/biz/ - Business & Finance

The best places to ask/research this would be:
/pol/ (yes seriously)
/r/socialengineering
/r/realsocialengineering

Now go away and leave G-d's chosen to talk about Dogecoins.

>>78977
Had a module on it this year for my masters.

It sounds like a pretty fluffy module, as you really can't be 'taught' how to be an entrepreneur, but it was a pretty good into to the topic imo.

tl;dr: you need balls, brains and people skills. If you have those 3, you might stand a chance. Or maybe not, a lot of it is down to luck too

>work hard
>start now

>>79395
>Directly recommending someone go to reddit
>Not flamed
You're a faggot and your family is a faggot and I had sex with your mother.

>>87040
Jesus man, I bet people just tolerant you in real life.

>>78977
Fellow entrepreneur here, you don't need to find some new ideas for a gadgets, services or software. Rather, find a market niche which satisfies basic markets such as food-stuff, construction, software that's already made but costs a lot to renew licenses (most hospitals have software made by a sole developer that cost a lot).

The beauty about this kind of industry is that even when the economy looks bleak people will not dispense of these basic needs. Once you have enough capital you can begin to look into technology stuff or if you are content (you won't be since you're an INTP) you can keep at it.

That, in my opinion, is where most entrepreneurs fail.

>>89717
Also, you won't find much help in here since this is a board that deals with the abstract side of making money, people in here don't really produce anything they just gamble and speculate, often forgetting that real money can only be made with real effort.

>>78977
Step one, realize that entrepreneurs aren't good at anything except getting lucky and making connections. (Okay, sometimes they are good at a trade, but so are a lot of people, in the end they don't produce anything until they have the right connections.)

Step two, pay attention to the information, all of it. Most entrepreneurs fail a lot before they succeed. Remember that thing about them being lucky? Well that means they just slam shit together repeatedly in educated guesses until something works. Aka luck. (Also, even if you didn't succeed you went through the process and made connections which will be useful for the next time.)

INTJ entrepreneur master race.
HAHA! I've made a terrible mistake...

INTP with my own ideas here. I've gotten further in developing them because I have a friend who gets excited about it and encourages me. He's also a lawyer who sets up companies.

Friends are a good resource. Even if you're not the people type, someone you know might be. If it's a good idea there are plenty of people who would work their strengths for a piece of it.

>>78977
>Let me ask you a metaphysical question, here. What are the fundamentals behind a good entrepreneur?
>metaphysical question
Wat?

>>89768
>real money
>I have a net worth of $500M
Please, tell me more about this "real money".

>>90215
This man is a fucking imbecile.

Read:

Creative People Must Be Stopped by David Owens

Startup Complete Handbook by Elizabeth Edwards

Founder's Dilemmas by Noam Wasserman

That will get you started.

>>92721
sweet list

>>92721
>This man is a fucking imbecile.
>Offer no opposing view
>Give resources mostly to a different part of the topic instead
>One of them expounds on the topic from the previous post
Okay.

>>92880
>>92880
People talk to you because you can bring something to the table, it's not just connections and luck unless you live in a backwater shithole or DC.

Failing once or twice is the norm starting out, failing "a lot" isn't. Failing just teaches you what not to do, not what you need to do.

"Slamming shit together" doesn't count as entrepreneurship even if a few hacks survive off of it.

>>93001
Now that's a rebuttal! You've uncovered the fact that I was making a few assumptions and taking a few liberties!

Assumption one was that he was speaking solely about entrepreneurship in regards to the individual. Assumption two was that he was about average in skill to his counterparts. So I took the liberty of focusing on what generates the difference between failure and success when skill doesn't matter. There are numerous instances of entrepreneurs succeeding despite not being versed in the industries they entered, and there are the cases in which multiple people have an explored an opportunity at the same time, and only one succeeded, or beat the other two it.

I also made the assumption that he was reluctant to participate because of his perceived shortcomings, so I noted the failure rate (notably I said a lot instead of a few times, my mistake), to discredit the myth that entrepreneurs are godly he men that take life by the reigns and immediately make it their bitch. They are instead people that aren't afraid to (calculated) risks, and thus capitalize on opportunities as they present themselves.

'Slamming shit together' is just eloquent, peppery language to note the risk taking, experimental nature of the endeavor, much like a science with dangerous substances that a curious scientist just for the life of him cannot leave alone.

Bringing something to the table is a great addition to the concept, something that I overlooked for this case. Thanks!

Cheers!

