jueves, 10 de diciembre de 2015

10 Promising Franchises for Ambitious Entrepreneurs


Make a list of the scariest variables founders confront. Those are mostly solved for you when you open a franchise.

There are multiple ways people become millionaires. Some launch a successful startup. Others are a whiz with stocks. But, one of the most common yet overlooked ways is to become a franchise owner.

If you’re not sure what a franchise is here is a pretty good explanation: “a franchisee pays an initial fee and ongoing royalties to a franchisor; in return, the franchisee gains the use of a trademark, ongoing support from the franchisor, and the right to use the franchisor’s system of doing business and sell its products or services.”

I’ve been in the startup world for the past eight years, slaving away at my different startups. It’s hard because you never know if money will start coming in the door after all your hard efforts. I’ve had my ups and downs along the way. The main benefit of becoming a franchise owner is that you can launch a proven, brand-name business without starting from scratch. Imagine that! The market research, brand, product, and built-in customer base is already there for you. This isn’t saying you can’t fail, but the odds are a lot more in your favor.

If that has your attention, you should look into in investing in the following 10 franchises that aren’t only quality brands, but also guaranteed to make you a millionaire in 5 years.

1. Anytime Fitness


Founded in 2001, the 24-hour fitness club quickly began franchising in 2002. Today, Anytime Fitness has approximately 2,869 global locations. This recession-proof franchise has been rapidly growing. Entrepreneur has named it one of the top 20 franchises for the last five years. Total Investment will range $62.9K – $417.9K. Credibly states that average annual sales are between $254,700-$585,800.

2. Mosquito Squad


Pest control doesn’t always seem like sexiest of franchises. But it’s an opportunity to tap into a necessary market at a relatively low cost with a total investment is between $15,850 – $69,625. Mosquito Squad is looking to expand globally and has a 66.8 percent average gross profit margin.

3. Jimmy John’s


If you’re looking to get involved in the sandwich part of the food industry, you may may be tempted to open a Subway franchise. Jimmy John’s, which opened in 1983, is a sounder option. For starters, the quality of the gourmet sandwiches beats Subway everyday. Also, the initial investment of between $323K – $544K is fairly reasonable for such a large brand. Finally, according to Jimmy John’s, the franchise has an average annual gross sales of $1,367,810 and an average net profit from operations of $270,355 – 299,015.


4. Unishippers


This Salt Lake City-based company creates custom shipping and logistics solutions for businesses. The cost to own an Unishippers franchise is an affordable $61,000, among the cheapest franchise costs. The company is looking to franchise across the country. With annual revenue of over $425 million, there is a real possibility to become a millionaire here.

5. BrightStar


Home healthcare is an appealing industry when you consider that 10,000 people turn 65 each day. By 2030, one person in five will be 65 or older. BrightStar is a home care/senior care franchise opportunity for the investment level $0-150,000. BrightStar claims that the average franchise location revenues for 2014 were $1,421,257.

6. Mellow Mushroom


Americans love pizza, which is why Pizza Hut is one of the most popular franchise decisions. However, Mellow Mushroom is a little-known pizza shop that’s full of soul. The pizzeria first opened in 1974. The total investment to open and operate this franchise ranges from $926,500 to $3.1 million, but there is a chance that you can exceed more than $3 million in sales.

7. Weed Man


Weed Man is the leading franchised lawn care provider in North America – although it’s only been in the States since 1995. The company has been operational since 1970 and began offering franchise opportunities in 1976. Weed Man USA currently has 445 territories in the US with more than $140 million in system sales. Lawn care providers typically have repeat customers, making this an appealing and overlooked franchise. If located in the top 25 percent of US locations, average gross could be more than $1 million per year. Total investment to get started is $68.5K – $85.5K.


8. Supercuts


After opening its first shop in California in 1975, Supercuts now has nearly 2,500 locations in the US, Canada and UK. Total investment for a franchise is between $113.9K – $233.8K with annual average revenue at approximately $262,000. Supercuts was selected as the fifth best franchise in Entrepreneur’s 2015 Top Franchise 500.


9. MaidPro


Established in Boston in 1991, MaidPro is one of the best franchises for an initial investment under $150,000. With more 150 locations across the US and Canada, the housecleaning service has relatively low royalty costs and recurring customers which can lead you on your way to becoming a millionaire.

