Extract . . .
“Identity fraud is an ever-increasing problem in the UK. According to the Home Office, the annual cost is now £1.7bn, with businesses shouldering around £50m of the burden.
The problem of individual identity fraud is relatively well-publicised. Known methods used by criminals to obtain sensitive information include searching through rubbish bins to find discarded bank statements; intercepting mail; copying credit cards during a transaction; and so-called 'phishing' scams, which involve sending emails which look as though they have come from a bank or similar organisation, and asking customers to 'confirm' their details by return email.:”
Link
http://www.eaassociates.co.uk/content/business/business-finance/dealing-with-fraud/protect-your-business-against-identity-fraud.html?u=40c0aB44&m=6130
Monday, August 23
Three steps to cheaper financing
Extract . . .
“Sooner or later, most businesses have to turn to external sources to finance growth, whether it is to invest in new equipment or machinery, to purchase property, to upgrade technology, or to maintain cashflow while a new product line kicks in. The cost of external financing can be considerable and keeping it down is a key element in maximising your profitability. Here are three ways in which you can do this:”
Link
http://www.eaassociates.co.uk/content/business/business-finance/improving-profitability/three-steps-to-cheaper-financing.html?u=40c0aB44&m=6130
“Sooner or later, most businesses have to turn to external sources to finance growth, whether it is to invest in new equipment or machinery, to purchase property, to upgrade technology, or to maintain cashflow while a new product line kicks in. The cost of external financing can be considerable and keeping it down is a key element in maximising your profitability. Here are three ways in which you can do this:”
Link
http://www.eaassociates.co.uk/content/business/business-finance/improving-profitability/three-steps-to-cheaper-financing.html?u=40c0aB44&m=6130
Credit conditions remain tough for SMEs
From the archives – Credit conditions remain tough for SMEs
Extract . . .
“Larger businesses are experiencing a greater availability of credit for the first time this year, but smaller firms are continuing to struggle to access capital, the CBI has reported. According to the business group’s latest Access to Finance Survey, of those firms seeking new credit lines in the past three months, 27 per cent said that availability had improved, while 10 per cent said it had deteriorated.”
Link
http://www.eaassociates.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=27999&d=601&h=160&f=260&u=40c0aB44&m=6130
Extract . . .
“Larger businesses are experiencing a greater availability of credit for the first time this year, but smaller firms are continuing to struggle to access capital, the CBI has reported. According to the business group’s latest Access to Finance Survey, of those firms seeking new credit lines in the past three months, 27 per cent said that availability had improved, while 10 per cent said it had deteriorated.”
Link
http://www.eaassociates.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=27999&d=601&h=160&f=260&u=40c0aB44&m=6130
A philosophical question; can friendship and business mix?
Dave Dibbens gives his opinion . . .
This article explores the friendship and business mix to see if it can work, and if not, then why not?
Firstly to consider the interplay where friendships develop and grow:
Arguably in 80% of cases this business follow-on is more intense as couples enter relationships with work colleagues. This is as true for Rupert Murdoch as it is for Joe Smith in Accounting and suggests that from a personal perspective business and friendship, assuming we have this feeling for our partners, exists and is positive in a broad sense.
Wendi Deng Murdoch, a smart woman of Chinese heritage, met her husband Rupert Murdoch, Head of News International through her work and provides, we might well assume, a high-level inside track to the Chinese psyche and world’s fastest growing market, besides being a loving wife to Rupert and mother to their two small children.
What of friendship and business creation? Consider a small innovative Software Company I knew in a past life as an illustrative model. Established by two like-minded people with their own inherent skills, but very different backgrounds they decided to, ‘Go for it’. Not initially in friendship but mutuality of goal, business symbiosis, each supporting the other. Was this friendship? Perhaps - but here’s the rub – in business what starts as mutuality can lead to friendship but only with clear division of labour and agreed governance on both sides.
