Another post coming!
This time it starts to make quite a number, and we are little by little getting to the last one...
But for now let us focus on the Businnes Plan, the "must-do" or any entrepreneur!
"Must do"? Mmm... Maybe not...
First I should start by saying that I had not studied Business Administration before, so even if I had heard of a Business Plan 1/ I've never done one, 2/ I didn't know (until know) that it was of such importance to investors' and many people's eyes.
However my observations are that on this subject/idea, like many others I've already witnessed, we are in front of an interesting phenomenon: it seems the literature and the scholars are drawing back more and more regarding the "rational only" perspective that was used to study human behavior.
Practices purely rational are put into question toward a more human perspective (including emotions, intuition, etc...).
In the case of Business Plans, this phenomenon is shown through the necessity of writing such a document that is put into question (Honig & Karlsson 2004), meaning that an entrepreneur's rules of thumb, feelings and else are more and more acknowledged as (efficient) ways of doing business.
These doubts come from different facts. One of them is for example that no linked has been found between companies writing their Business Plan and an increase of their profit: they are doing just as fine (or bad) are those writing nothing!
I was quite surprised to learn that, since a Business Plan appeared to me as part of the strategy, and planning and strategy are of the essence in a company...
It is also quite surprising (but a logical conclusion nevertheless, considering what I've just explained) that assistance agencies become actually irrelevant in bringing more profit...
Therefore the question becomes: what is the use of a Business Plan?
Well, actually it might be wise not to judge hastily that there is none, because it seems it is not the case.
From the entrepreneurs point of view for example, they see it as a way of answering some expectations. It means that a Business Plan is less a useful tool than something asked "because one has to".
By the way, I'd like to link this perspective with the entrepreneurial dilemma we saw earlier, namely "fitting in while standing out": we have here the perfect example of something that an entrepreneur has to do to "fit in", while presenting an idea that "stands out".
It seems also that the Business Plan is a way to force somebody to think through his idea, in detail: it forces a reflexion on the project which (even if we can't call it a "strategy") gives a better understanding, and that is useful for sure.
At last I will conclude by what seems actually the most useful role of a Business Plan (and this role is most of the time acknowledged, even by those against Business Plan): it is a communication tool. Thanks to that document, one will avoid having to explain his whole idea every time somebody new shows up, one can easily send a copy to potential investors, or ask new employees to read it to understand where they end up.
After having followed the lecture today, I even have an idea of who might find a Business Plan useful and who might not (it is just a guess).
NB: I assume the communication role of that document is useful for anybody, therefore I do not count that point (meaning I simply tell who might find the other characteristics of a Business Plan useful, and who might not).
- According to me, someone starting a business because he/she recognized an opportunity (not starting from an idea he/she had before) will want to write a Business Plan because it is a way to define clearly a focus (and possibly check it again in the future to keep this focus), a way to clarify the opportunity, even a way to keep the motivation, etc...
- On the other hand, someone starting a business because he/she had an idea, a dream, or anything else coming from the inside, won't need that document because there is no possible lack of motivation, focus, are unclear idea.
Well, I think that's it for the Business Plan!
Bye!
David
Honig, B. & Karlsson, T. (2004). Institutional forces and the written business plan, Journal of Management, 30(1), 29-48
jeudi 16 septembre 2010
mardi 14 septembre 2010
Another frenzy with the Maslow Pyramid!
Hi again!
This time I wanted to write a few thoughts about the seminar today (about entrepreneurs born/made + opportunities recognized/created).
Actually I want to focus especially on the opportunities part.
I've thought it through a bit, because by simply watching our surrounding it becomes obvious that both alternatives are out there...
Here is my try to explain under which circumstances each of them show up.
For those who still don't know about the Maslow Pyramid, scroll down a bit and check the image and the explications I gave.
Let's start with opportunities recognition: it seems that when somebody looks for opportunities (which is the case here), he/she does so because he/she wants to start a business as an entrepreneur and simply needs a domain.
Therefore I would guess that this state of mind/way of thinking is valid for the 4th first level of the pyramid.