10. Camp Bow Wow


Founded in 2000, Camp Bow Wow provides grooming, training, daycare and boarding for your furry, four-legged family member. The company has since grown to 180 franchises locations that are home to more than 2.7 million dog visits per year! The total investment for Camp Bow Wow can be pricey, it’s between $356.6K – $1M, but with Americans spending over $61 billion on their pets, there’s definitely a chance to make a hefty profit.

NOTE CREDIT: http://fortune.com/2015/12/08/promising-franchises/?xid=soc_socialflow_twitter_FORTUNE

Where does big data stop and big brother start?

An interesting new book I have come across details the extent that Russian authorities go to in cracking down on online dissent. It also touches on many of the issues that frequently come up when we discuss the “dark side” of big data.

According to Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan’s book, The Red Web, the methods used by the Russian police and Federal Protective Service (FSB) make the surveillance of the U.S. National Security Agency and the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters look friendly by comparison.

The FSB is often referred to as the successor organization to the Soviet-era KGB, and Soldatov and Borogan’s book explains that many of FSB techniques and strategies have evolved from those developed by its notorious predecessor.

According to the authors, it is just one of a list of organizations – including the tax authorities, border and customs services, and branches of the military – that have the right to eavesdrop on the conversation of any Russian citizen at any time, without having to give an explanation or justification for their actions.

Soldatov and Borogan claim that, in recent years, information gathered in this way has been used to prosecute and imprison countless political and social activists, sometimes following trials held behind closed doors for reasons of “state security.”

This hits at the heart of one of the foremost concerns about how data will be used in the future. With the rate that data collection and analytic technologies are evolving and expanding, it isn’t too big a stretch of the imagination to say that it soon will be possible to know anything about anyone, at any time. The question is, can anyone be trusted with this sort of power – particularly those who can limit our freedoms by jailing or sometimes even killing us if they perceive us to be acting against their interests?

In the West, we may feel relatively comfortable that we have legal frameworks in place that protect our human rights – we have the right for a trial in public, before a jury of peers, for example. But are these rights as solid as they seem? In the last decade, the UK has enacted legislation that allows those charged under the terrorism act effectively to be tried in secret.

On top of that, the extent to which our governments are willing to spy on us has been laid bare by the revelations of Edward Snowden. Snowden, ironically, has chosen Russia to make his home in as he tries to evade prosecution in the United States for what many people believe were whistleblowing acts in the public interest, rather than crimes.

In The Red Web, the authors outline how in 1995, Russian authorities passed a law allowing telecommunications to be monitored. The following year saw the SORM system (an acronym for the system’s Russian name, which translates to “System for Operative Investigative Activities”) become operational. The system enabled the state to tap telephone conversations, secretly and at will.

The following years saw the rapid rise in popularity of the Internet as a means of public communication, and SORM-2 was deployed in 1998 to allow surveillance of this emerging technology.

In 2000, surveillance laws were updated to state that authorities no longer needed to provide an explanation to ISP and telecom companies before demanding personal data. Also, the number of government branches that could access the data was expanded from just the FSB to include police, tax authorities, border and immigration services, military branches, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The system was given its latest major update in 2014, when it became SORM-3. This update was created specifically to give the system the ability to monitor social media. Further legislative changes also came into force, obliging operators of those services to allow their users’ activity to be monitored.

Soldatov and Borogan’s book goes into detail about the extent to which Putin’s regime, while publicly denouncing the Internet as a “CIA project,” is adept at manipulating it for its own ends. Paid trolls are used to plaster pro-Putin propaganda on the websites and social media of western news outlets, and bloggers with over 3,000 subscribers are forced to register with the government so their views can be monitored.

It is certainly an eye-opening read, and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the way digital technology and the big data we are endlessly generating could be used to restrict our civil rights. This certainly should be cause for concern considering the vast amounts of data that will be collected soon.

Take cars for example. By 2020, over a quarter of a billion vehicles will be connected to the Internet.  Many will come fitted with sensors that record absolutely everything that is going on around them – both as video and as structured digital data using radar-like technology to build up a 3D model of their surroundings. Additionally, there’s facial recognition technology. It doesn’t seem too paranoid, to me, to assume that one day a government (or, indeed, a very large commercial organization) will be able to piece this data together and determine exactly where anyone is, at any point in time.