However, businesses pressures are now so great that the mutuality of interest will seldom blossom into friendship. There may be a ‘relationship’ based on convenience, but this can hardly be described as friendship in the usually accepted meaning of the word. For small businesses friendships seems compromised by an initial focus on survival. Once that’s overcome, this might evolve into pressure for short-term growth and rapid returns to financial backers. These pressures cause fun and friendship to quickly leave the business stage. This leaves each stakeholder to reflect on the conflicts of business, friendship and family – pointing perhaps to a situation where family is also the business and friendships have to develop outside.
So if people buy from people they like, can this business relationship develop into friendship? A complex question. One answer from UK pub culture goes farther, where the landlord serving his customers is seen as ‘a mate’, business is interwoven with friendship. So in that instance business and friendships do mix but is that just the secret of running a successful bar?
Outside the pub and the ‘girls from accounts’ can business and friendship mix? The answer is unclear. Relationships in business still thrive despite corporate HR policies. As for mutual friends growing multinationals this needs a special talent. Few have it. To conclude; relationships can certainly flourish but it seems unlikely that real and deep friendships can sustain boardroom pressures where mutual respect and performance are perhaps more valued than the elusive chimera of true friendship.
David Dibbens, is a director of 6 Data Limited and freelance specialist in data-analysis and continual improvement in global IT services.
Can friendship and business mix? Families and businesses certainly mix, but that is a case of blood being thicker than water rather than friendship. That said, there are excellent examples of organisations being forged from friendships – Hewlett Packard in that famous garage by, eponymous friends, Dave and Bill. While also in the tech sector Apple started by friends the two Steves – Wozniak and Jobs with Ronald Wayne.
Arguably, friendship and business mixing is like selling your old car to a friend – only to find it has a mind of its own. Outside your care it’s now both a totally unreliable money pit and a friendship buster. This is when friends don’t understand that it’s ‘nothing personal just business’ and maybe this offers a lesson for friendships and business.
This article explores the friendship and business mix to see if it can work, and if not, then why not?
Firstly to consider the interplay where friendships develop and grow:
- In daily business people work together and often play together as one organisation
- Business creation where friends form businesses they go onto manage
- The business of selling – where people buying from people they like, which in turn causes a migration (or metamorphosis) from respect to friendship.
Arguably in 80% of cases this business follow-on is more intense as couples enter relationships with work colleagues. This is as true for Rupert Murdoch as it is for Joe Smith in Accounting and suggests that from a personal perspective business and friendship, assuming we have this feeling for our partners, exists and is positive in a broad sense.
Wendi Deng Murdoch, a smart woman of Chinese heritage, met her husband Rupert Murdoch, Head of News International through her work and provides, we might well assume, a high-level inside track to the Chinese psyche and world’s fastest growing market, besides being a loving wife to Rupert and mother to their two small children.
What of friendship and business creation? Consider a small innovative Software Company I knew in a past life as an illustrative model. Established by two like-minded people with their own inherent skills, but very different backgrounds they decided to, ‘Go for it’. Not initially in friendship but mutuality of goal, business symbiosis, each supporting the other. Was this friendship? Perhaps - but here’s the rub – in business what starts as mutuality can lead to friendship but only with clear division of labour and agreed governance on both sides.
However, businesses pressures are now so great that the mutuality of interest will seldom blossom into friendship. There may be a ‘relationship’ based on convenience, but this can hardly be described as friendship in the usually accepted meaning of the word. For small businesses friendships seems compromised by an initial focus on survival. Once that’s overcome, this might evolve into pressure for short-term growth and rapid returns to financial backers. These pressures cause fun and friendship to quickly leave the business stage. This leaves each stakeholder to reflect on the conflicts of business, friendship and family – pointing perhaps to a situation where family is also the business and friendships have to develop outside.
So if people buy from people they like, can this business relationship develop into friendship? A complex question. One answer from UK pub culture goes farther, where the landlord serving his customers is seen as ‘a mate’, business is interwoven with friendship. So in that instance business and friendships do mix but is that just the secret of running a successful bar?
Outside the pub and the ‘girls from accounts’ can business and friendship mix? The answer is unclear. Relationships in business still thrive despite corporate HR policies. As for mutual friends growing multinationals this needs a special talent. Few have it. To conclude; relationships can certainly flourish but it seems unlikely that real and deep friendships can sustain boardroom pressures where mutual respect and performance are perhaps more valued than the elusive chimera of true friendship.
