Participating (remotely via Twitter) in the Silicon Cape Initiative's launch event I was left motivated and with this to tweet: "Certainly feeling inspired & proud to be a Cape Town entrepreneur/geek". Reflecting in the days that followed and reviewing the morning's tweets, I acknowledge a certain perspective I hold which I unpack here for discussion.
An environment conducive to entrepreneurship
My tweets:
- So many excuses! Always *someone else* responsible for our failure to succeed. Make choices & enjoy the challenges
- Don't blame the gap, see the gap and seize it. Mark Shuttleworth, Vinny Lingham and their ilk defy gaps
- Laurie Olivier: "Success comes from those foolish enough to think unreasonably"<- This what I'm on about, go beyondsense
While I agree environmental factors from economic to legal conditions can favor entrepreneurial growth I don't believe it's a precondition. Sure, bring on the tax incentives, improved connectivity, etc - well considered and well executed initiatives will contribute. I appreciate that people are thinking about these things and taking action to make a difference. However, as an entrepreneur, I'm going to live my passions despite an apparent lack of favorably conditions.
The danger I see is, if I believe entrepreneurship is limited by current conditions and that someone else (policy makers, venture capitalists, etc) is responsible for changing these conditions, then I am really stuck. Of course limitations exist and others can influence these but they shouldn't hold me back.
Besides which, being faced with uncomfortable challenges is the crucible for innovation and change. It is from this that great ideas often arise. Limitations are simply parameters within which to work requiring creative solutions to achieve what's desired.
Seed and venture capital
My tweets:
- If VCs think & act due to entrepreneur beliefs & attitudes where lie options for change? Investment is a SERVICE!
- Laptop + Internet + loosely-coupled, self-motivated, enthusiastic collaborators, no VC required
Investment is nice and I could do a lot of things differently/effectively with capital in support. But it's only one way. Having or not having funding is one of those parameters suggested above. It's not an obligation or the responsibility of venture capitalists to supply funding. Without it, I find a way to get it or find another way.
The danger here is in the balance and abuse of power (for a view on this abuse read Jason Calacanis's Why startups shouldn’t have to pay to pitch angel investors). If I consider funding as a service (strange I know) then the nature of the relationship changes: I'm the client. If my attitude is one of finding a way and not the way then it's a matter of choice between one service provider and another. I select from options by assessing what will work best in the broadest possible context, not only for the possible provider of funding.
Besides, there are many entrepreneurial opportunities, especially Internet related, that don't require capital more than they require learned skills, applied dedication and creative ingenuity. If that sounds like work, it is! Expertise and experience in action are an entrepreneur's most valuable resources. They are also abundant, renewable and expandable and not necessarily dependent on capital funding.
Risk, fame, fortune and glory
My tweets:
- "Innovation is from the journey's thrill & daring to 'fail', not hunting returns! VCs get over your money issues!
- Andrea Bohmert: "Failure part of learning curve. Failing once nothing to be ashamed of." <- Fail 100 times, you still gain
- IP, legislation & profits? Maybe not the point? Maybe support, openness, sharing & non-ownership are another way?
I believe there's an expectation that entrepreneurship, especially technology and Internet related, is about making money and hopefully lots of it. There are certainly many that have becoming exceptionally wealthy this way and so will many more. Good luck to them and I trust this wealth is leveraged wisely.
The danger, oh the danger! If money (and lifestyle) was my only measure of success my entrepreneurial motivation would be flawed from the start. Certainly this appears to be emphasized by funding provider's obsession with returns and yes, a start-up does at least need to cover its expenses. But profits and returns should not be the only motivation or measure of success.
I enjoy the values I observe in open source where growing wealth is not the primary motivator. Money can be strongly linked to ownership and control. The open source movement demonstrates the possibilities that become available when attitudes move away from ownership and control. It appears to me that more is possible in the spirit of openness and sharing. In that spirit I don't see a start-up that closes after five years as a failure. I appreciate it as five years of learning, experience, job creation, advancements and of living ones passion. Five valuable years that contribute to refining and perusing that passion into the next five years.
