Qualcomm Ventures, a division of Qualcomm, has announced a global business plan competition called QPrize, with the aim of help the winners with funding to translate their business plans into reality. The competition invites entries from India, China, Europe and North America for business plans that accelerate wireless technology development in any of the following business sectors:
* Consumer/enterprise applications and services
* Communication devices
* Semiconductor and component technologies
* Mobile platforms
* Digital media and content
* Healthcare technologies and services
* CleanTech
The deadline for submissions is July 31, 2009. A winner will be selected from each region. These 4 winners will each receive US $100,000 of convertible note funding and will be invited to the Qualcomm Ventures CEO Summit in San Diego, California to compete for the Grand Prize in November. The Grand Prize winner will receive an additional US$150,000 of convertible note funding.
For kore information, visit http://www.qualcomm.com/ventures/qprize/
June 26, 2009
Blind Spots - By Sanjay Anandaram
The CEO was a highly qualified and experienced person. He had returned to India over 3 years ago to start a company with his own funds. For family reasons, he had set up his company in a town about 100 miles from Bangalore. He was now struggling to grow beyond the initial customer or two. Customers weren’t comfortable with doing business with a company located in that town; Payments from customers took more time than usual; it was hard to recruit talented people in the smaller town; Communication infrastructure wasn’t the best resulting in loss of efficiency and productivity. It was hard to find people in his town who were aware and knowledgeable about how things worked in national and international business. And that there was no PR firm in his city to help generate visibility for his company. In short, according to him, the reason he was struggling had everything to do with the location of his company.
In the course of the conversation, he also mentioned that his company had built a fairly unique solution for its only real customer; that his customer, a large multi-billion dollar company, was very happy with him and his company; that the customer was in a specific industry vertical that required certifications and regulatory clearances to enter; that there were several other large companies in that industry vertical; that his communication network had improved drastically in the last few months; that two of his family members were involved in senior positions in the company; that his employee attrition was almost zero; that his banker was a well-known private bank with a very large network.
So was it really true that the location of the company adversely affected its prospects or was it something else? Had he leveraged his relationship with his customer adequately – in getting more business, seeking and getting endorsements to secure other customers in the same industry? Were his family members the right people for the jobs they were performing? Had he talked with his bank to understand how money transfers were to be effected so that his account could get credited could be realized almost immediately upon receipt of the monies in India? Had he networked with industry associations and groups in his town? Had he used the internet and the web to reach out to potential prospects who could all be well targeted given the industry vertical?
Turned out that the CEO had done none of the above.
Clearly, the CEO did not really understand what it took to build a business from a sales and marketing and operations standpoint. Yet, he was quick to jump to the conclusion that the problem lay outside his company, in its location! He was uninformed, unaware and prejudiced. There’s a term for this in psychology – blind spot. And all of us have our own blind spots and that’s perfectly OK. The real issue is whether we’re doing anything to discover and address them. For this one needs to analyse the situation on multiple dimensions dispassionately; one needs to also introspect one’s own behaviours, attitudes, and actions. One needs to be open enough to seek, get and deal with feedback from others around. One must watch how others who are doing better are going about the task. Go through the process again. Doing this requires self-awareness and a genuine commitment to improvement.
As in most things in life, the answers to many questions actually lie deep within us. We either don’t ask the right questions or are afraid to ask the questions. Perhaps because our ignorance or more likely, because we’re afraid of the answer?! Which founder-CEO wants to be confronted by answers like “You’re perhaps the bottleneck and not the right person for the job” or “You have no clue about sales and marketing so stop pretending like you know” or “Your attitude is upsetting the morale in the company and no one wants to work here”.
Ready to discover your blind spots? What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
In the course of the conversation, he also mentioned that his company had built a fairly unique solution for its only real customer; that his customer, a large multi-billion dollar company, was very happy with him and his company; that the customer was in a specific industry vertical that required certifications and regulatory clearances to enter; that there were several other large companies in that industry vertical; that his communication network had improved drastically in the last few months; that two of his family members were involved in senior positions in the company; that his employee attrition was almost zero; that his banker was a well-known private bank with a very large network.
So was it really true that the location of the company adversely affected its prospects or was it something else? Had he leveraged his relationship with his customer adequately – in getting more business, seeking and getting endorsements to secure other customers in the same industry? Were his family members the right people for the jobs they were performing? Had he talked with his bank to understand how money transfers were to be effected so that his account could get credited could be realized almost immediately upon receipt of the monies in India? Had he networked with industry associations and groups in his town? Had he used the internet and the web to reach out to potential prospects who could all be well targeted given the industry vertical?
Turned out that the CEO had done none of the above.
Clearly, the CEO did not really understand what it took to build a business from a sales and marketing and operations standpoint. Yet, he was quick to jump to the conclusion that the problem lay outside his company, in its location! He was uninformed, unaware and prejudiced. There’s a term for this in psychology – blind spot. And all of us have our own blind spots and that’s perfectly OK. The real issue is whether we’re doing anything to discover and address them. For this one needs to analyse the situation on multiple dimensions dispassionately; one needs to also introspect one’s own behaviours, attitudes, and actions. One needs to be open enough to seek, get and deal with feedback from others around. One must watch how others who are doing better are going about the task. Go through the process again. Doing this requires self-awareness and a genuine commitment to improvement.
As in most things in life, the answers to many questions actually lie deep within us. We either don’t ask the right questions or are afraid to ask the questions. Perhaps because our ignorance or more likely, because we’re afraid of the answer?! Which founder-CEO wants to be confronted by answers like “You’re perhaps the bottleneck and not the right person for the job” or “You have no clue about sales and marketing so stop pretending like you know” or “Your attitude is upsetting the morale in the company and no one wants to work here”.
Ready to discover your blind spots? What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
June 20, 2009
Dealing With Status Quo
Last week, I wrote about the entrepreneurial mindset challenging status quo. Challenging status quo and embracing change can take many forms and operate at many levels; but the presence or lack of an entrepreneurial mindset is apparent in the smallest of things or in everyday operating situations.
Here’re two real life examples regarding status quo.
Some years ago, a well known and very experienced Silicon Valley VC was visiting a small and young business in Bangalore that was raising capital for funding its growth in India and overseas. The company was building a high-tech component for the telecom equipment sector. He met the US educated CEO and his team, visited customers and the manufacturing facilities. Everything seemed to be fine with the visit. However, the VC declined to invest. He had noticed that the CEO’s office had typewriters and not computers! He had also noticed and learnt that the CEO’s business card didn’t have an email id, that the secretary took printouts of emails for the CEO to read overnight, respond to by scribbling on the margins and handing over the scribbled upon printouts to the secretary the following morning. In his view, an office that relied on a 100 year old technology like typewriters and which were hardly seen anymore – outside of government offices which aren’t the best examples of innovative or entrepreneurial mindsets – and the way the CEO dealt with email betrayed an unwillingness to change, a comfort with status quo and really reflected the CEO’s own mindset relating to modernization, investments, efficiency, productivity and so on. The company was not able to raise money and is still around, hopefully without typewriters, leading a hand to mouth existence.
A company had ambitious growth plans and so a strong executive team was hired. The company wanted to be run professionally, raise capital and grow aggressively. The executive team shared good chemistry with the CEO and all seemed fine. Then one by one, the newly hired team started leaving. The CEO was simply unwilling to let go of any and all decision making. Every decision had to be taken by him, the minutest details had to be shared with him and he wanted to know everything that was going on. Back seat driving and micro-management were the reasons for the hired team to depart. They felt they weren’t empowered and trusted enough to execute. The CEO was unable to let go, uncomfortable with the new scenario wherein the executives took operating decisions to execute the business plan and he felt left out of the daily action. The CEO, in spite of having an experienced team, felt comfortable only when the company operated in its earlier manner with him in control. The need to balance the CEO’s operating style with the company’s growth plans demonstrated the true extent of his entrepreneurial mindset. Today, the company is still exactly where it was financially several years ago and is unable to hire and retain talented and experienced executives.
Challenging status quo therefore doesn’t necessarily imply doing something radical. It means not only changing the way things have been done but being comfortable with the new ways. Without being comfortable with the new, there’s every danger of the situation regressing to its earlier ways. And that isn’t good for anyone.
In the 19th century, horse drawn carriages were the norm and with burgeoning city populations, city planners used to wonder about ways to deal with the horse dung on city streets. The internal combustion engine put an end to that problem! One cannot operate in the 21st century with a 20th century view of the world. It is necessary to shed or modify old ideas in the light of new signals. These signals come from policies, economies, markets, technologies, regulations, user behaviours and the like and one must, therefore, be receptive to these signals. Interpreting these signals to modify and change for the impending new sets of circumstances is therefore critical.
What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
Here’re two real life examples regarding status quo.
Some years ago, a well known and very experienced Silicon Valley VC was visiting a small and young business in Bangalore that was raising capital for funding its growth in India and overseas. The company was building a high-tech component for the telecom equipment sector. He met the US educated CEO and his team, visited customers and the manufacturing facilities. Everything seemed to be fine with the visit. However, the VC declined to invest. He had noticed that the CEO’s office had typewriters and not computers! He had also noticed and learnt that the CEO’s business card didn’t have an email id, that the secretary took printouts of emails for the CEO to read overnight, respond to by scribbling on the margins and handing over the scribbled upon printouts to the secretary the following morning. In his view, an office that relied on a 100 year old technology like typewriters and which were hardly seen anymore – outside of government offices which aren’t the best examples of innovative or entrepreneurial mindsets – and the way the CEO dealt with email betrayed an unwillingness to change, a comfort with status quo and really reflected the CEO’s own mindset relating to modernization, investments, efficiency, productivity and so on. The company was not able to raise money and is still around, hopefully without typewriters, leading a hand to mouth existence.
A company had ambitious growth plans and so a strong executive team was hired. The company wanted to be run professionally, raise capital and grow aggressively. The executive team shared good chemistry with the CEO and all seemed fine. Then one by one, the newly hired team started leaving. The CEO was simply unwilling to let go of any and all decision making. Every decision had to be taken by him, the minutest details had to be shared with him and he wanted to know everything that was going on. Back seat driving and micro-management were the reasons for the hired team to depart. They felt they weren’t empowered and trusted enough to execute. The CEO was unable to let go, uncomfortable with the new scenario wherein the executives took operating decisions to execute the business plan and he felt left out of the daily action. The CEO, in spite of having an experienced team, felt comfortable only when the company operated in its earlier manner with him in control. The need to balance the CEO’s operating style with the company’s growth plans demonstrated the true extent of his entrepreneurial mindset. Today, the company is still exactly where it was financially several years ago and is unable to hire and retain talented and experienced executives.
Challenging status quo therefore doesn’t necessarily imply doing something radical. It means not only changing the way things have been done but being comfortable with the new ways. Without being comfortable with the new, there’s every danger of the situation regressing to its earlier ways. And that isn’t good for anyone.
In the 19th century, horse drawn carriages were the norm and with burgeoning city populations, city planners used to wonder about ways to deal with the horse dung on city streets. The internal combustion engine put an end to that problem! One cannot operate in the 21st century with a 20th century view of the world. It is necessary to shed or modify old ideas in the light of new signals. These signals come from policies, economies, markets, technologies, regulations, user behaviours and the like and one must, therefore, be receptive to these signals. Interpreting these signals to modify and change for the impending new sets of circumstances is therefore critical.
What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
June 02, 2009
Fear of Status Quo? - By Sanjay Anandaram
I came across this interesting question in an in-flight magazine: What would your life be like if you lived it without any fear?
It started me thinking about fear and how the primal emotion impacted us humans.
To be sure, fear has helped us survive as a species. Early man feared wild animals, for example, and that helped him stay away from them. Fear also played a role in early man’s migration as fear of a place or surroundings forced him to seek out more comfortable environs.
Fear of death or harm also forces radical and unnatural behaviours (fight versus flight) that help ensure survival. Fear also forces our imagination to work overtime in fanciful ways. All of us, at one point or the other, have been afraid to enter dark, silent and secluded areas because of the fear of the unknown. It is the anticipation of a terrible act that causes us to react. Charles Darwin concluded that fear is an ancient instinct that helped propagate the human species.
Fear of the unknown, of rejection and failure also makes us remain with the known, the familiar and within our zones of comfort. The comfort of the known makes us feel secure in our status quos. A known devil being ostensibly better than an unknown one. However, nature has taught us that a species that doesn’t evolve perishes over time. Status quo situations therefore are only temporary zones of comfort.
Mankind’s progress has occurred because the desire for adventure, exploration, knowledge and learning, challenging, inventing, discovering and conquering has trumped fear of the unknown and the contentment with status quo. Continents, oceans and space have been, are and will continue to be the domains for man’s indomitable quests to know what’s on the other side. While these quests were initiated by the most intrepid of dreamers, they were followed by many others to chart new worlds.
The European exploration and conquest of the Americas started off in the 15th century thanks to the efforts of a man who went against the traditional wisdom of his day. In the late 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella, monarchs of Spain, funded Christopher Columbus’ wild idea of an expedition westwards across the seas to India. Columbus was to keep about 10% of the profits made on the trip. Perhaps the first known example of a venture capitalist and entrepreneur!
Most of the fears of our ancestors have been today conquered by knowledge, reason, courage, conviction, wisdom and experience. Fear is slowly conquered by knowing more and more about any matter. The only way to know more and more is to jump into inquiry or the activity whole-heartedly. After all, while theory has its value, the only way one learns swimming is by being in the water, choking, trying and then finally mastering the art.
Intrepid men have challenged dogma, battled socio-cultural mores, traveled where others didn’t and even taken on and defeated extremely powerful empires. Think Mahatma Gandhi, for example. He walked a path that was uniquely his, challenged the mighty British empire by mobilizing millions, talked of and walked his talk on social emancipation of the downtrodden, displayed exemplary personal conviction, courage and shrewdness in dealing with nay-sayers and dissuaders of whom there was no shortage. He believed that fear was not a disease of the body but of the soul. That while fear had its uses, cowardice had none.