Put it simply: opportunity recognition occurs when somebody wants to become an entrepreneur and needs a field to do so. That person sees through entrepreneurship a way of being able to cover his/her basic needs (food...), or a way to get a status (recognition), a shelter, or anything else linked with that person's own needs.
I would also suggest that it is in this state of mind that we can talk of entrepreneurs "made".
Now for opportunity creation: I would guess that this occurs when someone has an idea (very often you need more than that actually: you need a dream, because you'll have to persevere and believe it will work out in the end), something he/she wants to bring to reality, and very few care is given to potential markets or more "down to earth" considerations.
In this case I think we go back to the entrepreneurs are "born" in the sense that what drives the process is something one likes (and who knows where our desires come from?).
However more importantly, I would guess that this will of bringing something to reality is directly linked with the top of the pyramid, because someone who wants to do it does it for the sake of the idea, something higher than him/herself...
It is an "idea-driven" person that becomes an entrepreneur without really looking for it ("from necessity" one could say), in opposition with an "entrepreneurship-driven" person.
I hope my mumbo jumbo makes sense for some of you! ^^
See you!
David
This time I wanted to write a few thoughts about the seminar today (about entrepreneurs born/made + opportunities recognized/created).
Actually I want to focus especially on the opportunities part.
I've thought it through a bit, because by simply watching our surrounding it becomes obvious that both alternatives are out there...
Here is my try to explain under which circumstances each of them show up.
For those who still don't know about the Maslow Pyramid, scroll down a bit and check the image and the explications I gave.
Let's start with opportunities recognition: it seems that when somebody looks for opportunities (which is the case here), he/she does so because he/she wants to start a business as an entrepreneur and simply needs a domain.
Therefore I would guess that this state of mind/way of thinking is valid for the 4th first level of the pyramid.
Put it simply: opportunity recognition occurs when somebody wants to become an entrepreneur and needs a field to do so. That person sees through entrepreneurship a way of being able to cover his/her basic needs (food...), or a way to get a status (recognition), a shelter, or anything else linked with that person's own needs.
I would also suggest that it is in this state of mind that we can talk of entrepreneurs "made".
Now for opportunity creation: I would guess that this occurs when someone has an idea (very often you need more than that actually: you need a dream, because you'll have to persevere and believe it will work out in the end), something he/she wants to bring to reality, and very few care is given to potential markets or more "down to earth" considerations.
In this case I think we go back to the entrepreneurs are "born" in the sense that what drives the process is something one likes (and who knows where our desires come from?).
However more importantly, I would guess that this will of bringing something to reality is directly linked with the top of the pyramid, because someone who wants to do it does it for the sake of the idea, something higher than him/herself...
It is an "idea-driven" person that becomes an entrepreneur without really looking for it ("from necessity" one could say), in opposition with an "entrepreneurship-driven" person.
I hope my mumbo jumbo makes sense for some of you! ^^
See you!
David
jeudi 9 septembre 2010
Creativity
And here we go for a new post!
It starts to make quite number!
Today I'm gonna talk about entrepreneurial creativity, which is basically the creativity linked and needed with entrepreneurship.
From the beginning I'd like to say I didn't know the concept of "lateral thinking" created by Edward Bono, but I found it very interesting! And even more since I believe it can be applied in the everyday life to enlarge our consciousness, to "wake up".
Besides his article "Serious Creativity" (1995) is one of those which give concrete informations, examples and exercises easy to understand and apply to try what is explained and check its value for ourselves.
Now to go deeper into the concept of "creativity".
I found it interesting how Bono brings back "thinking" as anybody's business: "Creative thinking is definitely not limited to special people...".
I believe it helps to understand that, within a company, new ideas can come from anyone (thus the need for managers to listen).
On the other hand I was surprised that the term "creativity" could apply to lots of ideas: for example taking an already existing product and enlarging it (as we saw during the lecture). For me only what was entirely new could be defined as "creative".
But after all, as they say: "It's a simple enough idea, but somebody had to think of it."
Back to Bono and his techniques: I must say I had never heard of the "random word" as a way to enhance creativity! It is definitely something that helps "thinking out of the box" since it totally short-circuits our perception of a situation (by including something that seem to have no link at all).
I'd wish to try it out, and see a bit the results.
However his major idea is doubtlessly the six hats system.
It is hard for me to say anything about it since this is the 1st time I discover it. I would like to try it out too, to see for myself how it works in the real world.
Yet I didn't really understand how it could "introduce the time and space for creativity"... From what I see it is rather the contrary that happens: you 1st need both to use the Six Hats in a brainstorming.
However one major advantage that I see already, and I would say it is the same with the "PO" idea, is that both these techniques force somebody to analyze what he/she is saying. It is an excellent way to become aware or your behavior, because you have to say "watch out incoming PO!", or "I'm wearing a XXX hat right now". Basically you explicitly tell what you are doing, meaning you are aware of it.
It is actually quite true with the "side track" concept too! From what I experienced it is indeed from the moment you think differently (and thus go on the side track) that you see the main track your were on, unconsciously.
Thus looking for "side tracks" in any fields of life is, I believe, a way to enlarge your consciousness ("waking up", realizing things, understandings causes behind effects), and of course a good opportunity to bring new ideas!
I'll conclude this post with another reference to my experience, regarding the ability of entrepreneurs to link datas and discover opportunities (as described by Ko and Butler, 2007).
It seems to me that, when you are aware of the fact you are looking for something (even if you don't know exactly what form it will take), you easily make connections in your mind because you are alert.
For example if you want something (either an object, an experience or anything) but right now you don't know how to get it, unconsciously you will always look for a way.
It is not something conscious, where you unceasingly repeat for yourself "I need this, I want that". You just want it so bad that it is always there, and thus the connections with what you live, experience, read or else, are automatic and instantaneous.
It's not a coincidence if leaders learn to visualize their aims: that's a very powerful way to put your objective/desire at an unconscious level. And I guess entrepreneurs are more or less always willing to grasp new opportunities, and thus they just see them!
Ok, keep tuned for the next entry!
David
It starts to make quite number!
Today I'm gonna talk about entrepreneurial creativity, which is basically the creativity linked and needed with entrepreneurship.
From the beginning I'd like to say I didn't know the concept of "lateral thinking" created by Edward Bono, but I found it very interesting! And even more since I believe it can be applied in the everyday life to enlarge our consciousness, to "wake up".
Besides his article "Serious Creativity" (1995) is one of those which give concrete informations, examples and exercises easy to understand and apply to try what is explained and check its value for ourselves.
Now to go deeper into the concept of "creativity".
I found it interesting how Bono brings back "thinking" as anybody's business: "Creative thinking is definitely not limited to special people...".
I believe it helps to understand that, within a company, new ideas can come from anyone (thus the need for managers to listen).
On the other hand I was surprised that the term "creativity" could apply to lots of ideas: for example taking an already existing product and enlarging it (as we saw during the lecture). For me only what was entirely new could be defined as "creative".
But after all, as they say: "It's a simple enough idea, but somebody had to think of it."
Back to Bono and his techniques: I must say I had never heard of the "random word" as a way to enhance creativity! It is definitely something that helps "thinking out of the box" since it totally short-circuits our perception of a situation (by including something that seem to have no link at all).
I'd wish to try it out, and see a bit the results.
However his major idea is doubtlessly the six hats system.
It is hard for me to say anything about it since this is the 1st time I discover it. I would like to try it out too, to see for myself how it works in the real world.
Yet I didn't really understand how it could "introduce the time and space for creativity"... From what I see it is rather the contrary that happens: you 1st need both to use the Six Hats in a brainstorming.
However one major advantage that I see already, and I would say it is the same with the "PO" idea, is that both these techniques force somebody to analyze what he/she is saying. It is an excellent way to become aware or your behavior, because you have to say "watch out incoming PO!", or "I'm wearing a XXX hat right now". Basically you explicitly tell what you are doing, meaning you are aware of it.
It is actually quite true with the "side track" concept too! From what I experienced it is indeed from the moment you think differently (and thus go on the side track) that you see the main track your were on, unconsciously.
Thus looking for "side tracks" in any fields of life is, I believe, a way to enlarge your consciousness ("waking up", realizing things, understandings causes behind effects), and of course a good opportunity to bring new ideas!
I'll conclude this post with another reference to my experience, regarding the ability of entrepreneurs to link datas and discover opportunities (as described by Ko and Butler, 2007).
It seems to me that, when you are aware of the fact you are looking for something (even if you don't know exactly what form it will take), you easily make connections in your mind because you are alert.
For example if you want something (either an object, an experience or anything) but right now you don't know how to get it, unconsciously you will always look for a way.
It is not something conscious, where you unceasingly repeat for yourself "I need this, I want that". You just want it so bad that it is always there, and thus the connections with what you live, experience, read or else, are automatic and instantaneous.
It's not a coincidence if leaders learn to visualize their aims: that's a very powerful way to put your objective/desire at an unconscious level. And I guess entrepreneurs are more or less always willing to grasp new opportunities, and thus they just see them!
Ok, keep tuned for the next entry!
David
lundi 6 septembre 2010
Entrepreneurship and the Maslow Pyramid
Ok, so as promised here are my thoughts and questions regarding the link between entrepreneurship and the Maslow Pyramid.
Before I start I'd like to make 2 things clear: I use the definition of entrepreneurship given by Johannisson, that is to say the wide one, where somebody is an entrepreneur when he undertakes a projet, something new, no matter if it is for profit ends, social ends or else.
Then regarding the Maslow Pyramid, here's a picture for those who don't know about it:
What matters here is the final level, the top of the pyramid. What is Self-Actualization? Well, as its name suggests it (watch out here is a bit of philosophy/psychology!), it is the stage where you act for the Self (whereas all the rest are for the Ego).
Basically it means that you do things not for what it brings to you (by definition you already have all that you desire), but for the sake of it.
It is in this stage that you will want to share what you have, that you really love people or that you will want to bring something to this world, not for the glory or money you can get, but simply for the sake of it: you have a goal higher than your own self.
Now down to my point!
It seems the entrepreneurship process can occur to fulfill any of the needs listed in the Pyramid (starting a business to eat, to buy a house, organizing activities to meet people, etc...). Only the "why" differs, but I won't talk about this here.
When a Man reaches the top, he will then continue to seek happiness but under a new form: giving, sharing, improving the world and others' lives (while respecting them, not imposing a vision of course).
There are many ways to fulfill the first 4 levels of the Pyramid (it is enough to watch around us to see that!), but my question is the following:
Does someone who reaches the top automatically becomes an entrepreneur, in the sense that he will seek to undertake something new?
Is it the way Humans find to give their contribution, when they feel they have everything and want to give more?
And thus: does anyone who fulfills all his/her needs ends up as an entrepreneur?
(In the same way that every children is one at birth and then chooses some other paths, could we finally all come back to that when our different paths have led us to fulfillment?)
As Bengt Johannisson has told us during the lesson: "an entrepreneur is someone who wants to make a difference". I believe this is a definition extremely close to what somebody in the top of the Pyramid would seek...
My questions here are obviously very open, since I have no answer myself!
I'm just curious to hear a bit what everybody thinks about this, according to their own experience.
Well, that's it for the extra!
Bye for now!
David
Before I start I'd like to make 2 things clear: I use the definition of entrepreneurship given by Johannisson, that is to say the wide one, where somebody is an entrepreneur when he undertakes a projet, something new, no matter if it is for profit ends, social ends or else.
Then regarding the Maslow Pyramid, here's a picture for those who don't know about it:
What matters here is the final level, the top of the pyramid. What is Self-Actualization? Well, as its name suggests it (watch out here is a bit of philosophy/psychology!), it is the stage where you act for the Self (whereas all the rest are for the Ego).
Basically it means that you do things not for what it brings to you (by definition you already have all that you desire), but for the sake of it.
It is in this stage that you will want to share what you have, that you really love people or that you will want to bring something to this world, not for the glory or money you can get, but simply for the sake of it: you have a goal higher than your own self.
Now down to my point!
It seems the entrepreneurship process can occur to fulfill any of the needs listed in the Pyramid (starting a business to eat, to buy a house, organizing activities to meet people, etc...). Only the "why" differs, but I won't talk about this here.
