A practical and informative guide to gathering a new fundamental analysis—in leading, psychology, performing, and discovering different strategies aimed at insightful business development, growth, and success.
Adding content gathered from surveying businesses (population) by the following categories:
b) Market & Proposition
c) Demographic by design
d) Sectors / Cap
… Through Value Scale
Monopolies and oligarchs battle all on their own… Google, Amazon, et al. “takes all” — the world knows it. But while others claw their way to become billion (if even million) dollar companies, the landscape is changing while some of the most essential rules of ground play have become essentially obsolete within their business and organization root of traction.
The root cause of this financial and organizational flaw has much to do with smaller and less profitable companies defying the laws of appropriate value scale. Along with the necessities which will enable them to compete within the public and private infrastructure. Companies such of the likes of Amazon, Facebook, and Google has (see P3) scaled tremendously within the guidance of corporate and government partnership.
Ignoring the power of oligarchs (in the case of the smaller companies) places the larger companies at a greater advantage, which allows them to profit and scale (feed) off smaller, and even less developed companies. This is possible by utilizing the demand structure, and leveraging off (OCU) Other Companies Users. This also includes unidentified use of “sophisticated services.” What I am recommending is: Incorporate a cash flow system where the consumer is dependent on the producer — financially.
“What’s eating the startup world?” — The root cause of this financial and organizational flaw has much to do with smaller and less profitable companies defying the laws of appropriate value scale
This presumes to be the case; smaller companies are producing, while monopolies consume. Consume means anything the market produces will turn the profit and aims it towards itself –
PRODUCTS & RELATIONSHIPS
Someone once asked me a few questions. If I had to reflect on strategy, providing some of my most loved (or most hated) products and services, or organizations I think are most vital to our future. Share my thoughts on strategy about what this organization can learn. In what ways do they need to change? How they should do it? What I propose?
When I think of a product I think of how functional it is — then I ask several questions beginning with fundamentals and then relationships. First and foremost, it is truly important that organizations understand people. There is simply nothing less to it. A thought may rest, and contemplate this as ‘elementary’ or even ‘irrational,’ to some, but the underlying rule — most are different due to (psychology) sets of demographics, cultures, and (*economics) market fit; this also includes emerging markets. HBR March 2015 issue discussed some major points in sustainable and innovative practices in emerging markets and product development – (characteristics: It seeks to alleviate social problems & opportunities in innovation.)
Mark a start beginning with community and the act of doing global goodness… this opens the door to product customization in development with much potential.
Wants and needs may vary infinitely so it is important to establish a structural narrative resembling the climate of our times. It is also important to understand there is no cut and paste method to each objective. Mark a start beginning with community and the act of doing global goodness… this opens the door to product customization in development with much potential.
Here are some questions. These allow value thinking towards *route of strategy processes:
•Is this a realistic product?
•Look at price marks: who, including myself, can afford this? (are there better products? does competitor offer the same or better?)
•How does this product align with current products on the market? can I use them interchangeably, can they support one another?
•What are the organizations’ current CRM (customer relationship management) channels how supportive are they in B2C, and/or B2B?
Consumer spending in the technologies sector has really enhanced the focus on developed technology; created space and artificial intelligence. Although, these are considered great investments, they also bridge the gates to liability and risk.
This brings me back to the questions listed — it is the organizations’ responsibility to practice due diligence on specific products and services, where quality and trust are a concern (actually, all of it). Just recently, Google(NASDAQ:GOOGL) allegedly downloaded binaries to computers running Chrome, turned on mics and “listened without consent.” Then, in 2014, the release of Google Glass was sub-par. The reason for this happening? Google did not develop this product based on bottom-up hierarchy (the needs of the customer). Instead, it chose the ‘top down’ adverse-holistic method in *untimely product deliverance, which ultimately led Glass down its lonely path. The ‘unexpected’ low rate of buyers interest left a foul taste for Google, something they are not use to, perhaps, leading them to shift blame. I call it their rookie move in “untimely product management,” and a very arrogant one. I must conclude that, it was a disappointment to hear Google admit the fall of Glass was perpetuated by some premature release of an ‘unfinished product’–Glass. Indeed, this is a mature multi billion-dollar company, of huge success with exceptional talent and unlimited potential. And here we are, discussing the reason to not extend much value in ethics, or market fit. There will be blind spots a disruptor may be unwilling to analyze, re-adjust, or micro-include, but, in the end it should be faced–and for this purpose, Google disappointed with Glass.
There is a lot of risk and skill surrounded by being a disruptor and it is not easy. It also takes a lot of capital, research & development, all while trying to stay afloat, maintaining a flourishing cycle.
Testing alpha one way–beta. There’s great admiration for (UAT) user acceptance testing. Its formal assurance that new processes work, are in the best interest of the end-user. It’s also a tried method of reliability, (often of) and variables the organization can manipulate until proven–substantially–to correlate a ‘designed measured cause.’ The other: (TAAR) Test, Analyze, Adjust, and Repeat. There are many ways to come up with interesting Bayesian (probability) models — which will lead to more developments angled at supporting the mission, of exceptional, product oriented-driven for impact.
I’ve learned throughout the positions of my career, as it was a process in both public (govt.) and private. Trust is everything. There is no point in developing technical products that cannot intersect, transcend, redefine *quality, within sustainable, startup & corporate innovations.
I would recommend developing a holistic approach in model development: this would conjoin theory with practice, and serve to work fluidly, increasing specific metrics, i.e., *conversion* and generate a larger, broader presence in cross-functional markets.
End goals: Sustainable Relationships & Innovation (SRI) Checklist
•Return on Investment (ROI)
•Products and Platform usage
•Reputation & Quality
•Research & Partnerships
•Future & Implementation
+Thinking In Systems: An Introduction to Start-up [Pedagogy] Idea Creation
IDEAS & METHODOLOGY
Forbes once said the internet revolution is the new industrial revolution, and this is true.
When we come up with an idea, there’s a lot to do with societal structure and/or its advancements or lack of. Upon this perception we actively reflect: a contemporary analysis on building ‘what’s to be expected.’
What is expected? an introspection, serving to relate inter-connected, “fundamentals” to investigate, compare, and form a subjective analysis. We don’t have all the answers, but, for the most of us, we want to be allowed to think intelligently, to start solving some of the worlds most complex problems. Thinking originally is what sets many differences apart. And the common reactor to a successful idea, is using intelligent methodologies in allocating much of your thought resources. Going further, we should keep in mind that building a strategy is required, if not, most essential and necessary to building your belief system. Your belief system is food for your business model. You are the creator, so you are responsible for feeding your ‘systems.’
Influence fundamental elements into your research –
You should be ready for challenges; set goals for what you would normally tend to overlook. What’s rewarding will complete this systemic, vivid, and creative orchestra of equal leveled proportions.
Hypothetically speaking, we begin, with looking at the idea from an alternate perspective: (you as the consumer) “what is it that I want,” “what is going on in the world?,” “who is the consumer?” “what does the customer want?” “how may I serve these principles?” Here, is where you describe your market fit.
Economics are based on some set rules of ‘limitation’ one may refer to (Weber) some ideal thoughts of rationality. Understanding development, in how society and capitalism works is a rudimentary process. This has a major influence based on changing sets of economic and political climates.
Either way, this is a time to say and think broadly about the nature of this idea — 1) what are the necessary infrastructures 2) may this be developed to coexist, and 3) at what levels does sustainability fit/belong within this particular ecosystem.
Exploration serves to feed the mind its nutrients met with survival, but commonly when left without, he will ponder, and, search —
Sounds a bit hypocritical that I, very much interested in technology and its development and progress, find it quintessential to break away from it all – What I mean is, if left alone periodically you may find the needs to develop more — technology—as this injects a need. For example, disengagement from electronic devices or gadgets then systematically returning to engage for review. Also, another way to improve is check on areas met with demand, i.e., cellphone technology, and its counterparts. You may begin by swapping to an old cellphone “circa 2002” (no smartphones) or even going without television for long periods of time.
This will serve for great moments of reflection and improve other skills: leadership, originality, and/or sustainable innovations (through holistic approach). Which reminds me of Thoreau, here’s my favorite excerpt from Walden.
Letting go of habit or luxury from time to time serves to discipline (not disadvantage) the researcher. This placing the entrepreneur at an advantage, as s/he now has access to frequented opportunities leading to personal and specific insights (soon to be epiphanies or discoveries, if you will).
Developing Markets (many levels of the socio-economic spectrum) in a clustered or ‘non-existent’ field—one may not see the opportunity to do this if their head is stuck up some where. The ego may tell you there is no need for systematic improvements (this may refer to you, or your company itself). The great thing about most successful entrepreneurs is that they have seen risk and most likely have buried parts of their ego during some point or another .
Reached success? many become complacent forgetting what it means to need — to question — to experience necessity — over and over again.
Innovation serves as improvements, they are also necessary ‘add-on’ features to old working systems. You must be in touch with population but “out-of-touch” at the same time to have break-through ideas—this is the key.
When we take a look at startup business ecosystems as an analogy (familiar with community of living organisms; plants, animals, microbes, etc.) it is a process of connecting vital elements to keep lean systems going.
Once a disruptor has found its market it can then go north or south. Stay strong, and study market niche principles—seek rewards in the ecosystem (food-chain).
The Necessity principle:
“Sufficient statement (S) is true; the necessary statement (N) must also be true” – In logic and with reason, we have Necessity and Sufficiency – two relationships representative of measurement in describing and rating our wants and level of needs. In development, we want to discover the essence and correlate values in terms of research methods. In psychology, we base these fundamentals with statistical reason. The best creative method put into practice to illustrate this are Venn diagrams or flow charts (aide in decision-making analysis). This element of the ‘N & S’ ecosystem helps to define and clarify relationships [ideas] in their coexistent states. An other tool based on idea and psychology principles, is that of Dr. Glenn’s basic level of ‘Holistic Thinking Pyramid’ [A Five (5) Tier Process of Integration].
Cohesion can be a difficult practice–as it involves working with other members/products crucial to your business venture and connecting main ideas (the fruit to your business model). The strategic principles gathered from the ideas process will have positive effects, which will no doubt show on (all) areas of leadership and implementation, respectively. These aspects are expected to be met within present/future–characteristics pertinent to your business’ success.