In the darkest days of The Great Depression in America in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt in his inaugural address as President said “…first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
Yet, why is it that most of us tend to be afraid? To take decisions, to go against an established orthodoxy, to challenge status quos in our daily lives? Government bureaucracies (especially ours!) have for long been known to not just favour but to positively revel in maintaining a status quo. Executives in companies are happy pushing paper confusing activity for progressive movement leading to new outcomes.
Are we then simply afraid of the socio-cultural-economic consequences of trying something new? Is the system designed to protect status quo and punish those who challenge it? Or are we just too content, lack motivation and curiosity? Do we lack courage, conviction and confidence, the desire to learn and explore? If we are, then we should be really afraid for our future is bleak!
An entrepreneurial mindset is one that challenges the status quo.
What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
It started me thinking about fear and how the primal emotion impacted us humans.
To be sure, fear has helped us survive as a species. Early man feared wild animals, for example, and that helped him stay away from them. Fear also played a role in early man’s migration as fear of a place or surroundings forced him to seek out more comfortable environs.
Fear of death or harm also forces radical and unnatural behaviours (fight versus flight) that help ensure survival. Fear also forces our imagination to work overtime in fanciful ways. All of us, at one point or the other, have been afraid to enter dark, silent and secluded areas because of the fear of the unknown. It is the anticipation of a terrible act that causes us to react. Charles Darwin concluded that fear is an ancient instinct that helped propagate the human species.
Fear of the unknown, of rejection and failure also makes us remain with the known, the familiar and within our zones of comfort. The comfort of the known makes us feel secure in our status quos. A known devil being ostensibly better than an unknown one. However, nature has taught us that a species that doesn’t evolve perishes over time. Status quo situations therefore are only temporary zones of comfort.
Mankind’s progress has occurred because the desire for adventure, exploration, knowledge and learning, challenging, inventing, discovering and conquering has trumped fear of the unknown and the contentment with status quo. Continents, oceans and space have been, are and will continue to be the domains for man’s indomitable quests to know what’s on the other side. While these quests were initiated by the most intrepid of dreamers, they were followed by many others to chart new worlds.
The European exploration and conquest of the Americas started off in the 15th century thanks to the efforts of a man who went against the traditional wisdom of his day. In the late 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella, monarchs of Spain, funded Christopher Columbus’ wild idea of an expedition westwards across the seas to India. Columbus was to keep about 10% of the profits made on the trip. Perhaps the first known example of a venture capitalist and entrepreneur!
Most of the fears of our ancestors have been today conquered by knowledge, reason, courage, conviction, wisdom and experience. Fear is slowly conquered by knowing more and more about any matter. The only way to know more and more is to jump into inquiry or the activity whole-heartedly. After all, while theory has its value, the only way one learns swimming is by being in the water, choking, trying and then finally mastering the art.
Intrepid men have challenged dogma, battled socio-cultural mores, traveled where others didn’t and even taken on and defeated extremely powerful empires. Think Mahatma Gandhi, for example. He walked a path that was uniquely his, challenged the mighty British empire by mobilizing millions, talked of and walked his talk on social emancipation of the downtrodden, displayed exemplary personal conviction, courage and shrewdness in dealing with nay-sayers and dissuaders of whom there was no shortage. He believed that fear was not a disease of the body but of the soul. That while fear had its uses, cowardice had none.
In the darkest days of The Great Depression in America in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt in his inaugural address as President said “…first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
Yet, why is it that most of us tend to be afraid? To take decisions, to go against an established orthodoxy, to challenge status quos in our daily lives? Government bureaucracies (especially ours!) have for long been known to not just favour but to positively revel in maintaining a status quo. Executives in companies are happy pushing paper confusing activity for progressive movement leading to new outcomes.
Are we then simply afraid of the socio-cultural-economic consequences of trying something new? Is the system designed to protect status quo and punish those who challenge it? Or are we just too content, lack motivation and curiosity? Do we lack courage, conviction and confidence, the desire to learn and explore? If we are, then we should be really afraid for our future is bleak!
An entrepreneurial mindset is one that challenges the status quo.
What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
May 28, 2009
The Importance of Growing Up - By Sanjay Anandaram
Startups thrive in an environment of chaos where multiple tasks are done, undone and re-done often times guided by just a leap of faith. Decisions are taken in quick time without long (boring?!) meetings typically by a small team of extremely committed and passionate people. Systems, processes and procedures are considered inhibitors to their competitive advantages of speed and innovation.
But as the startup grows, the lack of systems and processes start inhibiting growth; indeed, the company can implode before long without adequate attention and focus on having and implementing systems and processes. These processes and procedures relate to every functional area of the startup and these functional areas cannot scale, operate efficiently and effectively without the right systems. And the management team cannot manage the growth of the company if they cannot measure and track activities, people, money, time, contracts and documents among other things.
