z

I attended the North West Startups event organised by Manoj Ranaweera in sunny Manchester - OK it was raining. Four interesting speakers. Stuart Scott-Goldstone talked about the legal aspects of a venture capital investment - necessary detail. Doug Stellmann of YFM Group gave some candid thoughts on investment from a VC perspective emphasising the importance of a stong management team that can react to change, admiting that very few investments follow closely to their business plan however perfectly crafted. The ability to sail through the trials and tribulations of a startup differentiates the winers from the losers. Paul Barraclough of Tecmentor talk on a subject close to my heart - crossing the chasm from early adopters to the mainstream and that very few companies find this plain sailing which reemphasised the need for agile management. Finally, Pam Holland ex-TeleCity reflected on her experience of staffing up a fast growth technology business - nice problem to have, but they didn't seem to have cracked the basic challenge of how to make more money the more you do. Spending money is a lot easier than making it!

On the Web 2.0 front (which was the main interest of entrepreneurs there) the prevailing view from the VCs was any application that you can code up in 3 months could be easily replicated in Bangalore or China, so from a professional investor perspective they would be unlikely to back it given so little barrier to entry. So think about creating something with a little more substance or have paying users before approaching a VC!

The Best Of Both Worlds

2008-01-16T12:14:00.000Z

So Facebook has an open API that allows you to add-in your application and tap into the millions of users on the platform. What's so innovative about that? Microsoft opened up their Office applications in the mid-nineties to allow add-in components to be seamlessly integrated into the GUI to complement and extend their platform in niche areas. This was good for the vertical market developers who didn't have to try to duplicate this base functionality and good for Microsoft who could get even better entrenched into these markets.

Similar business models have come to the deep and murky world of relational databases with the ability to create new object types in Oracle via 'data cartridges' that appeared on the scene in the early noughties. So my crystal ball didn't have much difficulty in predicting this development as the Web matures - but as they say hindsight is 20:20 vision. The good thing about this iteration is unlike those that went before the loosely coupled nature of the Web means that these component-based solutions are unlikely to interact in negative ways, but equally you may be able to see the joins, but the Web has taught us its benefits outway these disadvantages.

I look forward to seeing more innovative mashups and better support for component-based Web development rather than everyone reinventing the wheel and having to develop the basic backbones of a Web application. However, the hoards of web development companies that are out there may not quite see it that way! The benefit is that horizontal platforms providing generic capabilities can be extended to do more vertical market things, so the consumer gets the best of both worlds.

Selling Equity: The First Resort

2008-01-10T12:00:00.000Z

Selling equity in your business is hard, expensive and like oil, it's not a renewable resource. If you have any other easier or cheap alternative source of financing your business you should take it, but equally if you don't, do you really want to miss out on realising your dreams by preciously holding on to it - which is what far too many people do.

In business, a smaller slice of a bigger pie is invariably bigger than 100% of nothing. But therein lies the rub: An equity investor is looking to invest in a business that is scalable i.e. it can grow beyond being a 'lifestyle' business. So if you are serious about changing the world, gaining an equity investment should be your first and highest priority, as this is your only realistic means taking your business to the next level.

Our experience is that you can't be too prepared and our investment readiness process is invaluable in putting the foundations in place on which you can confidently pitch for the investment you need. How much is usually the next question. The reality is you need to find a balance between seeking too little and too much. This is where a business plan with realistic cash flow projections comes in. You need to have enough equity funding to meet you maximum cash requirement to get your product or service to market. Once you start selling something and you (just) need working capital, your funding options are cheaper & more varied: Factoring, overdraft, loans, etc.

Beating A Path To Your Door

2008-01-07T12:51:00.000Z

Interesting post on TechCrunch on the top ten tips for startups. Not so sure about tip 9: "Don’t plan a big marketing effort. It’s much more important and powerful that your community loves the product."

The biggest mistake a startup can make is to believe if you create a better mousetrap, customers will beat a path to your door. Yes, if it’s a totally great or revolutionary idea maybe word of mouth will out, but the reality is that for us mere morals, we need to find a balance between developing an even better product and selling what we have.

Remember: out of 10 people, one will buy your product just for the hell of it (or they thought it was something it wasn’t); one will never buy it no matter how good it is; and the other eight could generally take it or leave it. How many of those eight you convert into customers, and at what cost, will dictate how successful you ultimately are.

Our FastInvest loan scheme is designed to give young technologies that push needed to get out there marketing and selling their product. Yes, make it better, but it's never too soon to start validating market demand and selling!

New Year Predictions

2008-01-03T15:00:00.000Z

OK here goes:

Connect Yorkshire helps even more companies get investment ready and pitch for investment through its flagship investment forums, investment challenges and business plan competitions.

