Brought down on the side of ‘creative’ people – Caveat Emptor – the budget

The Government has not yet explained some Budget proposals in detail. Caveat Emptor: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk. The excitement is the budget will allow small business to get a tax advantage for spending, and being creative. The carrot is to encourage you to be a start-up. The beware warning is because; generally the announcements made, as part of the Budget will have to pass as legislation before they take effect. Therefore, Budget proposals should not be taken as fact yet, even if a starting date is proposed.

It is right to get excited, it is a policy turnaround with promise. A promise you will be rewarded for being creative. Now comes another issue: While it helps start-up, being creative just does not cut it at all when it comes to describing what you do (why you are a desirable product). You see a well thought out plan is more than a document; it is the display of your method to success.

As a small business owner you realize the measure of your worth is how you can innovate and compete. There is even a separate government program designed for that purpose. The necessary step is you must have a plan that is focused on an idea and method. If you think about this you realize a politician emphasizing ‘creative’ might be silly. Our PM has repeated wailed the word on the media as describing the primary need for being successful and rewarded by the budget.

What is wrong with the word ‘creative’ you ask? The word ‘creative’ may mean “deceptive in presenting financial information”. The dictionary tells us so, and it seems a poor choice of word to be used in the Budget meant to build confidence.

Maybe the Treasurer is doing a better job of showing an understanding of language – of the budgets intended purpose, and I quote: “If small business people are investing in innovation and job creation, we should be celebrating. That’s fantastic and that’s how you grow an economy.” Then we take notice the PM was reluctant to use the word ‘innovation’ in his address; he preferred to embellish ‘creative’.

Continuing with the Treasurer’s words: “We focused on continuing with our economic plan which is built on last year’s budget, is built on a number of decisions we have made since we came to government.

We are continuing with that economic plan”.

The above comments while confusing are at least reflective of a change to the mindset, or at least, a thought – Start-ups will save us?

Where did that idea come from? A recent start-up economy study undertaken by PwC and commissioned by Google Australia forecasts high-growth technology companies could contribute four per cent of gross domestic product (or $109 billion) and add 540,000 jobs by 2033 from a base of about 0.2 per cent of GDP today.

However, they also warn of market failure and the reason why it is likely.

Then comes the worrying bit of all this enthusiasm. According to a World Economic Forum report, “Australia’s start-up ecosystem is already lagging behind those of many other developed nations due to a lack of emphasis on entrepreneurship education, limited engagement with universities and poor cultural support for entrepreneurs.”

Back to more worry: Treasury makes no forecasts beyond 2016-17. After that, it only makes a technical assumption that all will be well over the following five years. In other words the assumption we will able to achieve nirvana. To this point we read one media report even said :It’s what Happy Joe’s Fairy Godmother might deliver for him, if he had one. It’s not what you would want to base our economic policy settings on.”

To recap earlier in the blog. The risk of being creative is the creator may be seen as deceptive in presenting financial information. The risk of presenting innovation is that might be seen as coincident and opposed to the purpose for the statement.  The case for the cost benefit for the policy would have to ask and answer: Is this idea creative or innovative. It cannot be both otherwise you might be opening for a consensus. Consensus has a habit of finding a rule against the ideals. If you have had policy training, you might be saying – bloody ‘creative’ budget got me going. If we play semantics with the wording, and the PM can spin this morning as encouraging ‘creative’ small – to mean what he did not intend? Did he intend to omit to say innovative small business to be encourage, the day after the budget?

We tested that thought, and to paraphrase some of the responses:

  • We need local employment opportunity to go along with the incentive, something we often see social planners forget about.
  • We to be producers too, not just service providers.
  • We see a different economic reason altogether, the incentive increases our reliance on imports. We have had our manufacturing sector stripped of its ability to compete.
  • Startups are not just IT companies. Real innovators make things, not just create.
  • They don’t get the supply demand balance!
  • Does anyone have a spare $200million laying around, we have a outstanding start-up ready to go. But we have no government support! That got our attention. It is real and the problem policy does not want to know.

Think again if you think they got. Than listen to this game of semantics, on ABC TV: Interviewer Leigh Sales (LS) and Interviewee Joe Hockey (JH) –

LS – The Government’s spending as a percentage of GDP is 25.9 per cent. That is the same as the previous Labor Government (was) spending at the height of the global financial crisis.

JH – Not true. They got to 26 per cent.

LS – You’re at 25.9 per cent?

Another commentator of the semantics, said:

Maybe Australians are thought they don’t know when their legs are being pulled!

Now the dust has started to settle on the hype of the budget. There is a realisation that the accelerated depreciation schedule that was announced for those nice to have tools of trade (sometimes called big boys toys) is not gifts. The scheme is designed to offset your tax liability when you earn enough money to pay for them. The issue them is one of equity. A positive of this is that the plumber or electrician is now fully aware that a market is supply and demand. Albeit the new measure makes them aware they do need to make enough money to pay for the toys. The story continues as we received a plumbing quote a week before the accelerated depreciation for small business was announced – it was $1,700. A few days after the announcement – it was changed to $2,400. Why, the reply to pay for items I need to buy? Why, do you need to buy them? Because I realised I had to earn more money to have a liability to pay tax and that tax is what I can claim from what I buy? And, we were to be a willing to pay for that purpose? Yes. We did not find that equitable – so we put off our purchase.

So the problem is ‘start-up’ are not stand-ups or creative types on how to make money. A genuine start-up is backed by a method that will create money and not just redirect money from old to new etc. We think – nay – still confused!

Advertisements

Environmental Project risk – 2015, no option to do nothing

There is a rise of project risk if you ignore sustainable practices. Banks are introducing the need to consider that you be aware of that responsibility. 2015 is shaping itself as the review year of regulatory response and licenses to assign risk. It follows that we are on track to the need to focus on compliance action verses the risk of no action being greater. The evidence is you are endangered as a species or at best targeted by Australian jurisdictions if you ignore what your facility or business might do to reduce the risk. For instance environmental licensing regimes are being reworked so that compliance activity can be aligned with actual facility risks. These checked activities take into account the operator history and what is a nearby sensitive environment.

You may not be aware of AELERT – their website says:“We are a collective of environmental regulators from all levels of government across Australia and New Zealand.  We create a platform for environmental regulators to connect and collaborate in their work.

Member officers connect through AELERT to exchange resources, knowledge and experience about environmental regulatory practice and work together to drive continuous improvement and new approaches to the ‘regulatory craft’.”

What is growing from this collaboration is NSW will launch its risk-based licensing scheme on July 1, 2015, and Victoria’s three-year roll-out of its Licensed Operator Risk Assessment scheme will be completed in 2015, while Queensland is also well into a process of risk-profiling the sites it regulates.

The other issue is that compliance to regulatory needs has another element in 2015: It is called ‘social licence’ and is likely to be the dominant phase of 2015. Our opening paragraph referred to banks, and this form of license, and we quote:

“And it’s no good having the official go-ahead to build a coal port or mine if activists have made sure that no financial institution will back it (see related article).

Many environmental groups have become so dismayed at what they perceive to be a large-scale wind-back of environmental legislation that they no longer consider official processes capable of delivering a fair result. Their concerns have been magnified by the de-funding of public interest environmental lawyers (see related article), new restrictions in Queensland on rights to appeal decisions or even be notified about projects (see related article), and Tasmania’s new law cracking down on rights to protest (see related article).

For many groups, that means strategic community campaigning – ranging from blockades to shareholder activism – is now often seen as the best option.”

To Co2land org these license events are the equivalent to the actions of the political pendulum and as history displays no matter what the swing the middle is where it will travel.

The pendulum for carbon pricing was set in 2014 with the repeal of the Carbon Tax, and the reliance on the Emission Reduction Fund to take the battle over the policies of what Australia should use to reduce emissions. To again to use out quoted source:

“But 2015 will mostly be about how deeply the nation should cut them. In Australia, one legacy of the 2014 struggle over carbon policy is that we will have two major reviews of suitable targets – one led by Prime Minister and Cabinet (see related article) and another by the Climate Change Authority (see related article).

Both will be important. Although the PMC review will represent Australia’s official position, other governments are likely to judge the Government harshly if its proposals fall far short of what the Climate Change Authority suggests. Meanwhile, businesses themselves will come under increasing pressure to set corporate emissions reduction targets that are based on climate science.

There is now an international campaign – with high-profile backers including CDP, the World Resources Institute and WWF – urging companies to do so.”

Our current Government has introduced an emission reduction scheme – albeit with a $0 baseline and it is called Direct Action Plan. The Senate referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report on the matter on 10 December 2013. All good to go now and you expect no problems!

Then SAI GLOBAL, 2 February 2015 reports in the Carbon + Environment Daily that in the climate change arena, “nervousness about the capacity of Direct Action to deliver emission cuts and about the Federal Government’s commitment to renewable energy will lead to growing pressure for states to pick up the perceived slack.

The actions of the NSW, ACT and South Australian governments show they already consider they have a major role to play in helping their citizens deal with climate change, and the newly-elected Andrews Labor Government in Victoria has indicated it shares this view.

As well, both NSW and Victoria are reviewing coastal legislation in 2015, a task that will inevitably have a strong focus on climate change adaptation.”

Co2land org is taken back to the Howard years of government and recalls the shift from Greenhouse Gas Abatement Actions to Climate Change Adaptation strategies. So if this all sounds back to the future it really only means the makeup of our current government is recycling its policies as business as usual. A rebadge of funding here and there of course. If you think this is cynical it is not meant to be it is a concern that we are seeing the continuing rise of risk and that even the most strident of climate change deniers are acknowledging risk is risk, and exposure to risk requires assessment to minimize the fallout. That is a fact it is not a political position and it is common to survival.

An excellent example of taking risk seriously is Cotton Australia where in their periodical Cotton Matters, 28 January 2015 they write:

“The Australian cotton industry supports programs to reduce emissions through improving efficiencies and a first assessment indicates the draft method is technically sound. However, Cotton Australia considers that at this stage it could be challenging to garner involvement due to a potentially inadequate benefit:cost. Implementing a project involves administrative obligations and costs (e.g. for independent audits) as well as the need to manage financial risk.

Nevertheless, businesses in the carbon market are working to develop smarter services and products to help manage complexity, risk and reduce project costs. A sufficient price for carbon would help overcome these.

For these reasons, the researchers, economists and technical specialists at CottonInfo eagerly await the results of the first Emissions Reduction Fund reverse auction the coming months of this year to firm up the likely carbon price and revenue potential for future projects.”

From this Co2Land org finds the price of carbon will prevail, and the mid point of the pendulum will not be $0. There will be ‘degrees’ of difference that will set the price and price has the capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions adequately and effectively.

One risk for the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) is as the federal government’s centrepiece for emissions reduction, and it relying on being used to purchase lowest cost abatement, and participation in the ERF is voluntary and open to everyone is that it may be window dressing.  The key is the reference of being ‘open to everyone’. The issue is that interested parties must establish a project, which must follow the rules outlined in a ‘method’. What is not well know is that a minimum block of emissions reduction from the method exists and set by an arbitrary decision process. In short individuals may not particulate without complexity. Complexity by virtue of the need to be fully aware, upfront behaviour of how the detail and requirements in undertaking a project: the risks, costs as well as the benefits are presented. That said the other aspect is the market is immature and finding who to trust as having your interests as a ’license’ is a risk.

Effective Competition – pro what!

What is your politics can be a confronting question. It is getting more difficult to answer the question – What do you do? If you answer too honestly it might make the next question even more confronting: Are you a pro-market forces person or a pro-business person? Initially the difference may not be obvious. But, there is a world of difference if you want to influence a result. The reason is a result requires someone to intervene to give you an edge in the competition for a position in the market. Whereas to get an outcome you might support effective competition to ensure the benefits of what you offer to the market are maximised.

As does happen when you start talking about something, along comes a story that illustrated the point very well, and being it is a political story relevant to today, it is worth making a reference to it: The message relates to whether we will we see more rent-seeking or less under Abbott, more of what The Economist magazine calls “crony capitalism”? Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/abbotts-choice-competition-v-cronies-20141019-1189dm.html#ixzz3GcjBa2XF

The opening lines being: “It’s still too soon to tell whether the Tony Abbott’s government is pro-market or pro-business, but so far the evidence for the latter stacks higher than that for the former.

The difference turns on whether the pollies want markets where effective competition ensures benefits to consumers are maximised and excessive profits minimised, or markets where government intervenes to limit competition – often under the cover of claiming to be protecting jobs – and make life easier for favoured businesses.”

Of course the background to this Canberra Times story is:

“Abbott and his ministers’ intemperate attacks on the Australian National University for its decision to “divest” itself of a few million mining-company shares for environmental or ethical reasons are a worrying sign.

Investors shouldn’t enjoy freedom to choose where they invest, regardless of their reasons? ANU is different from the rest of us even though its investment funds come largely from private donations and bequests? This from a government keen to complete the de facto privatisation of universities?