David Dibbens, is a director of 6 Data Limited and freelance specialist in data-analysis and continual improvement in global IT services.
Do you have to be unique to succeed?
Uniqueness has become a bit jargonised these days. Entrepreneurs usually believe they have it and investors search for it. In reality, is true uniqueness a mirage for both parties?
What’s unique to one person is seldom unique to another. This is because life experiences differ. It’s often the case that Entrepreneurs products are unique – but many fail to realise that they are only so at a point in time. The Sinclair C5 was perceived as unique when launched on 10th January 1985. However, it wasn’t the first battery powered vehicle - history dates show the 18th century was a major start for electric vehicles. An electric vehicle broke the 100 km/hr speed barrier on April 29, 1899. So amending the old adage - ‘there’s seldom anything unique under the Sun’ seems highly appropriate in the entrepreneur/investor arena.
Uniqueness arises at a specific point in time and probably because of a precise need. Whether that need is real or imagined is an interesting point that is, however, beyond the scope of this article. The Sinclair C5 failure can be put down to many reasons but perhaps poor timing and a lack of need are the primary causes. In 1985 we didn’t need one. Simple as that. The contrast with the mobile phone, invented 1973, commercialised by 1983, is stark. Once the mobile cellphone arrived courtesy of Motorola the need became clear. The financial community and those working remotely were early adopters as it offered immediacy of communications in situations where time is money and where knowledge is the power to make that money.
Uniqueness is therefore not always a mirage but a tangible reality either in terms of careful marketing and brand development - arguably the most common form - or real product innovation which is considerably more challenging. For every unique brand, like Mercedes or Apple, there are many that while unique, fail to grab attention, usually for good reasons. Product innovation is more of a challenge as it takes many forms from the software in an iPhone through to the copyright licenses we pay for in the price of every mobile phone. Yes, a licence can indeed be innovative, especially if it results in user benefits not previously available.
For investors, the crucial challenge is to balance the tangible and verifiable merits of an entrepreneur's unique offering, product or service, against the blandishments of the ‘better mousetrap’. Is it better to have a truly unique offering to the market? Investors need financial returns that balance risk with return in a portfolio where risk is managed within boundaries. For investors, it can be argued that unique products create a higher risk because the demand specific needs in terms of management and infrastructure that may be outside of the entrepreneur's know-how and outside the comfort zone of the investor.
Consider the electric car. There are now several models in production. Each needs electricity to recharge its batteries - so nothing unique there. The uniqueness is how to commercialise the charging facilities for these and other cars due to range limits of the current battery technology. This opens up unique options for entrepreneurs like Shai Agassi of Better Place who want to meet this need uniquely with a network of battery swap-in swap-out stations across various countries. Investors in Better Place are gambling not only on the unique robots and infrastructure supporting the concept but also in the, as yet unproven, belief that electric vehicle drivers will use such swapping points due to range limits of current battery technology.
Better Place investors don’t foresee the potential for ‘game-changers’ either in terms of battery technology e.g. extending range, or that driver behaviour for electric car drivers may differ from their petroleum driving peers. The price and physical characteristics of electricity and petroleum are very different. For example my home does not have a petrol pump but it does have electricity. The cost-drivers also differ e.g. you can charge existing battery vehicles for pence whereas a tank of petroleum costs more than £50 - depending on tank capacity. Uniqueness therefore rests in both the eyes and heart of entrepreneurs and investors.
For many end-users, uniqueness remains a mirage especially as customers become both more cynical and ‘savvy’ about the ‘next big thing’. Key early adopters are now looking beyond what the entrepreneur or entrepreneurial company is delivering - to what it should deliver within the given technology. A recent example of this is the iPad, successfully selling an initial 300,000 units at launch. Quickly iPad spawned comments like, ‘where’s the front facing camera’ and ‘why no second charging point so I can use it in both landscape and portrait mode?’
Maybe this shows the real challenge for entrepreneurs, investors and other stakeholders in our society? It’s not uniqueness that’s axiomatically desirable, more that exceeding users' rising expectations is probably an immortal objective.
