The Modularisation of Entrepreneurship

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

I just had a fantastic evening at the STHLM Tech Meetup, and what it featured was not only a series of interesting pitches (of launched and not-yet-launched ventures) but also a very compelling introduction to event supporters. One of these really struck my interest by the nature of what they do. It was a firm, called “The Service Corporation”, presented by the founder and CEO himself. They offer a global expansion It wasn’t the actual start-up which was compelling, but rather the thought that followed. By now, there are so many firms that do not directly produce any smart venture ideas, but rather fit into the start-up process of others.

It’s about the trend of “enabling entrepreneurship”, and that is done in a modular behaviour. We’ve seen ventures like this before. Rocket Internet (GER), which capitalise on ‘replicating’ successful business models from the US in Europe – and, thus, act as a “globaliser” to the original start-up. Or “The Service Corporation”, which offers to team up with start-ups and give them the resources needed to penetrate foreign markets. It’s not about incubating anymore; these ventures follow the definition of modularisation. If one thinks of four principle steps: Discovery, Validation, Creation, Building – one will realise that all these are somewhat modules, and the value propositions of these “Enabling” start-ups.

Likewise, one of the first guest lectures, Joakim Fohlman outlined that “Cubimo” bases on helping others discover and develop venture ideas (First Module; Discovery). Furthermore, “FundedbyMe” or “Kickstarter” fit in as the second module of “Validation”. These not only are tools to gain proof of concept status, but also enable the following step of funding. The next module (Creation) is given; players such as “TED” or “STHLM Tech Meetup”, which help reach the desired customers and offer growth opportunities. The fourth step is given by todays presenter, and inspiration to this; ventures like “The Service Corporation” enable growth into new markets.

This might not be too novel of a thought, but what I can identify are the two types of innovation; Product- and Process-Innovation. And from remembering the strategy lectures, Process Innovation follows Product Innovation – and that might indicate a lacking venture ideas in the entrepreneurs market.  I don’t hope that is the case, but it could rather be that we have exhausted current technologies. Perhaps, this can be derived from the fact that big, enabling technologies take a lot of time to develop – far more time than is needed to launch a bunch of start-ups that capitalise on them (especially with the popular lean start-up structure). I interpret it as a call for forward-thinking innovation – strategically going for product innovation when process innovation is “in cycle”.

 

Speaking of Trends…

by ⋅ 3 Comments ⋅ Image

So todays lecture featured Terry Beaubois talking about the importance of knowing how a trend originated, to predict its future. I was particularly intrigued when he presented the different trends, which included the “smartphone” and “internet of things” trends. Though he only went into specifics about a couple others, I was reminded back to a lecture I had last year. Then, I heard an industry professional lecturing on how he sees the communication network expand in the ‘foreseeable’ future, up to 2030. Linking to Terry’s advice of looking into the past, he basically said that society has moved from connecting places (from the early 1900), to connecting people, and is now beginning to embark on connecting things. It went on to exponential graphs that showed the, seemingly, ever increasing demand for data capacity (mobile, mainly) as consumers, apparently, desire to be more and more connected with everything.

 

Now, I am reluctant to believe this. With lifestyles increasing in speed, and the consequent rise of stress levels (not lastly due to the trend of urbanisation and the subsequent exposure to being connected), I formulated a hypothesis of my own. It seems as if the common quality of life suffers under the excess of technology; specifically of being over-connected. Its that people are less and less capable of escape from being connected and the increasingly present technology, which drives me to believe that a compromise must be approaching. Obviously, the benefit in all this connectivity is that industry and economy on global scales works quicker and more lucratively – and that is the primary driver, which, vitally,  will keep the trend active and on-going. However, and as a natural balance to this increasingly connected business environment, it may be inevitable that consumers will distance themselves from “off-hours technology”. This opposes the trend of having a “networked society”. The basis to this presumption is that society will always seek to a better quality of life. That’s valid right? Anyways, food for thought …

/Hannes