Once again about the Business Plan and a little about ... the future of Microsoft

    This note is a fragment from a blog published in my iTech Bridge blog, and it follows two other ones: “ Curved Mirrors of a Business Plan ” and “ Microsoft: We Will Take a Different Way ”. At first glance, what can connect them? Hopefully all clear up by the end of the note.

    All the same, I’ll be talking here about the Business Plan. Although I thought that I had already tied up with the startup theme. It turned out, no. I had an interesting conversation with one very interesting author . He goes both directly (in the comments on my or his notes, in letters), and indirectly (in our articles).

    The subject of conversation was the question of whether, to whom and when is the business plan needed? My starting position is stated in "In the crooked mirrors of the Business Plan ”, it seems to me in“ What Venture Funds Want to See ... ”. My opponent claims that no project can do without a classic Business Plan with a classic Executive Summary. I believe that the project is different for the project and if (1) the project is started by a start-up company, (2) which does not have its own initial capital, and (3) is focused on a business model, which is based on advertising money in one way or another, the classic Business Plan in its digital part is nothing more than self-deception . More precisely, it reflects the natural and absolutely sincere for any fan of his idea (and the author of the idea should not be another) desire to pass off “wishful thinking”.

    This is especially evident in those sections where such an author proceeds to convert virtual users into real coin . And my point of view is based on a very simple thesis: the advertising “pie” is a rather limited thing, and the mechanisms of its distribution and redistribution have not really been studied by anyone.

    The reader can learn more about our arguments in the main text and in the comments here [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Here, I only want to offer some compromise point of view. After all, whether we wish it or not, we must admit that in a well-reasoned argument the truth always lies closer to the middle. At the same time, I pay attention to what I sayonly in the context indicated above as (1) + (2) + (3) . After all, any discussion outside the pre-agreed statement of the problem simply loses its meaning.

    In our context, I propose to look at the Business Plan, as they usually look at a candidate dissertation in the scientific world. Well, the famous “horror story” under the mysterious name “Executive Summary” is the same dissertation abstract. Having some work experience both in the scientific and in the business world, I take the liberty of using such an analogy.

    No one in the scientific world ever claims that having a “good” dissertation is the only condition that its author can succeed, say, in technical fields. However, having a dissertation will certainly increase the likelihood of such a success.

    Moreover, no one ever considers a dissertation as a technical document. This, at best, is a reflection of the results of research. In order to make “good” technical documentation on its basis, specialists of relevant profiles are needed: electronic engineers and / or programmers, designers and technologists.

    Similarly, in the business world, no one ever claims that the presence of a “good” Business Plan is the only condition that the author of an idea can successfully bring it to the market. However, the presence of a business plan, of course, increases the likelihood of such a successful outcome.

    At the same time, you do not need to wait from the Business Plan, which appeared from under the pen of the author of the idea, of what is usually expected from a real and classic Business- plan. We see, at best, his sketch. To “make” this business document on the basis of this sketch, again, specialists of the corresponding profile are needed: marketers, economists, financiers, and others. And the author has no idea, by definition.

    Moreover, I am sure that today investment in projects in the context of “(1) + (2) + (3)” can and every day only strategic investors will do more and more . And under their strategic interests, which have long been calculated in their own business plans. They can, because they can, but they will, because Web 2.0 is only at the beginning of its path, even if it is renamed to Web 3.0 tomorrow. And now it’s just possible ... a little bit about the future of Microsoft .

    -The topic discussed here, and the discussion that arose around it, unexpectedly for me found their continuation in the discussion around my other note .

    Also popular now: