How To Start A Startup
(I encountered this photo at http://theChive.com)
As an entrepreneur, it caught my attention and made me think about what our society values and what captures its interest.
Looking beyond the few inaccuracies here (Steve Jobs was a ruthless capitalist- NOT a hipster; media knew he was Jesus of BUSINESS, not computing), the point stands that Dennis Ritchie created a technology and Steve Jobs marketed it- Ritchie is unknown and Jobs is famous.
But why is Steve Jobs’ participation meaningless because the original idea wasn’t his? Jobs made this developed concept into something of utility to the masses and gave it to them. That is what we value- things that are useful to us. The Winklevoss’ may have had the idea for Facebook, but Mark Zuckerberg GAVE it to us. “If you were the inventors of Facebook, you would have invented Facebook.” Which begs a question: Who is the REAL inventor- the creator, or the provider?
As an entrepreneur who is both the creator and provider, my opinion is that it depends on what you consider the end product. Here we have two end products: Ritchie’s coding and iProducts. Ritchie’s coding is ultimately an ingredient in iProducts, which affect the lives of many many more people. That is what entrepreneurship is all about- providing a service/good that affects the lives of others. It is giving a gift. Ritchie DID receive much recognition. Our citizen mass praised Jobs as his gift was given out to more people.
For example, one of my chemists has provided a service to say, a thousand people. To us thousand, her service is very helpful and she is a Dennis Ritchie in our eyes. But I plan to take her product (formulation aid) and use it as an element in a larger, more complex product (vodka) that will be sold to, say a million people. Who will be better known- this chemist or my brand? Similarly, if a new RTD (ready-to-drink) product uses this vodka brand as just an ingredient and sells to a billion people, the RTD will be even more praised.
That said, with each increase in product complexity, more resource-input is required. Ritchie needed other bits of tech developments to make UNIX. Jobs needed 10x more resources including hardware sources, marketing and branding savvy. It is reasonable to say that Jobs, as the creator of the further-down end-product, took much more risk in terms of investing time and money. In our society, ‘risk equals reward’. It’s business rule #1, and life rule #1 as well. Therefore, risk paying off big time captures our attention and is also why we’ve heard more about Jobs. We want to hear about risk payoffs whether it’s NASA reaching Mars or our buddy killing it in Vegas.
Ultimately, is this really the social injustice that the photo makes it out to be? I would say both are inventors, and both deserve credit for providing different products. The fact is purely that Jobs reached more people by taking a more captivating risk by standing on the shoulders of Ritchie as all creators do. After all, every single creation EVER is the composition of many before it- nothing is truly original. Which is why the statement in the photo that ideas were ‘stolen’ is ridiculous. If every brain fart was patented, nothing would be invented. In fact, the key to any form of creativity or art is ‘connecting two seemingly unrelated concepts in a way that produces new meaning’. This can be applied to anything- even jokes. ‘A guy walks into a bar…ouch.’ Here we’re presenting a connection (same word). Considering this, perhaps ‘combining’ doesn’t take it’s own form of brilliance, but IS brilliance. As a society, we are continuously standing on the shoulders of those before us including Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie.
Blog about Startup Entrepreneurs? Share your blog with more Startup Entrepreneurs enthusiasts.via designimbibe on
This is an exemplary, important, and highly-cited study that I am referring to colleagues. The findings have significant implications for how my educational institution redesigns its education courses, consulting, and broader environment for enterprise development and entrepreneurship. I am curious about how data mining might be able to eke out further subtleties from the data used in the study.
Abstract
This study examines nascent entrepreneurship by comparing individuals engaged in nascent activities (n = 380) with a control group (n=608), after screening a sample from the general population (n=30,427). The study then follows the developmental process of nascent entrepreneurs for 18 months.
Bridging and bonding social capital, consisting of both strong and weak ties, was a robust predictor regarding who became a nascent entrepreneur as well as for advancing through the start-up process. With regard to outcomes like first sale or showing a profit, only one aspect of social capital, viz. being a member of a business network, had a statistically significant positive effect. The study supports human capital in predicting entry into nascent entrepreneurship, but only weakly for carrying the start-up process towards successful completion.
Davidsson, Per and Honig, Benson (2003) The role of social and human capital amongnascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18(3):pp. 301-331.
Full paper available from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5832/1/5832.pdf
Executive summary
Our knowledge about individuals who navigate various obstacles at the very earliest stages of entrepreneurial activity remains limited. Many people who begin the process of starting a new business fail to achieve their goal, while others are quite successful. Do individuals who attempt to start businesses begin with different levels of human or social capital? Do these endowments affect their rate of success?
Previous research excludes many of the efforts that eventually result in termination before the emergence of the firm. Therefore, the bulk of research, which comprises much of our knowledge of entrepreneurship, suffers from selection bias, the result of sampling only successful emergent entrepreneurs or enterprises. Further, efforts to examine start-up attempts ex-post suffer from hindsight bias and memory decay.
This study examined nascent entrepreneurship by first comparing individuals engaged in nascent activities (n = 380) with of a control group of non-entrepreneurs (n=608), both drawn from a sample of the general population (n=30,427) of Swedish adults. Within the group of nascent entrepreneurs, we then sought to explain differences in the frequency of gestation activities during an 18 month period, as well as two critical outcomes of successful emergence: first sales and profitability. Our primary objective was to help close a research gap regarding human capital and social capital influences on nascent entrepreneurs. We examined the comparative importance of various contributions and factors, such as personal networks, business networks, contact with designated assistance agencies, and taking business classes, on the likelihood of successful emergent activity. Our findings supported the role of formal education, as well as previous start-up experience, in predicting who among a cross section of the general population would attempt to engage in any nascent activities. In contrast, formal education did not appear to be a factor in determining success in the exploitation process, in terms of the frequency of gestation activities over time, nor in predicting those who succeeded with a first sale or a profitable venture. Other human capital measures, such as previous start-up experience and having taken business classes, were predictors of the frequency of gestation activities over time. They were not found to be important in determining the actual first sales or the profitability of the new enterprise, criteria we use to measure successful emergence.
Social capital variables were found to be very strong and consistent predictors in the analysis. We used measures for both bonding and bridging social capital, based on strong and weak ties. Overall, social capital was found to be higher in the nascent group than in the control group. Bonding social capital based on strong ties, such as having parents who owned businesses or close friends who owned businesses, was a good predictor in differentiating those engaged in nascent entrepreneurship from the control population, as was active encouragement from family and friends. Bridging social capital based on weak ties was found to be a strong predictor of rapid and frequent gestation activities, i.e., for carrying the start-up process further. Bridging social capital was also important in determining which of the nascent entrepreneurs would report a first sale or a profit – both conceived of as critical factors that determine successful firm emergence. Being a member of a business network such as a member of the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, or Lions, was significant and strong throughout the analysis. Those who were members of a start-up team were also more likely to have a comparatively rapid pace of gestation activities.
The findings from this study suggest that entrepreneurs would be well advised to develop and promote networks of all sorts, particularly inter-firm and intra-firm relations. Given the rapid changes and advances in communication technologies, and the increasing feasibility of entrepreneurs to work in autonomous, distantly separated environments, careful attention toward the promotion and development of social, network, and mentoring capabilities would seem prudent.
This research questions the value of many assistance programs provided to nascent entrepreneurs. Contact with agencies may be promoting bureaucratic activities, but failed to predict activities indicative of successful emergence, such as a first sale, profit, or even the speed with which the gestations activities occurred. Taking business classes was associated with increased activities, but failed to predict who had a first sale or who became profitable. Our research suggests that current efforts to promote entrepreneurial development may be “missing the mark”. A plausible interpretation of our overall results is that the further into the start-up process one gets, the more specific and idiosyncratic will be the resources and information needed for further successful completion of the process. National and regional governments considering intervention activities might be advised to focus on structural relationships rather than on programs specifically targeted to promote certain entrepreneurial activities, which may not be the most relevant in many individual cases. For example, they might be advised to develop business centers that focus on the facilitation of community and networking activities, thereby increasing each nascent entrepreneurs probability of finding the idiosyncratic inputs s/he needs.
The March meeting of West Auckland Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) school companies at the Trusts Stadium, Waitakere.
This was the first meeting where the school companies met coaches and ATEED organisers for the YES programme.
Several staff members from Unitec’s Departments of Management, Marketing, Accounting, Law, and Finance were advisers to the YES companies at this event.
DOMM Bachelor of Business student Aroha Vause launched the YES programme at Nga Kakano Nga Kakano Christian Reo Rua Kura this February, following a pilot project she ran with the school whilst studying BSNS 5391 Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Unitec in 2011.

Pete Postlethwaite (Image via RottenTomatoes.com)
Movie ‘Age of Stupid’ starring Pete Postlethwaite screening at Unitec 3:30pm 5th April
This week, Lizzie Gillett described her journey as a social entrepreneur creating the Spanner Films movie ‘Age of Stupid’ . Lizzie demonstrated the novel approach to film distribution implemented by creating http://www.indiescreenings.net/. Consequently, I took initiative to arrange a showing of this movie to complete the demonstartion. My ‘Activator’ talent in action.
Over the next two weeks I introduce my Innovation and Entrepreneurship students to the challenges and opportunities for eco-innovation, eco-entrepreneurship, and green design. We study the case of Formway Design, a leading New Zealand based designer and manufacturer of office furniture and systems.
Location:
Unitec Institute of Technology, Building 172, Room 4016 (Business and Communiation Studies, Near Gate 4, Carrington Road)
Related posts
See http://pogus.tumblr.com/post/18153343784/lizzie-gillet-producer-of-the-age-of-stupid)
Exposes the damage to our political discourse and policy choices caused by the myth of the “self-made man”. Offers testimony from a variety of business leaders about the full range of contributions to their success. Spells out actions we must take to lay the foundation for a renewed prosperity in America.
We’re often told that wealthy and successful people are heroic visionaries who achieved their positions entirely on their own. The Self-Made Myth challenges the by-your-own-bootstraps narrative enshrined in American tradition, and beloved by antigovernment activists, to offer a more realistic, but no less inspiring, view of the sources of success.
While honoring the importance of hard work, creativity, and leadership, it highlights several crucial, often unrecognized factors, with a particular emphasis on the ways government and society help individuals: public education, research and development grants, social services, roads and highways, laws and regulations that establish a stable business environment, and many more.
Miller and Lapham explore the historic roots of the self-made myth and reveal the societal damage it continues to cause. They present profiles of business leaders who, in their own words, identify the kinds of support and assistance that were crucial to their success, including Warren Buffett, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s, New Belgium Brewery’s Kim Jordan, and philanthropist, filmmaker, and heiress Abigail Disney.
They also disprove the arguments of individuals such as Donald Trump and Ross Perot who have helped perpetuate their own self-made success myths.
How we view the creation of wealth and individual success shapes our choices on taxes, regulations, public investments in schools and vital infrastructure, the legitimacy of extravagant CEO pay, and more. The Self-Made Myth acknowledges and celebrates the truth of society’s contribution. It takes a village to raise a business—it’s time to recognize that fact.
![]()
Image via Wikipedia