When a Man reaches the top, he will then continue to seek happiness but under a new form: giving, sharing, improving the world and others' lives (while respecting them, not imposing a vision of course).
There are many ways to fulfill the first 4 levels of the Pyramid (it is enough to watch around us to see that!), but my question is the following:
Does someone who reaches the top automatically becomes an entrepreneur, in the sense that he will seek to undertake something new?
Is it the way Humans find to give their contribution, when they feel they have everything and want to give more?
And thus: does anyone who fulfills all his/her needs ends up as an entrepreneur?
(In the same way that every children is one at birth and then chooses some other paths, could we finally all come back to that when our different paths have led us to fulfillment?)
As Bengt Johannisson has told us during the lesson: "an entrepreneur is someone who wants to make a difference". I believe this is a definition extremely close to what somebody in the top of the Pyramid would seek...
My questions here are obviously very open, since I have no answer myself!
I'm just curious to hear a bit what everybody thinks about this, according to their own experience.
Well, that's it for the extra!
Bye for now!
David
samedi 4 septembre 2010
What is Entrepreneurship (according to Bengt Johanisson) ?
Hello again!
This time we're gonna spend a bit of time on Johanisson's point of view (our dear and beloved lecturer! ^^)
From the beginning I'd like to say that I really liked the definition of entrepreneurship that this man gives, and I feel really close (in my points of view) to him. Therefore it is possible that my review is a bit influenced by that...
I couldn't really find any points I would disagree with actually, and nothing surprised me to the point I want to talk about it. However I'm gonna list a few ideas that I found particularly interesting.
1st I found really important that an author writes down that theory might be different from reality and that therefore (even more in the case of entrepreneurship), a practical approach was needed. Being myself someone who prefers action to talks, I was pleasantly surprised to read a text from someone explaining he needs to experience things himself to be able to understand.
In my opinion too many keep talking, most of the time of things they have never lived, and thus understand them only with their mind, mental, logic, not with their heart, emotions, feelings.
Johanisson's way of doing things gives him more credibility to my eyes.
I also deeply approve the sentence "children are born entrepreneurs", and I found interesting to see that it finally exists a personality, or behavior maybe, that would ensure successful entrepreneurs (especially since it comes from those one would the least expect it...).
I find also interesting, in Johanisson's view of entrepreneurship, the huge importance given to all Human Capacities (beyond the "simple" use of mental and rational possibilities). The ability to build up relationships is an example.
Now I'll comment also 2 other authors whose views are still close to Johanisson's (De klerk & Voronov).
Their concept of "fitting in" (following the rules) while "standing out" (making something new) at the same time perfectly sums up the whole entrepreneurship dilemma. It is all about finding a balance between the extremes (like in everything actually), and I think I'll remember this in the future.
Thanks to them for having put it in a simple, clear manner!
They also constantly come back to the idea of legitimacy, and this is something I have often witnessed during the different projects I've started or been involved in. When one has to deal with people one doesn't know really well, the 1st part will always be to gain legitimacy, so that people follow you (you're going nowhere alone). It might be hard sometimes, especially if the basic idea is not really liked (people are "forced" to work with you for example), but even if the persons like the concept you still need to be legitimate to their eyes if you want them to be an efficient help and support.
Besides legitimacy can take different forms, depending on who you're dealing with (knowing what you are talking about, having experienced it before, being friendly, self-confident, humble, etc...).
Ok, that's it for now!
I'll come back soon with another post about my question related with the Maslow Pyramid during the class (for those who remember).
I wasn't that clear because I wasn't really sure of what I wanted to know, but after having thought it through I managed to make it clearer in my mind, so I'll just write a bit about it.
See you!
David
This time we're gonna spend a bit of time on Johanisson's point of view (our dear and beloved lecturer! ^^)
From the beginning I'd like to say that I really liked the definition of entrepreneurship that this man gives, and I feel really close (in my points of view) to him. Therefore it is possible that my review is a bit influenced by that...
I couldn't really find any points I would disagree with actually, and nothing surprised me to the point I want to talk about it. However I'm gonna list a few ideas that I found particularly interesting.
1st I found really important that an author writes down that theory might be different from reality and that therefore (even more in the case of entrepreneurship), a practical approach was needed. Being myself someone who prefers action to talks, I was pleasantly surprised to read a text from someone explaining he needs to experience things himself to be able to understand.
In my opinion too many keep talking, most of the time of things they have never lived, and thus understand them only with their mind, mental, logic, not with their heart, emotions, feelings.
Johanisson's way of doing things gives him more credibility to my eyes.
I also deeply approve the sentence "children are born entrepreneurs", and I found interesting to see that it finally exists a personality, or behavior maybe, that would ensure successful entrepreneurs (especially since it comes from those one would the least expect it...).
I find also interesting, in Johanisson's view of entrepreneurship, the huge importance given to all Human Capacities (beyond the "simple" use of mental and rational possibilities). The ability to build up relationships is an example.
Now I'll comment also 2 other authors whose views are still close to Johanisson's (De klerk & Voronov).
Their concept of "fitting in" (following the rules) while "standing out" (making something new) at the same time perfectly sums up the whole entrepreneurship dilemma. It is all about finding a balance between the extremes (like in everything actually), and I think I'll remember this in the future.
Thanks to them for having put it in a simple, clear manner!
They also constantly come back to the idea of legitimacy, and this is something I have often witnessed during the different projects I've started or been involved in. When one has to deal with people one doesn't know really well, the 1st part will always be to gain legitimacy, so that people follow you (you're going nowhere alone). It might be hard sometimes, especially if the basic idea is not really liked (people are "forced" to work with you for example), but even if the persons like the concept you still need to be legitimate to their eyes if you want them to be an efficient help and support.
Besides legitimacy can take different forms, depending on who you're dealing with (knowing what you are talking about, having experienced it before, being friendly, self-confident, humble, etc...).
Ok, that's it for now!
I'll come back soon with another post about my question related with the Maslow Pyramid during the class (for those who remember).
I wasn't that clear because I wasn't really sure of what I wanted to know, but after having thought it through I managed to make it clearer in my mind, so I'll just write a bit about it.
See you!
David
jeudi 2 septembre 2010
What is Entrepreneurship (according to Per Davidsson) ?
What is entrepreneurship? Mmm... here's a vast question.
It is also quite a central one for me, and I therefore read carefully what Per Davidsson has written about it. Below are my observations.
He's definition has a good point according to me: it can be summarized clearly and shortly. Therefore he can easily state whether something belongs to entrepreneurship or not by simply taking what he is studying and checking if it fits his criterion.
I found interesting how he shows that entrepreneurship is something different: it belongs to the "work" part of one's life, but unlike many other jobs it also touches the leisure time. The limit between the two worlds tends to vanish when we talk about entrepreneurship, and I'd say it does even more since for me entrepreneurship is a bit of a life style.
I was also very interested by his concept of "micro-level actor", which means that changes are brought by a few, who do what they can where they are. He put back the outside conditions (policies, laws and all) at their right place: a scene, a background, not actors.
On the other hand sometimes his definition seems too restrictive: I would tend to disagree when he says that one cannot talk about entrepreneurship when change occurs within a company for example... Or when writes it has to influence others' behaviors...
For me entrepreneurship occurs from the moment one creates something new, does something.
I also found something that surprised me (or maybe it is that I didn't quite understand it): Davidsson says it is not relevant to study what kind of person one has to be to be a successful entrepreneur, but on the other hand he explains that we have to study the entrepreneurial behavior...
I agree when he stresses that there is no "you're good at that" or "you can't, just give up" but our personality dictates our behavior, doesn't it? So how to study a behavior without the
personality behind?...
I'll conclude this part about Per Davidsson's work with the two views his exposes about opportunity recognition: either we start a business with an externally-recognized opportunity, or with an internally-recognized one.
I'd say I find myself in both cases: I've been wanting to start a business for a while now, without any clear idea of which domain I'd work in (just for the "sake of it", one could say).
On the other hand, I've been building up things so far according to what I liked and wanted to do.
However, in the latter case, it (almost) never brought to me any revenue... So I guess that, with the actual definition of entrepreneurship we have, I'm still in the 1st category of opportunity recognition.