In the light of Snowden’s revelations, concerns have been raised from both the political left and right that government monitoring of citizens in the west, too, goes far beyond what anyone has ever signed up for.

Our increasingly digital and connected world undoubtedly brings many benefits – but there are pitfalls that we must be vigilant about, too. As we have seen in both the United States and Europe, governments are willing and able to deceive us about the extent of their surveillance. I believe that we need a much more comprehensive discussion about where big data stops and big brother starts.

Bernard Marr is a bestselling author, keynote speaker, strategic performance consultant, and analytics, KPI, and big data guru. He helps companies to better manage, measure, report, and analyze performance. His leading-edge work with major companies, organizations, and governments across the globe makes him an acclaimed and award-winning keynote speaker, researcher, consultant, and teacher.

NOTE CREDIT: http://data-informed.com/where-does-big-data-stop-and-big-brother-start/


What Every Business Can Learn From AirBnb

MPW Insider is an online community where the biggest names in business and beyond answer timely career and leadership questions. Today’s answer for: What’s your New Year’s resolution? is written by Kathy Bloomgarden, CEO of Ruder Finn.

As we close the chapter on a great 2015, I’m focused on continuing to build an even more dynamic 2016. As a leader, to me this means getting ahead of market trends and pushing myself and my employees to pursue new ideas. And perhaps more importantly, building the right culture that will allow your business to achieve its goals. This past year I learned a lot from listening to the startup community and multinational leaders, which have shaped my resolutions:

Look ahead
A new year is a good time to reflect on the challenges, explore opportunities, and restrategize. Working closely with leaders of the tech world has taught me to always keep an eye on where the market is headed and move forward with urgency. Business models are changing in just about every industry, so we can’t afford to be stuck in past business models that are no longer effective. We can’t be afraid to be the first to stick our neck out and try something new; it’s often in those breakthrough moments that true innovation is born.

Live the AirBnB way
I attended the Fortune Global Forum this year and sat in on a discussion with AirBnB CEO Brian Chesky. He discussed how being a little “crazy” is important to AirBnB’s culture. As Albert Einstein used to say, “Why is it that I get all my best ideas while shaving?” Creativity can spark at any moment; it’s important to keep a hold on those great ideas that come on a morning run, walking through the park, or a long plane ride. Stepping away from your traditional work environment can do great things for your imagination and creativity. Find ways to be bold in your thinking and allow yourself to be inspired in unexpected places.

Foster a community built on passion
When I look to 2016, I strongly believe that we’re at an incredible inflection point in our business environment where disruption and new technologies are allowing us to re-think everything. We’re breaking down “normal” and fostering an environment in which truly anything is possible. I want to focus my leadership team on continuing to foster a culture of passion and breakthrough creativity, In 2016, let’s work to create the kind of future we all want to live in.




miércoles, 9 de diciembre de 2015

Se eligieron los ganadores de Naves Federal



El Centro de Entrepreneurship del IAE Business School organizó #IAEmprende.

Hace días se llevó a cabo en el auditorio del Campus del IAE Business School, #IAEmprende. Allí tuvo lugar la final de Naves abierta al público y del JWEF en simultáneo, organizada por el Centro de Entrepreneurship del IAE, con el acompañamiento del Banco Supervielle. Naves es la competencia de planes de negocio de mayor prestigio de Argentina, una experiencia que comenzó hace 25 años y tiene como objetivo principal incentivar el espíritu emprendedor del país.

La edición de Naves Mendoza es organizada por el área de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa de Banco Supervielle dentro de su eje Educación, junto con el Centro de Entrepreneurship IAE Universidad Austral y el apoyo de universidades, Gobierno y distintas instituciones referentes de la  provincia. Naves permite a los emprendedores locales conocer otros escenarios y oportunidades, analizar sus proyectos y mejorarlos, generando oportunidades de desarrollo emprendedor en la provincia y posicionando al banco como un promotor del desarrollo local.

En la edición de Naves Mendoza 2015 participaron 15 instituciones convocadas por el banco: Universidad Católica Argentina, Universidad Champagnat, Instituto Tecnológico Universitario, Universidad Juan Agustín Maza, Universidad Aconcagua, Universidad de Mendoza, Cuyo Aval, Incubadora Municipalidad de Godoy Cruz, Incubadora Municipalidad de Maipú, Dirección de Pymes Gobierno de Mendoza, Agencia de inversiones – Gobierno de Mendoza, Federación Económica de Mendoza, Asociación de Diseñadores de Mendoza, Programa Incubadora Universidad Nacional de Cuyo y la Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. La edición Mendoza se desarrolló durante los meses de agosto a octubre con la participación de 180 emprendedores con 70 proyectos, y finalizó con la selección de los tres mejores proyectos para representar a la provincia en Naves Federal.

