Derivatives – Did all the big consumer electronics manufacturers developed all the technology or ideas themselves? The market life for consumer electronics is only 6 ~ 9 months. Can they develop new technology or ideas at this pace or did they copy from their competitors? An Indian friend said “It will be easy to copy 95%, you will have hell if you copy only 5.” – Well, so how much to copy?

Hard work, Hard work and Hard Work yet no guaranteed success – In engineering, add 1 + 1 is 2 but in business adding 1 + 1 is any result except 2. So beware of the unexpected.

Good write up and point 2 is very true. One of my entrepreneurship sites that I set up was a derivitative of a similar site in europe and US. I mistakenly wanted to create an Asian version on it. As a result it has not been very sucessful. Simply because I did not understand how the market here ticked. Being such a well connected market and with the boundaryless of the internet, creating such localised versions will only be sucessful if you really understand the Web 2.0 and its relation to the local market. Can you say Youtube is the American’s funniests home videos of the Web2.0?

Also such boundaryless scope with the internet will mean you will get alot of derivitatives/imitation business plans which will be the big problem and possibly the bulk of your submitted business plans. Infact MDA saying they want to create, from singapore, the next youtube or google implies exactly that.

Only when people start to understand what Web2.0 is and how can apply this to, localised content as well as new ideas, you will get workable business plans.

Good Luck.

No worries. I take your point. We do not have objections to people who want to do their startups in OMO at the start and we do not rule out people as single founders. There is no absolutes in business, and we will judge on a case by case basis whether an idea is suitable for funding with an independent panel.

As a matter of fact, SG Entrepreneurs still stick ot the original goal of encouraging more entrepreneurs with and without the MDA funding. As I have said before, some OMO business don’t need funding and they can do well. For the funding, we are tasked with taxpayers money to do a good and professional job in making enterprises work.

The conditions laid down by MDA (since they are the bankers) is that the startups should be innovative, sustainable and scalable. Most OMO, in my opinion, can be innovative and sustainable, but not scalable. When I mean scalable, I am talking about how this startup moves up towards a medium enterprise and subsequently towards a regional MNC. That involves the founder having the capability to build teams.

What I am concerned, however, is that there exist some founders who are too introverted or not open to other people who comes into the scene to help the business. They distrust others who are here to help the business and presenting an alternative viewpoint to how things should be run. It is more inherent in Asian culture than in western culture. The example that I talked about which happened to a founder, is a good example of that kind of founder which we do not want to fund. Hence it is important that we tell people that we are looking for entrepreneurs who can build teams to take their idea into business.

I’m sorry that my initial comment had triggered further discussion regarding “OMO”. My only concern is that good ideas may be rejected just because of OMO.

Anyway, I’ve always been thinking what makes an entrepreneur? Is that a ten-year book series that identifies them? Must a venture be a team? After a long thought (years in fact), I realised there is no definite answer. The most common trait I can see is perseverance. However, if an idea is a runaway success, then the potential entrepreneur’s resolve will not be tested.

I can understand why BL and team need to hedge their bets since they are investing other peoples’ money. (Why pseduo-VC, I thought they are VC?) If they need to hedge their funds in a team of at least two and that is the criteria, I can understand that. But stating that OMO is bound to fail, it is something that’s against my and some other’s personal experience.

I’ve joined sgentrepreneurs hoping to encourage more entrepreneurs in Singapore. That is still the goal isn’t it? Stating that OMO is bound to fail may not be very encouraging to fellow entrepreneurs.

While this debate rages on and on over Bernard’s initial comment, I just like to point out my two cents worth here. SGE is performing the role of a pseudo-VC here. When you are investing someone else’s money, you want to hedge your bets. Entrusting one man with money is obviously more risky than trusting a well-balanced team to deliver the goods and results. While hyperbole might be accused on the part of “bound to fail”, it was more of a figurative expression.

As a true entrepreneur, instead of trying to accuse those who distrust one-man-operations and defend yourself, one should think of how to answer the very intuitive questions an investor will be asking on the sustainability and scalability of your initial idea. Sure, some me-too companies and startups in certain traditional industries can be created from OMOs or if you are a genius, you can be successful yourself too. But if you want money from others, dun try to argue for the benefit of the doubt from investors.

However, there is one thing that the need more emphasis over the rest of the factor, that is the half-heartedness of all biz. Most, if not all biz fail from the lack of PERSEVERANCE.

How many start their business with a team of people? Usually from what I see and hear, it is always that 1 person running and grow from him/herself to another and then another.

Paddy
BAK2u.com

For us, team (whether one or more people) comes first, then the idea. This is because the team are the ones who execute the idea.