Now, before ending this entry (and sorry for those who have to read me and give a comment! ^^), I wanted to add a last word about the entrepreneurial games we have. So far we played only one, but I found it really nice!
I think we can learn a lot from these things: 1/ About entrepreneurship (that's the point after all!), but also 2/ About ourselves, like what are our strengths and weaknesses, what can we rely on and what do we have to improve (I'm referring to the different steps of the game today: analyzing, creating, promoting and the rest. Some of us are more creative, some manage to get to the point easily...), and at last 3/ About team work, discovering what are our social skills, which role we play in the team, and so on...
Ok, that's it for today!
Thanks for reading and see you around!
David
It is also quite a central one for me, and I therefore read carefully what Per Davidsson has written about it. Below are my observations.
He's definition has a good point according to me: it can be summarized clearly and shortly. Therefore he can easily state whether something belongs to entrepreneurship or not by simply taking what he is studying and checking if it fits his criterion.
I found interesting how he shows that entrepreneurship is something different: it belongs to the "work" part of one's life, but unlike many other jobs it also touches the leisure time. The limit between the two worlds tends to vanish when we talk about entrepreneurship, and I'd say it does even more since for me entrepreneurship is a bit of a life style.
I was also very interested by his concept of "micro-level actor", which means that changes are brought by a few, who do what they can where they are. He put back the outside conditions (policies, laws and all) at their right place: a scene, a background, not actors.
On the other hand sometimes his definition seems too restrictive: I would tend to disagree when he says that one cannot talk about entrepreneurship when change occurs within a company for example... Or when writes it has to influence others' behaviors...
For me entrepreneurship occurs from the moment one creates something new, does something.
I also found something that surprised me (or maybe it is that I didn't quite understand it): Davidsson says it is not relevant to study what kind of person one has to be to be a successful entrepreneur, but on the other hand he explains that we have to study the entrepreneurial behavior...
I agree when he stresses that there is no "you're good at that" or "you can't, just give up" but our personality dictates our behavior, doesn't it? So how to study a behavior without the
personality behind?...
I'll conclude this part about Per Davidsson's work with the two views his exposes about opportunity recognition: either we start a business with an externally-recognized opportunity, or with an internally-recognized one.
I'd say I find myself in both cases: I've been wanting to start a business for a while now, without any clear idea of which domain I'd work in (just for the "sake of it", one could say).
On the other hand, I've been building up things so far according to what I liked and wanted to do.
However, in the latter case, it (almost) never brought to me any revenue... So I guess that, with the actual definition of entrepreneurship we have, I'm still in the 1st category of opportunity recognition.
Now, before ending this entry (and sorry for those who have to read me and give a comment! ^^), I wanted to add a last word about the entrepreneurial games we have. So far we played only one, but I found it really nice!
I think we can learn a lot from these things: 1/ About entrepreneurship (that's the point after all!), but also 2/ About ourselves, like what are our strengths and weaknesses, what can we rely on and what do we have to improve (I'm referring to the different steps of the game today: analyzing, creating, promoting and the rest. Some of us are more creative, some manage to get to the point easily...), and at last 3/ About team work, discovering what are our social skills, which role we play in the team, and so on...
Ok, that's it for today!
Thanks for reading and see you around!
David
mardi 31 août 2010
Here we go...
To all those who have the courage to come here, I wish them welcome.
So according to the paper I'm supposed to talk about myself... Hum, what a great and exciting topic!
Anyway: I'm David and I come from France from a small city named Annecy, close to Switzerland (some people say it's one of the most beautiful place in the world... I'll let you make up your mind about that).
I've studied there 2 years, on subjects related to logistics and industrial management. Then I went to Sweden as a free mover, to Högskolan i Gävle, to study in the 3rd year of their Logistics and Industrial Management program. Therefore I got the diploma from there.
And now I end up in Jönköping!
Why? Because since I left France I wanted to study Business Administration, and I grew really tired of logistic after this 3rd year in Gävle (despite the very nice people there).
Then why more entrepreneurship? Well, because I've always loved starting things, making up groups and doing stuff together. For me entrepreneurship is a way to do what you want to do: start what you want to start, have some freedom... If you have an idea, something you really hold to, then through entrepreneurship you can make it grow, it can be recognized by the world...