What is ANU’s offence? Bringing ethical considerations into investment? Or sounding like it believes climate change is real and we should be doing something real about it?

Abbott attacked ANU’s decision as “stupid” and believes “coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future”.

If ever there was an industry whose early decline could be confidently predicted – as it is being by hard-headed investors and bankers the world over – it’s steaming coal.

Yet Abbott seems keen to change the rules of the formerly supposed bipartisan renewable energy target in ways that, by breaking long-standing commitments to the renewables industry, would cost it billions and blight the future of its employees, all to provide the government’s coal and electricity industry mates with temporary relief from the inevitable.

The biggest problem with governments “picking winners” is that they quickly regress to picking losers, helping industries against which technology and other forces have shifted to resist the market’s pressure for change that would – almost invariably – make consumers and the economy better off.”

This where we think it gets really interesting: The review on competition policy is being considered. It becomes even more important to understand whether you are a pro-market or pro-business person. When you support the innovation of ideas you need to know whether the IP is protected when you make available for the market. It is the point of where you commercialise and the particular area where sound competitive principles are most important. It is where the regulation of intellectual property, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and plant breeder rights is critical.

Note we said ‘regulation’ and this implies that a form of government intervention in the market is needed to limit competition with owners of the patents and so forth for a limited period. It’s a necessary response to prevent market failure. However, another problem exists also – how do you encourage continuous improvements to incentivise new knowledge and ideas that progress the benefits?

No easy answer is the response. Maybe just too hard!

The Canberra Times article goes on the say: ” This makes it ripe for rent-seeking: pressuring politicians to extend the monopoly periods retrospectively (despite the lack of public benefit), to allow loopholes that permit phony “ever-greening” of drug patents that would otherwise expire, to limit poor countries’ access to life-saving drugs at realistic prices and to ignore blatant gaming of IP laws by two-bit operators that have never created anything.

Most of these excesses are at their worst in the United States with its easily bought legislature. The information revolution has made IP one of America’s chief export earners. And the free-trade preaching Yanks have made advancing the interest of their IP exporters their chief priority in trade negotiations such as the present Trans Pacific Partnership deal.

As always, we have a tendency to give the Yanks whatever they want. Trouble is, as Harper points out, Australia is and always will be (and should be, given our comparative advantage in world trade) a net importer of intellectual property.”

There lies our point: Australians have been one of the great inventors in the world. Yet something holds us back from being successful on our own country – Is it fighting cronyism!

 

Pride and Passion – too much for the business.

My father used to say – think your mother was a glassmaker? Meaning I cannot see through you. My pride would be hurt. Not because of what was said, but that I did not notice I was in the way and awkward at it too! That said it has parallels for business. Recently we were asked a question – I have done all the necessary steps to get my idea to market, don’t they know how important it is – it could change everything! I even spend $300,000 on IP Lawyers to protect our precious idea from copiers. Still going nowhere, why? Our reply, no worries ‘you’ are the problem. The problem is pride and being too proud and too much unbridled passion in your beliefs. Then our friend said; that is what the other guy said! Adding, they said you are not ready for success and it is very common when ideas get to the point of needing objective assessments and not just hard work. It is at that point where what could go wrong really goes wrong with the next step and it is ‘you’.

If we start with the hard work equation, Co2Land org Posted on July 23, 2014, Waltz with your innovation – 1,2,3 step. From this you will get a good visual on the issues. Then there are the mistakes: Chances are you challenged conventional wisdom – first mistake. Someone else has something to lose. Chances are you have improved a widget – next mistake. It was someone else’s cash cow. Chances are you did not realise you have set a new standard, or at least the potential to change is recognised. This means you are causal to change. Have any of you ever thought that what you cause to change might not like to change?

Then there is the problem of objective assessments and the blockers for it: What you might need to change is your pride! It is that point where your pride will not let you give up; you might want to walk away. But you cannot. It is that point that is too much for good business.

But can you still be proud that at least you give it a go? It is normal behaviour for you to hate to miss the next step for ‘your baby’ to succeed. What you would not like to hear is ‘you’ might better help the company by stepping back for three to four years and it would be good for your company. Why? It is in your mind – you are the best thing for the new company. It is your right in being there for the transition from inventor to innovator to leader. The reality can be different – too much passion to project and not being willing to share the problem.

For further explanation of why, maybe you should step back the following from: Jason Thibeault Sr. Director Marketing Strategy at Limelight Networks; Co-Author of “Recommend This!” on August 13, 2014, wrote: “About a year ago, I had an amazing opportunity to go work for a startup (PokitDok). This startup had everything I could possibly want in an opportunity: a great team, a lead investor who was a personal friend, an amazing mission/vision (which is what really drew me to them). And it was a gut wrenching decision to leave my position at Limelight Networks where, for all intents and purposes, I had an extended family and had just helped pivot the company to new messaging and direction. But I pulled the trigger anyway.

No risk, no reward, right?

Well, four weeks later, I was back at Limelight and wrote this personal reflection because I hope that people can learn from my experience.

The truth about startups

Everyone sees the startup opportunity as a potential lottery win. Sure, there’s the possibility of a windfall financially but for every one that hits it big, there are hundreds, even thousands, that don’t.

There are three things that people don’t quite understand about startups (and that I had forgotten unfortunately after doing a few). First, they are very tight-knit. Even post series-A, PokitDok had 13 people who had all worked together at some point (everyone in the company had a relationship to the two founders). They were already like a family. So there is a lot of intimacy in a startup which, for classic introverts like myself, is very hard to deal with. Second, they move fast. Everyone is doing a lit bit of everything at some point. When work needs to be done and there’s no one who is “responsible” for it, someone picks it up and runs with it (or they acknowledge they will get to it later if it’s not part of the focus). That can be a major cultural shock for someone coming from a public-company environment where roles and responsibilities are fairly well defined. Third, it’s all about focus. There are limited resources (time and money) and in order to be successful enough to garner more investment (or, heaven forbid, revenue) the company has to remain focused on the tasks that lend themselves directly to proving the company’s business model. That can have significant challenges for introverts who are big thinkers and visionaries.

I got broadsided by all three of these issues. As an introvert with an HFA diagnosis (high-functioning autism), I quickly withdrew. It was massive overstimulation. Every meeting, every “huddle up”, every problem I saw, every “lacking” element from the marketing function generated more mental output than I knew what to do with. I couldn’t process it quickly enough. It was overwhelming. Which, of course, led to another problem: I began to get manic. In my introverted mind, I wanted to get the minutiae tackled. I wanted to get all the processes and day-to-day stuff out of the way so that I could concentrate on what I was good at: thinking, pontificating, dreaming, exploring, examining. So I was producing a lot of stuff but not very deeply. I wasn’t very focused. Which is all great for brand and strategic marketing, not so good for day-to-day.

When the shoe drops…

So at the end of 4 weeks the CEO and I agreed that “it wasn’t a fit.”

It’s important to understand the implications of coming to this conclusion. It wasn’t a reflection on my skills or my ability to accomplish my work. It was all about my role (as a senior executive) and the current state/size of the company. In 3 or 4 years? Maybe a different story. They needed to get tactical and operational. I was operating a few levels above that.

Some people might find this a massive blow to their ego. They might not hear the part about “it’s not a reflection of your skill, we still need you to help us.” Only I understand startups and so I applauded the CEO for her ability to make a quick decision. There’s really no way to hide a problem, like someone not fitting or a lack of focus, in a startup. That intimacy exposes everything. And because of that second thing about startups, things moving really fast, someone not fitting can turn into a huge problem that snowballs completely out of control in a matter of weeks (where it might take months or years in a more established company).

Still, I did what anyone would do: I freaked out a little. I just lost my job (despite the consulting opportunity). I had no health benefits. Ruh, roh…

There really is a silver lining

Thankfully, I had left Limelight under great circumstances. I didn’t go to a competitor. I didn’t blast the company over their issues. I didn’t leave angry. In fact, I left sad (and I was actually still consulting with them because I still believe strongly in what they are trying to accomplish; heck, I helped get them there). So I reached out to my former boss (Kirby Wadsworth, with whom I was co-authoring a book for Wiley anyway) and told him what had happened. Long story short, I went back at Limelight for the long-term.

I know that a lot of people are excited by startup opportunities but going into one with eyes wide-open is critical to being successful which is why I impart this one piece of advice: The startup culture (fast, intimate, focused) has to fit with your personality. It’s probably not the best place for a classic introvert unless you are an engineer where it’s expected that you are heads-down in code.

Every experience, no matter how small, changes us

But I also learned a lot about myself. In fact, it gave me a new perspective on my role in helping a business be successful. That new perspective actually empowered me to come up with a role at Limelight (working for Kirby) that is perhaps the most exciting role I could have ever imagined. So what did I learn?