David Dibbens, is a director of 6 Data Limited and freelance specialist in data-analysis and continual improvement in global IT services.
What’s unique to one person is seldom unique to another. This is because life experiences differ. It’s often the case that Entrepreneurs products are unique – but many fail to realise that they are only so at a point in time. The Sinclair C5 was perceived as unique when launched on 10th January 1985. However, it wasn’t the first battery powered vehicle - history dates show the 18th century was a major start for electric vehicles. An electric vehicle broke the 100 km/hr speed barrier on April 29, 1899. So amending the old adage - ‘there’s seldom anything unique under the Sun’ seems highly appropriate in the entrepreneur/investor arena.
Uniqueness arises at a specific point in time and probably because of a precise need. Whether that need is real or imagined is an interesting point that is, however, beyond the scope of this article. The Sinclair C5 failure can be put down to many reasons but perhaps poor timing and a lack of need are the primary causes. In 1985 we didn’t need one. Simple as that. The contrast with the mobile phone, invented 1973, commercialised by 1983, is stark. Once the mobile cellphone arrived courtesy of Motorola the need became clear. The financial community and those working remotely were early adopters as it offered immediacy of communications in situations where time is money and where knowledge is the power to make that money.
Uniqueness is therefore not always a mirage but a tangible reality either in terms of careful marketing and brand development - arguably the most common form - or real product innovation which is considerably more challenging. For every unique brand, like Mercedes or Apple, there are many that while unique, fail to grab attention, usually for good reasons. Product innovation is more of a challenge as it takes many forms from the software in an iPhone through to the copyright licenses we pay for in the price of every mobile phone. Yes, a licence can indeed be innovative, especially if it results in user benefits not previously available.
For investors, the crucial challenge is to balance the tangible and verifiable merits of an entrepreneur's unique offering, product or service, against the blandishments of the ‘better mousetrap’. Is it better to have a truly unique offering to the market? Investors need financial returns that balance risk with return in a portfolio where risk is managed within boundaries. For investors, it can be argued that unique products create a higher risk because the demand specific needs in terms of management and infrastructure that may be outside of the entrepreneur's know-how and outside the comfort zone of the investor.
Consider the electric car. There are now several models in production. Each needs electricity to recharge its batteries - so nothing unique there. The uniqueness is how to commercialise the charging facilities for these and other cars due to range limits of the current battery technology. This opens up unique options for entrepreneurs like Shai Agassi of Better Place who want to meet this need uniquely with a network of battery swap-in swap-out stations across various countries. Investors in Better Place are gambling not only on the unique robots and infrastructure supporting the concept but also in the, as yet unproven, belief that electric vehicle drivers will use such swapping points due to range limits of current battery technology.
Better Place investors don’t foresee the potential for ‘game-changers’ either in terms of battery technology e.g. extending range, or that driver behaviour for electric car drivers may differ from their petroleum driving peers. The price and physical characteristics of electricity and petroleum are very different. For example my home does not have a petrol pump but it does have electricity. The cost-drivers also differ e.g. you can charge existing battery vehicles for pence whereas a tank of petroleum costs more than £50 - depending on tank capacity. Uniqueness therefore rests in both the eyes and heart of entrepreneurs and investors.
For many end-users, uniqueness remains a mirage especially as customers become both more cynical and ‘savvy’ about the ‘next big thing’. Key early adopters are now looking beyond what the entrepreneur or entrepreneurial company is delivering - to what it should deliver within the given technology. A recent example of this is the iPad, successfully selling an initial 300,000 units at launch. Quickly iPad spawned comments like, ‘where’s the front facing camera’ and ‘why no second charging point so I can use it in both landscape and portrait mode?’
Maybe this shows the real challenge for entrepreneurs, investors and other stakeholders in our society? It’s not uniqueness that’s axiomatically desirable, more that exceeding users' rising expectations is probably an immortal objective.
David Dibbens, is a director of 6 Data Limited and freelance specialist in data-analysis and continual improvement in global IT services.
What is an Entrepreneur?