>>92721
that chart is awsome, thanks anon, also thanks for the reading list

but it really doesn't seem like you disagree with that guy you called an imbecile, you're saying the same things basically

>>93001

It's true, you do have to have something to offer, but you also have to go to people and find ways to talk to them about that something and get them to listen, so networking is important too

>>95658
I will make more recommendations and outline processes that are better than jamming things together tomorrow morning if this is up still. The short answer is your working memory can only hold a limited number of objects at once and resources and time put a serious constraint on how much you should rely on luck.

>>92721
>gender gap

The thing about trying to come up with an idea and the experimentation is that you don't start with an idea alone. Otherwise you are likely to end up creating a solution in search of a problem. The reason no one bothers telling beginning entrepreneurs about something like the phase gate model is that doing a survey and testing of that many products would break nearly anyone's bankroll. Greg Stevens and James Burley did a study in 1997 on this - around 3000 ideas tended to result in 1 single commercial success.

You start with what your potential customer's need if you want to predict the product you will have to create, you start with their desires. Whatever you build must keep in mind the various constraints you have - David Owens book is built around understanding different types of constraints to innovation. Then you can build a prototype. If you want an adaptive process, AGILE provides a good example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development#Adaptive_vs._Predictive


When you're in this mode of working with ideas it's not the usual highly driven type A mindset, John Cleese describes it well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU5x1Ea7NjQ

character limit

>>98377
Now for a choice quote about constraints and relying on failure alone:

http://firstround.com/article/This-Product-Prioritization-System-Nabbed-Pandora-More-Than-70-Million-Active-Monthly-Users-with-Just-40-Engineers?_ga=1.190231721.387679310.1392385863
>He readily busts the myth of “failing fast.” This wasn’t the environment at Pandora, with little time and money to waste. “There’s this motto in our industry that says fail fast and fail often,” he says. “But none of us can actually do that right? We have all kinds of constituents — employees, investors, users — they are expecting you to do smart things, not dumb things. So one of the first things I said was let’s not pretend we can just try things and some will work out and some won’t. That’s not winning, that’s losing.”
>"A week from now, you’ll be smarter about everything — about what your users want, how to monetize it, the expectations of your investors,” Conrad says. “You absolutely can’t commit to long-term roadmaps. A lot of people will ask you for one, and they have good reasons — people who have given you money, advisors, employees, potential employees. But you have to tell them you’re not going to answer their questions. The more you talk about what you’re going to do a year from now, the more that becomes etched in stone. You have to make sure you’re doing the most valuable work at any given time.”

>It’s almost certain that what you think is important today won’t be important at all, even a quarter down the line. Adopting this attitude — born out of constraints — will keep you nimble, keep you focused on the ripest opportunities, and make the best use of everyone’s time.

The truth is you don't have enough time for luck alone. Even if you do a broad exploration you're much more likely to find something that is interesting but won't be a good fit for the market.

character limit

>>98458

The constraints you're dealing with must be kept in mind in order to get a realistic idea of what you want to do. Technology in particular is interesting because things are usually hyped up long before they become useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Also, if you're networking try to map out the network of people you are dealing with and their relationships between each other. Some things become obvious when you can see them together as once that would otherwise remain obscure if you just kept it all in your head.

>>98521
Further reading:
Peter Thiel's Class Notes
http://blakemasters.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup

You and Your Research by Richard Hamming (your work is ultimately about problem solving and even scientists have to sell things):
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html

Interactive Design:
http://worrydream.com/#!/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign

Universal Principles of Design by Lidwell, Holden and Butler

With Winning In Mind by Lanny Bassham

Up The Organization by Robert Townsend

>>98584
Thanks for all the info mang, this is a lot of food for thoughts

>>100074
You're welcome bro, this is my favorite board on 4chan. /sci/ never really recovered from the College of London trolls.

>>93227
Yeah I was testy, I'm jumped to the conclusion that when you said luck and connections you were leaning towards the speculation side of things.

It's similar to when the big thing was to start a .com and IPO out - the people who actually did that successfully had to understand how to calculate the risks in a meaningful way. Phrases like "innovation process" and "fail forward" have turned into phrases that are too vague to be useful. Now the big thing is making some sort of social media spin-off, without really understanding any details or how or why they work.

>>87040
Epic website rivalry bro us 4channers gotta stick together xD.

>>89717
>most hospitals have software made by a sole developer that cost a lot
Do you mean all hospitals use the same software, or that each hospital hires their own developer?