As the startup matures, expectations from various stakeholders only increase. For example::
- Does the CEO know the sales, receipts and payables position of the company on a daily basis? Does he have visibility into the cash-flows of the company for the foreseeable future? Are receivables being tracked age-wise and managed? And payables? Does he know what are all the deposits that the company has paid, to whom and when they’re due? What’s the policy for transferring money and issuing cheques?
- How are departmental and company performances tracked and discussed? How often?
- Does every employee have a job description with a clear position on the organization chart? Are employment contracts in place? Is there a hiring, firing, performance appraisal and management, promotion, training, compensation and benefits system in place? What is the system for dealing with employee travel and entertainment expenses? Is there a new employee induction programme – so important for ensuring the comfort of every new hire?
- How is customer service organized, tracked and measured? What’s the system for dealing with refunds and returns?
- What’s the effectiveness of marketing? ROI on campaigns?
- How’s sales organized and measured? What’s the incentive structure for direct and indirect sales?
- Are all the assets of the company documented (including intellectual property) and physically verified? Are maintenance contracts in place for say, the computers? What’s the inventory situation?
- Is there a system for authorizing travel, approving expenses, investments, payments and the like?
- Are there contracts governing partnerships and vendors or are just handshakes and phone calls substituting? Are these contracts still active or do they need reviving? Do the contracts need to be renegotiated keeping in mind the changed circumstances of the company?
- Are statutory requirements being complied with – board meetings and minutes, registrations and licenses, taxes, filings with various regulatory and statutory authorities?
All too often, startups do not pay attention to the need for creating the soft infrastructure within the company for growth. It is not surprising therefore to see most startups flounder after achieving initial success. The capabilities within the company need to be continuously enhanced if the company is to reach subsequent levels of growth with each level being built on a strong foundation. Stronger the foundation, higher the levels. The foundation in turn is determined by the company culture and the quality of the people. The culture must value discipline, diligence and data. Discipline to ensure that systems and procedures are implemented and followed; Diligence to ensure that the systems are continuously working as they should across the company; Data to ensure that the quality of decision making goes beyond pure leap of faith.
Making the transition is not easy. Juggling growth, investments, customers, partners and investors takes up time and energy – systems and processes therefore take a back seat. And then one day, there’s panic! The management has lost its grip on the business with no idea of the finances, customer, employee and partner issues. The company is ripe for an implosion.
However, as with all things, timing is critical. In addition, different systems are required for dealing with different stages of growth. But what is always required from day one is the realization that systems and processes are critical elements of soft infrastructure for the startup.
To realize and to act requires the startup CEO to start thinking like a grown up CEO.
What do you think?
But as the startup grows, the lack of systems and processes start inhibiting growth; indeed, the company can implode before long without adequate attention and focus on having and implementing systems and processes. These processes and procedures relate to every functional area of the startup and these functional areas cannot scale, operate efficiently and effectively without the right systems. And the management team cannot manage the growth of the company if they cannot measure and track activities, people, money, time, contracts and documents among other things.
As the startup matures, expectations from various stakeholders only increase. For example::
- Does the CEO know the sales, receipts and payables position of the company on a daily basis? Does he have visibility into the cash-flows of the company for the foreseeable future? Are receivables being tracked age-wise and managed? And payables? Does he know what are all the deposits that the company has paid, to whom and when they’re due? What’s the policy for transferring money and issuing cheques?
- How are departmental and company performances tracked and discussed? How often?
- Does every employee have a job description with a clear position on the organization chart? Are employment contracts in place? Is there a hiring, firing, performance appraisal and management, promotion, training, compensation and benefits system in place? What is the system for dealing with employee travel and entertainment expenses? Is there a new employee induction programme – so important for ensuring the comfort of every new hire?
- How is customer service organized, tracked and measured? What’s the system for dealing with refunds and returns?
- What’s the effectiveness of marketing? ROI on campaigns?
- How’s sales organized and measured? What’s the incentive structure for direct and indirect sales?
- Are all the assets of the company documented (including intellectual property) and physically verified? Are maintenance contracts in place for say, the computers? What’s the inventory situation?
- Is there a system for authorizing travel, approving expenses, investments, payments and the like?
- Are there contracts governing partnerships and vendors or are just handshakes and phone calls substituting? Are these contracts still active or do they need reviving? Do the contracts need to be renegotiated keeping in mind the changed circumstances of the company?
- Are statutory requirements being complied with – board meetings and minutes, registrations and licenses, taxes, filings with various regulatory and statutory authorities?
