Right now, a more perfect market is the enemy of many who are presently unemployed or under-employed. A new approach to entrepreneurial discovery can provide the key that can make a more perfect market, a friend. This approach involves two key initiatives that change the way we think.
First, we must change the destructive perception that successful entrepreneurs are born and not made. In the past four decades, many felt that entrepreneurial success depended upon "grit" in the face of the massive market advantages of giant corporations. If you liked this article and you simply would like to get more info with regards to http://hauteliving.com/2010/05/kruseville-welcomes-sobe-arts/51585/
i implore you to visit the internet site. A perception arose that successful entrepreneurship was based upon the possession of a unique set of personality traits. This perception is a hold-over from the age where it was very tough to start a new business because of the entrenched competition from big business operating on the "bubble" of a post World War II market imperfection. But circumstances have changed.
As explained earlier, big business today has huge problems with swift response to competition as compared to many smaller, more efficient firms. Big business is likely to be less rather than more able to survive in a more-perfect market. In a more-perfect market, with the right skills and type of organization, it should be easier to start a business - not harder. The "born not made" perception of entrepreneurs is also a result of many pop-psych studies that have purported to show that entrepreneurs have unique personality traits: No traits--no entrepreneur. In fact, these studies are often contradictory, and offer no clear evidence that a mystical set of success traits determines entrepreneurial effectiveness.
Accordingly, would-be entrepreneurs are erroneously dissuaded from venturing by believing the misinformation that entrepreneurs are born and not made. It must become the commonly accepted belief that successful venturing is possible for anyone who has the specialized training, the will power, and an entrepreneurial discovery. Though some may find it easier to venture due to some measure of natural ability, none with the previously noted prerequisites should, through ignorance, be preemptively precluded from venturing. The need for this specialized training gives rise to the second initiative required.
Second, we must provide a conceptual foundation for effective entrepreneurship that is based upon success enhancement through failure prevention. Training individuals to succeed by preventing unproductive failure, is a substantial departure from the prevailing approach. Today, much effort is being expended to identify the list of success factors for new ventures. Whether intended or not, the search for this list implies that there is a complete recipe for venture success. But, the success recipe approach has limitations. Our approach which seeks to enhance venture success through systematically eliminating the causes of failure (see Preface-Venture Success Through Failure Prevention) has greater promise. Specifically, our approach promises, through training, to reduce unproductive new venture failure - the probability that a venture will be "selected for" in the "survival of the fittest" ecology of the free enterprise system.
As described in the Preface, failure in a new venture can occur in one of three areas: 1. Failure in the venture--not correctly "building the business," 2. Failure in the venturer--not preparing the entrepreneur correctly, and 3. Failure in the social context--failing to properly consider and include venture stakeholders.
Success enhancement through failure prevention involves understanding the necessary conditions that must be present in ventures, venturers, and with stakeholders to avoid failure. Furthermore, it requires that these conditons be met BEFORE the venture proceeds; There is a new way of thinking that can turn the disheartened entrepreneur into the successful entrepreneur.
This approach involves two key initiatives that change the way we think and finally, it trusts the rest to luck and the good sense and skill of the venturer and his/her stakeholders. In the material presented here, we'll take a look at six inadequacies in the venture itself that can lead to new-venture formation failure. They follow a logical order, beginning with the venture idea (entrepreneurial discovery) and progressing through the critical hurdles that a venture must clear to remain viable.
They are: Innovation failur, failure to create value, failure to persist over time, failure to maintain economic scarcity, failure to prevent the appropriation of created value, and failure to maintain flexibility in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity. This list points to six key questions that must be asked about each venture: Is it Innovative? Is it Valuable? Is it persistent over time? is it scarce? is it non-appropriable? is it flexible?
In the material that follows, each of these questions is considered in depth. Each main question is supported by two or three sub-questions that further define the requirements to be met. For ease of reference, this set of six questions, with sub-questions, is referred to throughout as The NEW VENTURE TEMPLATETM. Remember that the underlying logic of this approach dictates: If the answer is not yes (even to the sub-questions)--DON'T GO ON until the question is resolved. (Note: The "it" in the questions refers to the entrepreneurial discovery that forms the basis for the venture.)
The order in which the questions are posed and answered permits the venturer to draw conclusions about the venture that are quite apart from getting all the way through the list. For example, should questions 1 and 2 be answered yes, it is possible to predict a profitable venture--but one that may not last: a fad, so to speak. Also, questions 1-3, as a group, answer the master-question: Is this a Business? Questions 4-6 answer the master-question: Can you Keep It? In the material that follows, the reader will observe that the "don't go on" logic is really a building logic, which parallels the building of the venture.
Beginning with the idea itself, and then following immediately with marketing considerations, is the way that ventures are actually built in practice. Once the idea and its market are soundly situated, then the venturer should proceed to consider the competitive (or strategic) position of the product/service upon which the venture is based. Hence, the final three questions deal primarily with the issues related to competitive strategy - of keeping the business once it has been established in the market.