I also have a strong will and desire of doing things, of bringing something to the world rather than just consuming what already exists: I love when something new starts, nobody knows where it's gonna lead, and in the end it becomes something great with lots of memories associated to the whole process...
Thus I understand those who say they start businesses for fun: I do believe it is fun (and what could be more important than having fun in this world? ^^), and it is because it's fun that I'll be an entrepreneur!
I don't have any experience regarding entrepreneurship in the sense that I've never had any company, but I have organized lots of projects: I didn't merely took part of something already existing, but built it up according to my idea (it has never been really big so far of course, but the experience is there nevertheless).
However I'm currently "working" for some people who need musical background for films, sideshows etc... (I compose music) So despite the fact we almost never talk money (I still issue licenses once in a while), I have "customers" and demand, and some kind of a small business to run!
I believe also that entrepreneurship is a wonderful way of personal development: after studying that on my own and applying many principles, it appeared to me that many entrepreneur's behaviors and ideas or those of men who have another conception of the world than most of people.
Thus I believe that entrepreneurship is not just building up a business: before that it is acquiring a new mindset that will be reflected through the coming business, but also through the person's personality.
Now to go back to the program: I think I still need to know how to market innovation, how a new idea can take form in the outside world. I'm also here to create networks, definitely: I do believe that it is through meetings that opportunities rise, and it is through meetings that new ideas come up and help us choose our future.
And also something very important to me: I want to see how close personal development and entrepreneurship are...
So, congrats to all those who read till here!
I wish you all the best of luck for the coming years, and I hope we'll all have a great time!
David
So according to the paper I'm supposed to talk about myself... Hum, what a great and exciting topic!
Anyway: I'm David and I come from France from a small city named Annecy, close to Switzerland (some people say it's one of the most beautiful place in the world... I'll let you make up your mind about that).
I've studied there 2 years, on subjects related to logistics and industrial management. Then I went to Sweden as a free mover, to Högskolan i Gävle, to study in the 3rd year of their Logistics and Industrial Management program. Therefore I got the diploma from there.
And now I end up in Jönköping!
Why? Because since I left France I wanted to study Business Administration, and I grew really tired of logistic after this 3rd year in Gävle (despite the very nice people there).
Then why more entrepreneurship? Well, because I've always loved starting things, making up groups and doing stuff together. For me entrepreneurship is a way to do what you want to do: start what you want to start, have some freedom... If you have an idea, something you really hold to, then through entrepreneurship you can make it grow, it can be recognized by the world...
I also have a strong will and desire of doing things, of bringing something to the world rather than just consuming what already exists: I love when something new starts, nobody knows where it's gonna lead, and in the end it becomes something great with lots of memories associated to the whole process...
Thus I understand those who say they start businesses for fun: I do believe it is fun (and what could be more important than having fun in this world? ^^), and it is because it's fun that I'll be an entrepreneur!
I don't have any experience regarding entrepreneurship in the sense that I've never had any company, but I have organized lots of projects: I didn't merely took part of something already existing, but built it up according to my idea (it has never been really big so far of course, but the experience is there nevertheless).
However I'm currently "working" for some people who need musical background for films, sideshows etc... (I compose music) So despite the fact we almost never talk money (I still issue licenses once in a while), I have "customers" and demand, and some kind of a small business to run!
I believe also that entrepreneurship is a wonderful way of personal development: after studying that on my own and applying many principles, it appeared to me that many entrepreneur's behaviors and ideas or those of men who have another conception of the world than most of people.
Thus I believe that entrepreneurship is not just building up a business: before that it is acquiring a new mindset that will be reflected through the coming business, but also through the person's personality.
Now to go back to the program: I think I still need to know how to market innovation, how a new idea can take form in the outside world. I'm also here to create networks, definitely: I do believe that it is through meetings that opportunities rise, and it is through meetings that new ideas come up and help us choose our future.
And also something very important to me: I want to see how close personal development and entrepreneurship are...
So, congrats to all those who read till here!
I wish you all the best of luck for the coming years, and I hope we'll all have a great time!
David
Inscription à :
Commentaires (Atom)