As a general rule, the term 'entrepreneur' is applied to someone who creates a product or service (not necessarily new) by exploiting a niche in the market that may not, at that time, exist. One definition of entrepreneurship places an emphasis on innovation, such as:
Business entrepreneurs are viewed as fundamentally important in the capitalistic society, while social entrepreneurs' principal objectives include the creation of a net social benefit.
Social entrepreneurs act within a market aiming to create social value through the improvement of goods and services offered to the community. Their main aim is to help offer a better service improving the community as a whole and are predominately run as non profit schemes. To support this point Zahra (2009) said that “social entrepreneurs make significant and diverse contributions to their communities and societies, adopting business models to offer creative solutions to complex and persistent social problems”. Examples of socially run businesses include the NHS.
A more generally held theory is that entrepreneurs emerge from the population on demand, from the combination of opportunities and people well-positioned to take advantage of them. An entrepreneur may perceive that they are among the few to recognise or be able to solve a problem. In this view, one studies on one side the distribution of information available to would-be entrepreneurs, due largely to the work of Joseph Schumpeter and on the other, how environmental factors (access to capital, competition, etc.), change the rate of a society's production of entrepreneurs.
The research of entrepreneurship owes a lot to Schumpeter’s contributions. He was probably the first scholar to develop its theories. He gave two theories. In the early one, Schumpeter argued that the innovation and technological change of a nation comes from the entrepreneurs, or wild spirits. He coined the word Unternehmergeist, German for entrepreneur-spirit. He believed that these individuals are the ones who make things work in the economy of the country.
Many people use the terms 'entrepreneur' and 'small business owner' synonymously. While they may have much in common, there are significant differences between the entrepreneurial venture and the small business. Entrepreneurial ventures differ from small businesses in these ways:
Perhaps Niccolo Machiavelli had the last word on the subject.
“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”
- new products
- new production methods
- new markets
- new forms of organisation
Business entrepreneurs are viewed as fundamentally important in the capitalistic society, while social entrepreneurs' principal objectives include the creation of a net social benefit.
Social entrepreneurs act within a market aiming to create social value through the improvement of goods and services offered to the community. Their main aim is to help offer a better service improving the community as a whole and are predominately run as non profit schemes. To support this point Zahra (2009) said that “social entrepreneurs make significant and diverse contributions to their communities and societies, adopting business models to offer creative solutions to complex and persistent social problems”. Examples of socially run businesses include the NHS.
A more generally held theory is that entrepreneurs emerge from the population on demand, from the combination of opportunities and people well-positioned to take advantage of them. An entrepreneur may perceive that they are among the few to recognise or be able to solve a problem. In this view, one studies on one side the distribution of information available to would-be entrepreneurs, due largely to the work of Joseph Schumpeter and on the other, how environmental factors (access to capital, competition, etc.), change the rate of a society's production of entrepreneurs.
The research of entrepreneurship owes a lot to Schumpeter’s contributions. He was probably the first scholar to develop its theories. He gave two theories. In the early one, Schumpeter argued that the innovation and technological change of a nation comes from the entrepreneurs, or wild spirits. He coined the word Unternehmergeist, German for entrepreneur-spirit. He believed that these individuals are the ones who make things work in the economy of the country.
Many people use the terms 'entrepreneur' and 'small business owner' synonymously. While they may have much in common, there are significant differences between the entrepreneurial venture and the small business. Entrepreneurial ventures differ from small businesses in these ways:
- Amount of wealth creation - rather than simply generating an income stream that replaces traditional employment, a successful entrepreneurial venture creates substantial wealth.
- Speed of wealth creation - while a successful small business can generate several million dollars of profit over a lifetime, entrepreneurial wealth creation often is rapid; for example, within five years.
- Risk - the risk of an entrepreneurial venture must be high; otherwise, with the incentive of sure profits many entrepreneurs would be pursuing the idea and the opportunity would no longer exist.
- Innovation - entrepreneurship often involves substantial innovation beyond what a small business might exhibit. This innovation gives the venture the competitive advantage that results in wealth creation. The innovation may be in the product or service itself, or in the business processes used to deliver it.
Perhaps Niccolo Machiavelli had the last word on the subject.
“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)