Naves Federal


En Naves 2015 participaron 250 proyectos a nivel federal y 14 llegaron a la final. En esta edición, los finalistas surgieron de las provincias de Buenos Aires, Salta, Misiones, Tucumán, Córdoba, Santa Fe y Mendoza. A través de seminarios y mentorías, Naves acompaña a los emprendedores para que se entrenen en la habilidad de generar y revisar sistemáticamente el modelo de negocios. El proceso de Naves los relaciona con otros emprendedores y actores del ecosistema emprendedor, brindando las herramientas clave para el éxito de sus emprendimientos.

En el JWEF 2015 hubo 500 participantes y 15 proyectos fueron seleccionados para pasar por el proceso de InnovAction, un programa diseñado para entrenar la capacidad de transformar las ideas en proyectos concretos. Para ello, se centra en dos grupos de habilidades fundamentales: autoconocimiento (liderazgo y trabajo en equipo) y el proceso de diseño centrado en las personas. Durante estos meses se acompañó a los proyectos con mentores y diferentes cursos presenciales y online.

Luego de las presentaciones de Naves y JWEF se llevó a cabo un panel con diferentes emprendedores que pasaron por el programa durante estos 16 años, jueces de la competencia, participantes de JWEF que llegaron a la final de Naves y diferentes actores del ecosistema emprendedor. Ignacio Peña también estuvo presente y disertó sobre “El tsunami de la innovación”. Se cerró el día con un show de Improcrash y un after en el Business Center del Parque Austral.

Entre los ganadores Naves se destacó el proyecto "Biosano", presentado por el equipo de emprendedores mendocinos que lograron el primer puesto en la categoría “Empresa naciente el proyecto”. Biosano busca soluciones ambientalmente compatibles. Es por ello que ha desarrollado un polímero natural biodegradable con gran poder absorbente y floculante, llevando el agua que se desprende de los lodos a Ph neutro, siendo biocompatible con la flora y la fauna. Es un producto 100 % biodegradable, de alta eficiencia, que representa un ahorro promedio del 30 % en costos de operación y mano de obra en la industria petrolera.

Los emprendedores integrantes del proyecto ganador son:

- Mgter. Martín Benito, Master of Science en "eBusiness and ICT for Management" Politécnico di Torino, Italia. Licenciado en Economía, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo (UNC).

- TSP. Cristian Marlia, estudiante avanzado de Ingeniería Química. Técnico Superior en Procesos, Técnico químico industrial, Técnico en petróleos.

- TSP. Matías Villafañe, estudiante avanzado de Ingeniería Química. Técnico Químico Universitario. Ayudante Becario de la Cátedra de Fenómenos de Transporte.

NOTE CREDIT: http://www.losandes.com.ar/article/se-eligieron-los-ganadores-de-naves-federal

HOW TO REINVENT YOURSELF WITH AN ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSET



Like it or not the modern world forces us to constantly reinvent ourselves.  And the reinvention process requires and entreprenuerial mindset.

Somewhere along the way, people became convinced that stasis is safer than movement. Consistency feels comfortable; volatility is frightening. Consciously or not, we attempt to protect ourselves against life’s volatility by cultivating routine in our lives.

But, in this ever-changing world, we are constantly forced to reinvent ourselves.

And this reinvention process by very nature requires an entrepreneurial mindset.

In many ways, entrepreneurship is about where we place the responsibility for our experience. Although it’s hubris to think that you has complete control of your experience, it’s martyrdom to think that you have none. An entrepreneur is someone deeply engaged in his or her experience of life and willing to do the daily work of transforming it.

The entrepreneur is idealist and pragmatic, sensitive to the world she wishes to see, and conscious of the world as it is. The entrepreneur’s work, then, lies in connecting the two.