That I’m not a “leader”. That’s not me. Worrying about leading takes away from my ability to do what I do best. When I played hockey, I was a go-to guy because I worked hard. But I was never the captain.

That it’s okay not to be the best at everything. I’ve embraced what I’m really good at: strategy/vision, writing/storytelling, and speaking. Those are my three core strengths. Everything else…no thanks.

That being happy with myself means recognizing #1 and #2.

Would I have liked the startup to work out? Sure. They really have a powerful mission and vision. Yet I also don’t think that I would have had a “life changing” event if it had worked out. I might have continued to believe that I was good at everything, that I was a leader (and deserved the title to go with it), and that I was happy. So in a sense, everything worked out for the best. I got to go back “home” to my extended family (and an exciting new role) while making new relationships with the people at Pokitdok (who are all really awesome people, by the way).

My ultimate advice to everyone? Be truthful to yourself. Accept your weaknesses and embrace your strengths. Don’t try to make strengths out of weaknesses if it’s going to make you miserable trying especially at a startup. Understand that you cannot place anything above your own personal happiness. Because if you aren’t happy, you can’t contribute to other people’s happiness and when it comes down to it, happy environments make for productive employees.”

Well there you go! As long as you experience – you live! You also have reason to be proud, no need to be sorry. Just be cool!

 

 

Trust, Context and Success

Trust, context and success. If you consider Australia has, during July 2014, dumped the Carbon Price (renamed to Carbon Tax in the repeal legislation). Then read the Republicans of America do seem intent to introduce a Carbon Tax, you must ask what is the context and what is the success factor they seek for it to appeal and be persuasive for it to be trusted? The textbook stuff will read: In the main economists agrees a tax is the way to put downward pressure on emissions. It follows the Republican faithful don’t like quantitative emissions controls, caps on emissions, or subsidies. However, they do like market forces to organise an economic response. The selling point is that emission can be cut where the market finds it is easier and cheaper to do so. So, can we say they trust a tax to be more persuasive?

Also, how many of you are doubting that your electricity price will reduce in a meaningful way because of the Carbon Tax repeal? Do you not trust? A company known to us recently asked (a wildcard throw-in) during a energy contract dispute to say: Will XXXXXX retailer be discounting their claim for future losses – because the carbon price should not now be factored in. If asked why should they discount – you say because they have claimed future loss as part of the reason for the claim.  Then ask will they be required to show where this is calculated? Who will police the repeal? Trust us the umpire says!

Consider this, you expect the umpire is there to help you – the policy says if you have a problem, call. You phone to clarify where the discussion might be going. The umpire says; you have to consider the impact of what you are saying. Your head goes into explosive mode – you ask yourself where is the natural justice in being implied the victim is a trouble maker, where is the fairness in having your accounts being set in limbo for so long. Is it right for them to continue to affect your business in terms of personal stress and reputation? Then comes a response you don’t expect – the perpetrator asks for more time to influence the umpire. This example may be hypothetical but we are sure you all have had such moments!

To trust – is it context, sincerity or actions that determine that we do? We notice that some will dress especially to impress – at the wrong time, some will gaff at the wrong time, some will talk to an audience about a matter and not know the audience is well briefed on why your view is obsolete. Does it matter one little bit? A little bit of course – the like-minded will be impressed, and the faithful is impressed. However, no one outside the group is impressed and the feedback from outside that group is awful.

We prefer to define what we are talking about before sprucing the benefits of a position. You might notice we said – benefits. This is not a cost benefits discussion or evaluation it is just looking at the positions one might take.

Start with: Trust (the noun), a firm belief in someone or something, acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation, the state of being responsible for someone or something.

Therefore if you do trust not seriously, you doubt that you can trust others, that you cannot name what state of trust you are in, then sadly you may have programmed yourself as an advantage taker. Note the word advantage, which is very different to opportunity in this context. If you only seek advantage it is more difficult to find success. However, if you take advantage through an opportunity you may be successful.

“Success is where preparation and opportunity meet.” Bobby Unser, racecar driver and Indianapolis 500 winner. Unser knew all about opportunity and using it to his advantage. But if he wasn’t prepared when the opportunity presented itself, he could lose the race. Unser is one of only ten drivers ever to win the Indy 500 more than three times, and was the first driver ever clocked at more than 190 miles per hour (306kph) on the circuit.