All too often, startups do not pay attention to the need for creating the soft infrastructure within the company for growth. It is not surprising therefore to see most startups flounder after achieving initial success. The capabilities within the company need to be continuously enhanced if the company is to reach subsequent levels of growth with each level being built on a strong foundation. Stronger the foundation, higher the levels. The foundation in turn is determined by the company culture and the quality of the people. The culture must value discipline, diligence and data. Discipline to ensure that systems and procedures are implemented and followed; Diligence to ensure that the systems are continuously working as they should across the company; Data to ensure that the quality of decision making goes beyond pure leap of faith.
Making the transition is not easy. Juggling growth, investments, customers, partners and investors takes up time and energy – systems and processes therefore take a back seat. And then one day, there’s panic! The management has lost its grip on the business with no idea of the finances, customer, employee and partner issues. The company is ripe for an implosion.
However, as with all things, timing is critical. In addition, different systems are required for dealing with different stages of growth. But what is always required from day one is the realization that systems and processes are critical elements of soft infrastructure for the startup.
To realize and to act requires the startup CEO to start thinking like a grown up CEO.
What do you think?
May 20, 2009
Private Equity and Venture Capital investors, who have invested over $2 billion into Healthcare & Life Sciences (HLS) companies in India over the last five years, are keen to step up the pace of investments in this industry. Over 42% of PE & VC investors surveyed by Venture Intelligence, a leading research firm focused on Private Equity and M&A deal activity, felt there was a strong opportunity to tap the market for healthcare services in semi-urban and rural areas.
The investors also identified Diagnostic Services, Medical Devices / Equipment, Hospital Chains and Wellness Products and Services as their favorite sectors for investments within the HLS industry. The detailed results of the poll will feature in the Venture Intelligence “Private Equity Pulse on Healthcare & Life Sciences” report to be published next month.
Click Here for more information.
The investors also identified Diagnostic Services, Medical Devices / Equipment, Hospital Chains and Wellness Products and Services as their favorite sectors for investments within the HLS industry. The detailed results of the poll will feature in the Venture Intelligence “Private Equity Pulse on Healthcare & Life Sciences” report to be published next month.
Click Here for more information.
May 05, 2009
CEOs contesting polls: Conflict of Interest?
Julius Caesar the great Roman emperor divorced his wife Pompeia as he considered his honour and position compromised because Pompeia was indirectly associated with a trial for sacrilege. He explained that his wife should not only be free from sin but from suspicion. Given the state of our political system, this kind of requirement seems laughably quaint. But if the system is to improve, keeping this principle in mind is crucial because it is a pre-requisite for good governance in the political as well as the business spheres.
In the last Indipreneur column, I had talked about the need for more entrepreneurs to enter the political sphere. But, and there always are buts, this comes with a significant caveat. The caveat of suspicion of “conflict of interest” becomes therefore especially applicable to those entrepreneurs who’ve decided to be in public service. Our courts which enjoy enormous credibility amongst other institutions in India have a well established system in this regard. Recently, in the case of Ajmal Kasab the Mumbai terror accused, judge Mr M L Tahiliani debarred lawyer Anjali Waghmare from defending Ajmal Kasab on grounds of conflict of interest since she had accepted the legal brief of a surviving witness in the Mumbai attacks.
It would be rather unprecedented for a CEO of a startup that’s in the process of finalising its initial funding to suddenly declare that he would be involved in another venture in an altogether different area and that he or she would be able to do justice to both adequately. Both the existing startup and the new venture call for passion, active and intense hands-on involvement if they are to truly deliver on their promise. The new venture will require the CEO to spend over a 100 days a year in another city and spend an enormous amount of time catering to a totally different set of stakeholders than in his startup. On what basis can the respective stakeholders believe that the CEO will deliver on the promises in spite of the enormous pressures and constraints? Now, what if the new venture was politics and that the CEO was standing for elections with the hope of becoming a Member of Parliament?
Stakeholders want to see focus and be confident that the person in charge is concentrating on delivering the best possible results for them. In addition, people around the world frown upon the CEO having multiple interests especially when there’s enormous potential for serious conflicts of interest issues to arise.
Good governance requires interested parties to recuse themselves from being involved in any situation or decision that can cause a conflict of interest. For example, can a CEO be part of the committee that decides on his own compensation? Can a CEO be involved in writing his own appraisal or that of a subordinate who’s a relative? Should a CEO do business with a company run by family member or a very close friend? If so, what should be the safeguards? Is the relationship at an “arms length?” to address concerns of conflict of interest and prevent suspicion? Increasingly, companies are realizing the virtues of being transparent and above board. Entrepreneurs in politics will hopefully bring about the much needed impetus to the issue of good governance. An issue that cannot be overstated. Therefore, they need to set the standards for the rest of the political system to follow.
Mr Rajeev Chandrashekhar is well known as the founder Chairman of BPL Mobile. He’s a Rajya Sabha MP from Karnataka and currently Chairman of Jupiter Capital which has interests in infrastructure (transportation, logistics, utilities, aviation, electricity), defence technology and media. His company is developing the first non-metro greenfield airport in Karnataka at Hassan. Mr Chandrashekhar is backed by the BJP the current government in Karnataka.