Besides, start-up business is risky business pursued on balance of priorities, enthusiasm and daring. If the balance tips towards living my passion I should be willing and prepared to give up financial security. I don't have to necessarily, there may be options, but if that's what it takes... Same for providers of capital. Why should entrepreneurs bear all the risk? Those operating at the level of 'Angel Investors' should probably have priorities other than recovering their money.
Education and training
Some of the event's follow-up tweets and blog posts mentioned the importance of quality eduction and training being available. I don't disagree but I have heard it before again and again. I don't think it's of any value if the underlying beliefs and attitudes of individuals limit the scope of their thinking and ability to constructively take action.
Everything I've been talking about in this post has a set of beliefs and attitudes underpinning the Cape's potential as Silicon Cape. Do we believe there's a right set of circumstances for a Silicon Cape to emerge? Do we believe we are reliant on providers of capital to behave in a certain way? Do we believe the only dreams worth pursuing are those expected to provide returns greater than a less risky alternative? Do we believe we are limited by the standard and level of our eduction?
I see links between my perspective given and my experience with Tantra. Whether a Tantrika, entrepreneur, geek, partner, athlete or whatever... in pursuing my highest potential I delve into my unconscious to transform those patterns and conditions that limit into new ways of experiencing my world. I do what I do because it's my desire, my passion, my journey.
Giving up beliefs and attitudes that limit creates possibilities. If Silicon Cape is to be a reality, beliefs and attitudes are required that allow for that reality to manifest. I am excited about the potential of Silicon Cape and trust I will contribute positively in my own unique way. Game on!
What are your passions and how can you contribute for the benefit of many? I would love to read your comments.
Comments
-
Justin Stanford 2009-10-23 12:20:53
Good comments! Personally, I always say, real entrepreneurs come up with solutions, not problems... ;)
-
Stephen | Personal ownership and responsibility 2009-10-20 11:51:57
Andrew, thank you, I appreciate the response.
Yes, it's up to each person to put themselves forward. I am always inspired by individuals that dare to turn their dreams into reality in the face of the impossible.
'Service' is not the best analogy, I agree. It's just a radical suggestion designed to shift perspective from another extreme. I'm enthusiastic about open source, community, collaboration and sharing - the pooling of energy to co-create something greater than the sum of the parts - and that the relationship with investors can too be in this spirit.
One of my concerns though is that for early stage businesses (i.e. not relevant for venture capital but perhaps more the arena for angel investors) 'making returns' as a determining factor creates an inherent limitation in possibilities. That, outside of pure capitalist thinking, there may be other equally valid reasons for embarking on (and possibly investing in) a business venture.
I firmly believe that Silcon Cape as an initiative has far more potential for success if there is less focus on making returns and more on getting on with creating great things that we are passionate about in a manner that's inclusive and supporting.
-
Andrew Thomas-Woolf | Motivation, environmental change and funding 2009-10-19 17:30:17
Thanks for writing this. I find it a useful and interesting contribution to the ongoing formation and development of our entrepreneurial ecosystem.
You say, "The danger I see is, if I believe entrepreneurship is limited by current conditions and that someone else (policy makers, venture capitalists, etc) is responsible for changing these conditions, then I am really stuck."
It's all about taking personal ownership for one's actions within an environment. No matter what "we" (the various people involved in some way or another with the SC initiative) achieve, it will have no impact unless and until each person acts on their personal vision and takes on the business challenges out there.
My take on the primary purpose of the intiative is that it is not to "create" something directly (I wouldn't support the establishment of an SC VC fund, for example), but to facilitate, catalyse and reallocate resources in such a way that the entrepreneurs' and funders' primary problems are *business* problems, not absurd regulatory problems or a lack of institutional experience/knowledge (compare typical ZA angel investment structuring with the US or Europe and how well each align incentives and allocate risk & reward).
You also refer to funding as a "service". To some extent, it is, but I would say that a far better analogy is that of entering into a partnership. There is no "fire and forget" when you obtain funding, so it's of paramount importance that you choose a capital partner with who you can work going forward.
However, it is the rare business that is genuinely suitable for VC investment: one that has a scalable business model, a substantial addressable market, a defensible product or service and one which can generate substantial returns on the capital invested (10x-20x on early stage, pre-revenue investment capital).
| < Previous | Next > |
|---|
