I thought this article tied in with our discussion on effectual or entrepreneurial thinking. When we think of companies that have disrupted industries (i.e., Netflix, Uber, Airbnb), it would seem that those entrepreneurs looked at what they knew about the industry, who they are, and who they know, and exploited inefficiencies and dissatisfaction from consumer feedback. The article lays out a framework of thinking for those looking to disrupt an industry which parallels well with our effectual thinking discussion.

• Identify the problem or problems in your industry.
• Work together with others in your industry to solve the problem(s).
• Uncover new ways to approach your already-existing customers.
• Add new customers into your mix of existing ones.
• Discover what else your product can be used for.

http://www.inc.com/bubba-page/5-ways-to-disrupt-a-stagnant-or-dying-industry.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/3037829/6-reasons-your-lawyer-less-startup-is-doomed-from-the-get-go

This article highlights the benefits of getting a lawyer involved in your startup as early as possible. Securing a lawyer up front to structure your business entity and to handle other preliminary matters, which usually costs between $1,500 and $2,500, is highly advisable. Overall, the article is a nice summary of some of the value a lawyer can bring to a startup. As the article notes, many entrepreneurs make the mistake of relying on lawyers only when things go wrong (after the fact). This leads to high legal costs, feeding into the negative view many entrepreneurs have of lawyers more generally. If more entrepreneurs were to take the advice of this article, they may be more inclined to see lawyers as helpers, essential to their business.

While not exactly inline with this week’s reading, I thought this article was interesting read based on our earlier discussion of commercial v. private flying. Specifically, this article addresses the way the private jet industry is adapting to a different market, taking advantage of smartphone technology to reach a broader base of clientele at more “affordable” prices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/business/despite-steep-fees-and-first-class-prices-private-jets-are-available-to-more.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0

I’ve met Arthur Brooks, and really admire his work. But I think our friend David Pozen would have a field day with this one!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/opinion/arthur-c-brooks-taking-risks-in-love.html

I brought up the project Skolkvo in the presentation on Tuesday as an example of how Russia is attempting to foster entrepreneurship by creating their own Silicon Valley . Here’s a few articles on the project for those who might be interested.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/09/skolkovo-15b/

http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/21/russias-skolkovo-project-gets-back-on-track/

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/31/russia-hopes-the-skolkovo-tech-city-will-produce-its-great-leap-forward/

 

This is a much longer piece by USAID that examines land ownership issues in Ethiopia. I am posting it in case anyone is interested.

 

http://usaidlandtenure.net/sites/default/files/country-profiles/full-reports/USAID_Land_Tenure_Ethiopia_Profile.pdf

Here is an interesting and brief article about efforts to create more equitable land ownership in Africa.

http://wle.cgiar.org/blogs/2013/06/24/from-policy-to-action-promoting-equitable-land-ownership-in-ethiopia-and-rwanda/

This article discusses the “new” trend in higher education to focus on competency instead of a liberal arts based approach. Though it certainly has its benefits, competency based education won’t foster creativity as well as a liberal arts will. As with everything there are trade offs and you need both theory and practice to be successful.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/innovation-higher-education-here-we-go-again-jeff-degraff?trk=tod-home-art-list-small_1

This article discusses the increasing regulation of the tech industry in Vietnam. The article highlights how many of these regulations are “another attempt by the ruling Communist Party to control expression that could incite unrest or threaten its monopoly on power.” These regulations are placing barriers not only on access to the industry but also on free speech. The regulations have had a chilling effect on the industry and are making it increasingly difficult for tech entrepreneurs to thrive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/business/as-technology-entrepreneurs-multiply-in-vietnam-so-do-regulations.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/ubers-wild-2014-can-lawsuits-protests-bring-it-down-n265536

This article discusses Uber and the disruption it has caused in the cab industry.  The article notes that the average cab driver doesn’t work for a large corporation.  They instead work as a contractor, leasing a medallion for a very high fee.  However, those who own the cab medallions being leased are not as affected by Uber as these contractors because they receive their fee regardless of changes in the market.  Consequently, medallion owners are less likely to invest in new technology similar to Uber to assist the contractors running their fleet.  The article also discusses the legal, safety and privacy issues created by the app, and the lack of laws in place regulating the Uber business model.  Uber is a prime example of Schumpeter’s “creative destruction.”  And as with any profitable market, other firms, such as Lyft, Sidecar, and Gett are entering the scene in an attempt to capture market share.  As this new technology changes the way we do things, people with a stake in the old business model will continue to lobby their interests and litigate.  To this point, Uber seems to be succeeding, as it has expanded to 250 cities around the world, with investors telling the company that it is now worth $40 billion.