We are now noticing that preparation is equally, if not more, important than opportunity. However, you need to be prepared for opportunity. You prepare through education, self-improvement practices to be ready willing and able to respond to opportunity.

Trust, context and success come from opportunities. Opportunities come from inspiration and motivation. Simply identify where your trust should lay, the context of the framework setting, educate yourself in how to prepare and be successful – easy is it not? If only I did not doubt myself!

 

Waltz with your innovation – 1,2,3 step

What really goes wrong with the next step from innovation is a common question. The most probable answer is scientific reputation. Followed by you. Followed by your assistance choice. Think this: You have a really good solution for a problem you have identified. You put your energies into making it possible. So you go from inventor to innovation. Chances are it goes wrong at the next point – what is known as the valley of death in the leap to commercialisation. You spend vast amounts of money in relative terms and still no significant progress. There is plenty of talk and countless possibilities. However, there is very little progress.

Chances are you challenged conventional wisdom – first mistake. Someone else has something to lose. Chances are you have improved a widget – next mistake. It was someone else’s cash cow. Chances are you did not realise you have set a new standard, or at least the potential to change is recognised. This means you are causal to change. Have any of you ever thought that what you cause to change might not like to change?

Once you have spawned you idea and it is in front of your eyes, and you dream of the introduction to the market. We all think for the good mankind here it is, wonderful!

To have your idea move to being accredited it must be measured in some way. By what measure soon becomes a dilemma. Does it produce an electric current, does it produce noise, and does it produce gases and so on? This is where scientific reputation becomes important. Chances are you need some sort of national accreditation body give it a number of some sort. The most common delay to the introduction of your idea is proving it is a benefit. A couple of examples are the CSIRO writes of the promise of a particular technology, financiers have promised funds, buyers are prepared to place orders. But, you only now go to the EPA or some enforcement equivalent body asking for the merits to be rewarded with an exemption or sanction of some sort. Your mistake – market acceptance is not enforcement acceptance. Now considerable effort is needed to save your initiative. You may even need to change your design because of scientific reputation.

Will you accept the notion you must change? In an article, http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235608 , JULY 15, 2014, Steve Tobak wrote: “As a veteran of Silicon Valley, I’ve had the distinct pleasure of working with more than my fair share of talented and innovative entrepreneurs. Sadly, some of their behavior was just dysfunctional enough to royally screw things up for themselves and their companies…… That’s not meant to be as irreverent as it sounds. I have always felt empathy for founders and their stakeholders. After all, it’s not as if I were some paragon of virtuous behavior when I was an executive, either. Nobody’s perfect……… Nevertheless, you can’t fix a problem until you face the truth. So whenever I have an opportunity to help a promising startup that can’t find its way or a mature company in need of a turnaround, it is difficult to watch them fail simply because those in charge aren’t willing to deal with their limitations…….. Any decent psychiatrist will tell you that on some level smart people do understand what’s really going on. They do have common sense. They hear what others are telling them. They know what they’re doing. So when they suppress it, bury it in their subconscious, hear what they want to hear – call it what you want — that, my friends, is a choice……….    I bet I know what you’re thinking. There are lots of reasons why startups fail. Yes, there are. I’m sure I’ve seen them all. But if you dig down a bit, the root cause of most of them is that their leaders choose not to see what’s staring them right in the face. Think about it. You find a reason and I’ll show you an entrepreneur in denial………. Lots of companies run out of cash. But while some can’t raise capital, you would not believe how many can and simply don’t. Oftentimes, their founders aren’t willing to give up a piece of the pie. They try to bootstrap a promising venture and end up starving it to death. Or they have too high a burn rate, aren’t willing to invest the time it takes to raise a round of funding, wait too long and run out of time……… It’s hard to imagine how many beneficial ideas, inventions and innovations never see the light of day because they offer solutions that don’t actually solve any real problems. Or they’ve come up with concepts, not products……… Lots of entrepreneurs are not in it for the long haul or for the right reasons; they think they can make a quick million or feed their egos. Some don’t think they need a unique value proposition or competitive differentiation. Others have holes in their strategy so big it would take a miracle to fill them.”

Co2Land org say there is another problem we should also mention. Be very careful with who you ‘are allocated’ to help with commercialisation – their motive may not match your own expectations. Example: You see a long-term relationship with your enterprise; they may see the need for you to make a company exit. Who is right – the right of the company or your association right!

So it is a three step, a waltz no doubt: reputation, you and your partnership choice.