Mr Vijay Mallya Chairman of Kingfisher Airlines is a Rajya Sabha MP and on the Parliament Consultative Committee on Civil Aviation.
Captain Gopinath founder of Air Deccan (merged with Kingfisher Airlines) is now the founder CEO of Deccan Express Logistics which is in the process of raising Rs 300 crore in initial funding out of a total estimated Rs 1000 crore over 3 years. The business of logistics and air-freight involves central and state government regulations. Captain Gopinath is a Lok Sabha aspirant.
There are potential conflicts of interest in the above cases. Shouldn’t the principle of Caesar’s wife be applicable? Can the CEO do justice to two sets of diverse stakeholders (employees and investors in one and the general public in the other) without compromising one or the other?
What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
In the last Indipreneur column, I had talked about the need for more entrepreneurs to enter the political sphere. But, and there always are buts, this comes with a significant caveat. The caveat of suspicion of “conflict of interest” becomes therefore especially applicable to those entrepreneurs who’ve decided to be in public service. Our courts which enjoy enormous credibility amongst other institutions in India have a well established system in this regard. Recently, in the case of Ajmal Kasab the Mumbai terror accused, judge Mr M L Tahiliani debarred lawyer Anjali Waghmare from defending Ajmal Kasab on grounds of conflict of interest since she had accepted the legal brief of a surviving witness in the Mumbai attacks.
It would be rather unprecedented for a CEO of a startup that’s in the process of finalising its initial funding to suddenly declare that he would be involved in another venture in an altogether different area and that he or she would be able to do justice to both adequately. Both the existing startup and the new venture call for passion, active and intense hands-on involvement if they are to truly deliver on their promise. The new venture will require the CEO to spend over a 100 days a year in another city and spend an enormous amount of time catering to a totally different set of stakeholders than in his startup. On what basis can the respective stakeholders believe that the CEO will deliver on the promises in spite of the enormous pressures and constraints? Now, what if the new venture was politics and that the CEO was standing for elections with the hope of becoming a Member of Parliament?
Stakeholders want to see focus and be confident that the person in charge is concentrating on delivering the best possible results for them. In addition, people around the world frown upon the CEO having multiple interests especially when there’s enormous potential for serious conflicts of interest issues to arise.
Good governance requires interested parties to recuse themselves from being involved in any situation or decision that can cause a conflict of interest. For example, can a CEO be part of the committee that decides on his own compensation? Can a CEO be involved in writing his own appraisal or that of a subordinate who’s a relative? Should a CEO do business with a company run by family member or a very close friend? If so, what should be the safeguards? Is the relationship at an “arms length?” to address concerns of conflict of interest and prevent suspicion? Increasingly, companies are realizing the virtues of being transparent and above board. Entrepreneurs in politics will hopefully bring about the much needed impetus to the issue of good governance. An issue that cannot be overstated. Therefore, they need to set the standards for the rest of the political system to follow.
Mr Rajeev Chandrashekhar is well known as the founder Chairman of BPL Mobile. He’s a Rajya Sabha MP from Karnataka and currently Chairman of Jupiter Capital which has interests in infrastructure (transportation, logistics, utilities, aviation, electricity), defence technology and media. His company is developing the first non-metro greenfield airport in Karnataka at Hassan. Mr Chandrashekhar is backed by the BJP the current government in Karnataka.
Mr Vijay Mallya Chairman of Kingfisher Airlines is a Rajya Sabha MP and on the Parliament Consultative Committee on Civil Aviation.
Captain Gopinath founder of Air Deccan (merged with Kingfisher Airlines) is now the founder CEO of Deccan Express Logistics which is in the process of raising Rs 300 crore in initial funding out of a total estimated Rs 1000 crore over 3 years. The business of logistics and air-freight involves central and state government regulations. Captain Gopinath is a Lok Sabha aspirant.
There are potential conflicts of interest in the above cases. Shouldn’t the principle of Caesar’s wife be applicable? Can the CEO do justice to two sets of diverse stakeholders (employees and investors in one and the general public in the other) without compromising one or the other?
What do you think?
Sanjay Anandaram is a passionate advocate of entrepreneurship in India; He brings two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, corporate executive, venture investor, faculty member, advisor and mentor. He’s involved with Nasscom, TiE, IIM-Bangalore, and INSEAD business school in driving entrepreneurship. He can be reached at sanjay@jumpstartup.net. The views expressed here are his own.
April 27, 2009
Entrepreneur pitching to VC: Reality TV-style
CNBC-TV18's Enterprise Inc. show has an interesting Reality TV-type video of an first-time entrepreneur pitching to an angel investor.
