As some of you might know, I also run a company called +ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES on the side. We help medium and large companies and organisations around the world get serious about innovation and delivering actual results instead of PowerPoints.
I thought I’d take a couple of minutes to update you on how we’ve been adapting to better meet your needs in these trying times.
tl;dr – We now offer all our programs and services also via remote (in the best possible quality available today) as an option for you.
Whether you’re back in the regular office or still working remotely from home, we’re providing you with our popular programs like directly to you in the conferencing tools you already use, in the quality you’ve come to expect.
Everything you’re seeing in this video is taken directly from our streaming studio. This is how it actually looks in your normal conferencing app.
And for the highest quality possible over the Internet today, we also offer a completely new direct point to point streaming solution – in full HD, with no dropped frames, no screen freeze, and no audio issues.
Also, by popular demand we’re now offering moderation and management of internal and public online events for those of you looking for quality outsourced alternatives.
For those of you who are new to remote working and online collaboration, have no fear, we of course offer you training, both for your managers and for all of the program participants in advance.
Yesterday, I was honored and delighted to be invited to join the panel for the presentations of the Hacking 4 Recovery at Stanford, hosted by Steve Blank.
Hacking 4 recovery is a summer series of 5-day pop-up classes at Stanford University creating new businesses and reinventing existing.
Great teams presenting impressive progress after only 5 days of intensive work!
I’ve been asked by Business France to support their IMPACT Germany program helping French startups expanding into Germany.
Today, we kicked the program off – on Zoom, which is of course the sensible thing these days, and I spoke a bit about idiosyncrasies of the German market and doing business in Germany as a foreigner.
Recently I was interviewed by Telekom about corporate incubation, corporate entrepreneurship and what really “failure” means in the context of Lean Startup.
Yesterday I gave feedback on a panel with Andreas Pinkwart, Minister for Economic Affairs of the state of NRW, and others, from my experience as a juror of the Gründerstipendium.NRW scholarship, the state-driven program aiming to help more people starting new innovative businesses in the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia, awarding a monthly EUR 1.000,- for 12 months to new innovative companies and founders.
My main feedback so far was:
1. A better, more transparent labelling or identification of the respective jurys’ (there are several spread across the state, each with their own set of main competencies) main competencies and domain experience to make it easier for a startup or founder to select which jury to pitch in front of that can best judge their degree of innovation and viability instead of having to travel criss-cross the whole state to finally find a jury that understands their domain by luck.
And by that I don’t imply that some juries are better than others. What I am saying is that most of them have different expertises and experiences. Judging a new retail store concept is not the same as judging a new nanoparticle coating material, judging the viability of a new social network for tweens a whole different ball game altogether.
It could be better for the applicants to be able to identify which respective jury would be best suited to evaluate their respective innovations, where they should best apply, in advance.
2. A stronger network between alumni, coaches and supporters to facilitate swift help and avoiding that new founders do the same most basic beginner mistakes over and over again. A “private” social network a la #slack MS Teams or Facebook for Work springs to mind als facilitating this. To avoid getting caught up in ministerial red tape, I’d suggest the participating networks set this up by and among themselves.
3. A regulation like an official cool-down period to limit how many times a founder or startup can apply within a set amount of time could be helpful. E.g. x amount of rejections in y time = z cool-down time before a new application will be accepted from you and you’ll have the time to work on their metrics or presentation to improve. Maybe this will improve by itself if the first point is addressed (see above).
4. On a personal note, I shared that I have some personal ethical ambivalence when recommending a founder or startup for the scholarship that has already received funding. (Side note: More of a libertarian than a liberal, I have an ethical reservation with government handouts for private enterprises. Full stop. Incentives – M’kay. Handouts – Nyah). In my view, the market has already voted for a funded company, they shouldn’t be needing this on-top, thus I find it questionable to be giving it government handouts out of my tax money (because let’s face it – this scholarship is the German tax payers’ money at play) or put in another way, supporting leeches gaming the (public) system.
I understand and accept the counter-argument that those cases could count as “collateral damage”, and if they are successful they will return the tax money invested with multiple in returns.
What I do not understand and do not readily accept is the counter-argument that limiting the eligible applicants to founders and companies who have not already taken on investment, not previously raised a round, would complicate the application process. You just need to have a look at the plethora of other criteria already imposed on the applicant to see that that argument is more rhetoric than logic. A simple checkbox yes/no on the application form and relying on scout’s honours would suffice.