The rest of the Northern Way embrace the Connect model and it is rolled out in the North East and North West.

An online community of best practise, participation and support develops that brings together entrepreneurs with the resources to they need to help them succeed that extends beyond our traditional geographic boundary and the Web 2.0 community.

Yorkshire Forward announces a region-wide investment fund as a follow on for Partnership Investment Finance and the South Yorkshire Investment Fund that incorporates a much needed seedcorn element.

Component-based, service-oriented applications finally take centre stage with Web Mashups and loosely-coupled applications 'Web 2.0' increasingly replacing the monoliths of the past.

Connect launches its 'Springboard' initiative to help early stage propositions get their business plans into shape.

I finally access and use a Web site in a meaningful way through my mobile phone.

One can but dream...Happy New Year!

Act Local, Think Global

2007-12-21T12:16:00.000Z

David Parkin dropped in to the office to update us on his new venture http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/. Subscription is free (see my recent post on this subject) and his business model is based on paid-for advertisements. While online offers the potential for currency of news, I guess the other benefits to be exploited are new media based, such as what is the most popular story, ability to comment on articles, see what other articles readers of a story have read, multimedia content, content targetted adverts, automated links based on keywords in content, etc. The geographical focus is also a big selling point, but equally major players are looking at how to localise their offerings, such as ITVlocal. A company that presented at our recent Investment Forum (http://www.towntalk.co.uk/) is seeking to develop an online equivalent to the booklet advertising local services that comes through your letter box each month.

Whether you come from the local side up or the global side down, the bottom line is that you need to connect with a community in a meaningful way and offer them access to something they might want at reasonable cost in terms of time, money and effort. Then seek to replicate the model in as many sensible places as possible! Hopefully what works in one geographic location, hold water elsewhere. That is what equity investors are looking for: a proposition that is scalable!

Putting The Customer First

2007-12-20T15:00:00.000Z

The process of gaining Customer First accreditation something we have embarked on recently. In a previous post I noted there is a fine balance between having satisfied and happy customers. The key thing is to make sure you are customer focused and there is a real need for the product or service you provide; only then will people be prepared to pay you for it!

The balance between process and performance is often a difficult one for small companies to juggle. A great process (from a quality perspective) is really focused on reproducability and cost. When you are doing something repetitively or seeking to lower the skill level of delivery then it's all about optimising the process in terms of cost and certainty of output. If you are trying to improved the output a methology or framework may facilitate, but you are still taking about a process that is very dependent on the skills and unique insights of the participants.

All young companies should strive to implement replicatable process at the appropriate point of their developement. A key point is where selling a company's product or service is replicatable and a salesperson can be employed effectively. Out FastInvest loan scheme is specifically designed to help companies make this transition. Now that is really what I would call putting the customer (i.e. sales) first!

Proving The Concept: Chicken or Egg

2007-12-17T11:34:00.000Z

Listening to pitches from University projects at a recent Yorkshire Concept Fund meeting it is clear there are two schools of thought about what proof of concept means. To a scientist it's that the concept works technically; to an investor it's that there is market demand for a working system. Ideally, you would demonstrate market demand before embarking on a technical development (if commercial success is your primary goal). Equally, without something to show it's often hard for potential users to get excited about a lot of hot air and hand waving.

The most extreme of these I've seen is the search for synthetic blood where apparently the US military have a cheque with quite a few zeros on it waiting for someone that can come up with something that meets their spec (one of the Yorkshire Forward Bioscience Fellows projects). Hence the scientists have quite a clear specification of what would constitute success commercially and they can focus on the science in sure and certain knowledge that if they crack it they are onto a commercial winner. The other extreme is what we see occasionally at Connect where the technology is paper thin but (in theory at least) the brilliant insight or innovation will set the world alight. The only problem is then barriers to entry are equally low so IP protection becomes the name of the game.

In reality most propositions fall somewhere between those extremes and there has to be some give and take. The technologists have to get something operational to some degree in order to demonstrate the propotype (or Version 1!) to potential customers before the latter will be able to get their head around exactly how much it's going to benefit their lives. Nomatter how much we might like to get validation of market demand before spending money on development in most situations the egg does have to come before the chicken and technical feasibility has to be proved before serious commercialisation work can begin. However, getting the right balance between technical push and market pull is project specific.

Information Wants To Be Free

2007-12-10T10:00:00.000Z

According to Wikipedia, this phrase was supposedly first pronounced by Stewart Brand in 1984, citing the fact that the cost of dissemination is getting lower and lower. However, the effort required to generate high-quality information ain't getting any cheaper.

But equally a lot of people view their information as free for dissemination as they make their money in other ways, like IKEA. You could say the likes of Google are parasitic and without information to search they wouldn't be able to sell advertising space, but I would argue it more of a symbiotic relationship. The concept of consolidating freely available information then selling easy access i.e. adding value is as old as the Bible.

With the trend towards Open Source the argument goes that enabling technology like operating systems and other basic building blocks that benefit everyone should be free so that, like Isaac Newton, you can reach greatness by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' rather than reinventing the wheel. I think there is a strong argument that if public money is spent on R&D then the IP should be made freely available. However, those who create valuable information (and whose business model requires payment) deserve to have their copyright and commercial integrity respected.

Convergence: Jack of All Trades or Master of One?

2007-12-06T15:44:00.000Z

The whole TV/Broadband/Mobile/MP3 world sees to be heading for one point on the sunrise aimed at producing one appliance that is all things to all men: Whether its one box or one handset it has to do it all. This reminds me of the eternal battle ensuing in the software space between ERP systems (get you systems and processes right, then pore concrete on them) versus best-of-bread applications (malleable components linked together using open integration technologies allowing swap and change). It invariably boils down to whether you want something that is 90% good at doing lots of things or many things that are 100% good at doing just one.

In an earlier post, I talked about focus, focus, focus. Think of the last 10% being innovation and the 90% being the existing substance. For some markets the benefits of the innovation offset the complexity of having multiple vendors; for others simplicity and consistency is the name of the game. For most innovators, a market that has developed to this point of maturity is not a good place to be as you will face an uphill battle to see off the entrenched competition who will undoubtedly cover more bases than you do. So you need to find a peripheral market, which is undoubtedly smaller, where your value proposition can hold sway against the entrenched competition. When you are starting out, don't seek to be a jack of all trades, be master of one.

First Mover Disadvantage

2007-11-29T15:49:00.000Z

One of the interesting themes discussed at TechTalk in association with our Investment Forum in Sheffield yesterday was that he who dares doesn't always win. Being first to market can mean you do all the R&D, validate the idea and educate potential users only to see the competition eat your carefully prepared lunch. Equally, being best technically doesn't necessarily equal success either.

As Lee Strafford emphasised as he spoke about his success story at Plusnet, route to market can be a real differentiator when it comes to execution. Stuart Green CEO of ZOO Digital warned that while you are evangelising about how beneficial your innovation will be to users, potential competitors will be readying themselves to shoot arrows in your back. And Steve Barnes, CEO of Infoserve reminded us that history is littered with those that tried first and failed or thought being (second) best equals success. Oracle didn't have the first relational database and VHS wasn't the best video technology, but each ended up the 800lb gorillas in their respective markets.

Being at the bleeding, rather than the leading, edge can leave you exposed if the market or infrastructure just ain't ready. Equally stealing a march on the competition is what innovation is all about, so this all has to be finely judged. Being first or best certainly isn't a prerequisite for commercial success.

There Be Dragons Ahead

2007-11-23T16:37:00.000Z

At the Business North West event, Doug Richards of Dragon's Den fame gave a inspirational talk charting his ups and downs (yes even he has them!). Mainly anecdotal, but some of his take home messages that particularly resonated with me were:

Luck and serendipity plays its part in any successful venture; the path to greatness is not deterministic. Deal with it.

Don't only listen to those that have only tasted success; they are the exceptions not the rule. Also take council from people that have tasted failure as well. Inductive learning requires negatives as well as positives.

Yes, have a cunning well thought-out plan but be prepared to deviate from it as necessary (recognising this is not what funders necessarily want to hear): The reality is that you have to be flexible and opportunitistic (which is what the big boys aren't, so you have the advantage).

Cash and share price are not equivalent currency: Market Cap ain't worth anything until you have exited with money in the bank.
Leadership is about enpowerment. "Ask for my forgiveness not my permission". The founder/CEO should strive to be operationally redundant - he or she is generally not replicatable nor reliable. Surround yourself with people more able than you!

Pile It High...

2007-11-23T15:14:00.000Z

At BarCamp Leeds last Saturday, Dean Saddler CIO at PlusNet evangelised about how you can build a web-based applications quickly and easily and one of the tricks was to repackage and reuse the same underlying technology in different market niches and applications.

His take on monetisation was that if you have been smart about development, you only have to charge sensibly and adopt a subscription model to take market share from bloatware providers charging perpetual licence fees (where have I heard that before?). He also emphasised that his development plan only extended as far as the next round of features that users had requested. Sounds like the whole concept of component reuse and evolutionary development has finally caught up with web designers!

Not sure I totally agree you can produce something of any substantial worth so cheaply - even if you outsource development to China - but the idea that you have to work smart, reuse components, adopt incremental development strategies that keep you close to the users and offer something significantly better and cheaper than what has gone before is undoubtedly true.