Arun Natarajan is the Founder & CEO of Venture Intelligence, the leading provider of information and networking services to the Private Equity and Venture Capital ecosystem in India. Click here to learn about Venture Intelligence's products and services for entrepreneurs.
Arun Natarajan is the Founder & CEO of Venture Intelligence, the leading provider of information and networking services to the Private Equity and Venture Capital ecosystem in India. Click here to learn about Venture Intelligence's products and services for entrepreneurs.
Nominate Indian Startups for The World Economic Forum's Tech Pioneers Program
Startup Journey is happy to invite you to nominate companies you are associated with in India to The World Economic Forum's 'Technology Pioneers' Program 2010. The Program, started in 2000, with the goal of identifying new technologies that will have a dramatic and sustainable impact on business and society, has achieved the distinction of being the most prestigious recognition in the world of technology.
Last year, Bangalore-based mobile payments company JiGrahak Mobility Solutions was selected as one of the 34 "Technology Pioneers" for 2009. Another tech firm that does a lot of its development out of India - Nivio - was also named.
To be selected as a Technology Pioneer, a company must be involved in the development of "life-changing technology". In addition, it must demonstrate visionary leadership, show signs of being a long-standing market leader and its technology must be proven. WEF solicits nominations for the Technology Pioneers program from Technology Pioneer alumni, WEF members, partners, entrepreneurs, innovators and other technology experts.
To nominate a candidate please fill out the form available at
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Technology%20Pioneers/Nominations/index.htm
Please note that once a nomination is accepted, a detailed application form will be sent to the contact person in the company.
Successful candidates will be notified in October 2009 and the class of Technology Pioneers 2010 will be officially announced to the public via a press release on 3 December 2009.
Links to more information on the Process & Criteria:
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Technology%20Pioneers/Nominations/AbouttheProcess/index.htm
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Technology%20Pioneers/SelectedTechPioneers/index.htm
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/techpioneers/TechnologyPioneers2009.pdf
Last year, Bangalore-based mobile payments company JiGrahak Mobility Solutions was selected as one of the 34 "Technology Pioneers" for 2009. Another tech firm that does a lot of its development out of India - Nivio - was also named.
To be selected as a Technology Pioneer, a company must be involved in the development of "life-changing technology". In addition, it must demonstrate visionary leadership, show signs of being a long-standing market leader and its technology must be proven. WEF solicits nominations for the Technology Pioneers program from Technology Pioneer alumni, WEF members, partners, entrepreneurs, innovators and other technology experts.
To nominate a candidate please fill out the form available at
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Technology%20Pioneers/Nominations/index.htm
Please note that once a nomination is accepted, a detailed application form will be sent to the contact person in the company.
Successful candidates will be notified in October 2009 and the class of Technology Pioneers 2010 will be officially announced to the public via a press release on 3 December 2009.
Links to more information on the Process & Criteria:
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Technology%20Pioneers/Nominations/AbouttheProcess/index.htm
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Technology%20Pioneers/SelectedTechPioneers/index.htm
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/techpioneers/TechnologyPioneers2009.pdf
Work-Life Balance. What's That?
Jason Nazar, founder CEO of DocStoc.com, has a great post on the "The Unintended Consequences of Startups" that a lot of entrepreneurs can definitely empathize with (and hopefully learn from). Hat tip: StartupDunia
Arun Natarajan is the Founder & CEO of Venture Intelligence, the leading provider of information and networking services to the Private Equity and Venture Capital ecosystem in India. Click here to learn about Venture Intelligence's products and services for entrepreneurs.
It took me a while to admit that I was stressed out, and even longer to realize I would turn to food to compensate for that stress. Over the past year, I’ve become a more solitary person with my thoughts and emotions than I’ve ever been, while increasingly becoming a public figure who’s known as an outgoing social networker and showman. It’s a strange dichotomy.
My family has been both incredibly supportive but also upset that I’ve seemingly disappeared. I have three (quite) older siblings, and we’re undeniably close. But while they’re all proud of me, they disapprove of my unbalanced lifestyle. My brother and I share opposing sides of duplex, he’s literally a wall away from me. But I can often go 2 weeks without seeing or talking to him. My sisters are busy raising their kids, so they can relate a bit more. But like so many others, our conversation often come back to them asking me “why don’t you ever want to talk about what’s going on in your life”.
...I think I’ve reached my breaking point, at least for now, and mostly in regards to my health. Somehow I know my relationships will work out, but I often find myself feeling like I’m working at 40% of my capacity and energy, and I think its due in large part to poor physical habits.
Arun Natarajan is the Founder & CEO of Venture Intelligence, the leading provider of information and networking services to the Private Equity and Venture Capital ecosystem in India. Click here to learn about Venture Intelligence's products and services for entrepreneurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