Constant reinvention requires:
1.Driving long-term vision
2.Creating platforms for growth
3.Fostering synergistic ecosystems

A sense of purpose takes vision


Vision is what we’re to do with the time that we have. If you look at the central business theses of a few leading companies, we can see that they prioritize not only revenue—though surely that’s essential—but also the purpose of the work that they do. And that purpose is critical to staying a long-term course.

Time is the most scarce resource. When we realize not as an intellectual construct but as an emotional conviction that our time here is finite, we will act purposefully.

Finding the Platforms That Are Already There


If vision is an expression of the soul of a person, platform is its body. We often call these "core competencies," which tend to grow organically. Whether an organization (or an individual) recognizes it in themselves, these competencies are platforms, or assets with business applications.

Platform generation is taking assets that have already been created and finding new ways to use them.

But they can also be tangible things—automobile companies will use the same engine in a range of cars, and, at times, provide engines for other manufacturers, bringing in more capital from a preexisting product. Similarly, if we are going to sustainably grow our organizations, we must reach limbs out into new markets.

In understanding platforms, we appreciate the wealth of possible intersections between our organizations, the world and ourselves.

Fostering Sustainable Ecosystems


James F. Moore was the first to apply the term ecosystem to a business context. He wrote that a business ecosystem was "an economic community supported by a foundation of interacting organizations and individuals." These ecosystems, he wrote, encourage companies to coevolve their capabilities. This comes in several flavors.

Sometimes an ecosystem can sprout up around a product, like the range of cases, headphones and other paraphernalia that surround the mobile devices. As well, a company can sprout whole economic worlds, as was the case of the App Store—and in that case, the App Store itself was a new platform for Apple. Amazon also sprouted ecosystems from new business platforms: Marketplace, from which third party vendors—who in an earlier age would be considered competitors—can offer their wares on Amazon, creating an ecosystem in and of itself.

In a very similar sense, ecosystem thinking has become a cornerstone of web publishing—the broad swathe of unpaid contributors creating content for the Huffington Post, BuzzFeed and other publishing platforms do so in exchange for growing their own individual readership and brand.

Why are ecosystems—and understanding them—crucial to sustainable value creation?

They are the structure that surrounds and supports our businesses. They spread stakeholdership out from the business and into society.

Taken together, constant reinvention process is a combination of inner and outer awareness. We need to know what our timescale is for what we're doing; we need to know how the competencies we've built can extend in new directions; and we need to attend to how our business fits into the larger world. When we do all three, we can be confident, committed and flexible in the value that we create repeatedly.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: Socrates Deconstructs Singularity University

Singularity University is not about the singularity and is not even a university. It is not about abundance and is not an exponential organization.

Then what is Singularity University about?!

Those are the claims I made and the questions I asked, and tried to address, during my recent presentation at a local meetup organized by Singularity University in the Netherlands. Check it out and judge for yourself.

Update: About a day and a half after this was originally published, I got a call from SU President Rob Nail and was told I made some good points as well as some bad ones, without specifying which ones are which. We agreed to begin a process where I get enlightened about my mistakes. I am always happy to do that. It may take some time but stay tuned for more. Until I see the evidence, however, my argument stands as is.



I will slice SU in a variety of ways. Some good and some bad. Some large and some small. Some will make sense and some may not. And some my be just totally wrong. In fact, I very much hope that they are totally wrong.

I will attempt to deconstruct Singularity University’s name, business model, strategic context, mission statement and accomplishments, organizational structure and their global plan.


Singularity University’s Business Model in 5 words:


Create scarcity to sell abundance


…And charge an arm and a leg for it…

Some may call this a paradox. Others can call this hypocrisy. So it is up to you really what you want to call it.

Let me explain further and to do that I need the 3 most seminal books related to Singularity University: the Singularity is Near, Abundance and Exponential Organizations. [4th SU book everyone should read is Future Crimes]

Let’s see how SU fits within the space that each of those postulates:

OK, the Singularity is Near but clearly not near enough for its own titular organization to be actually about the singularity. So, again, as Salim Ismail often says SU is not about the singularity. The question is why is it not?! What is more important than that?! If an organization where Ray Kurzweil is a chancellor, where students get a free copy of The Singularity is Near, and which has the word singularity in its name, is not really about the singularity then what organization ought to be about the singularity? And why name it Singularity in the first place? That’s like saying that chocolate fudge is not about the chocolate?

But let’s not forget. Singularity University is neither about the singularity nor a university. So that’s like saying chocolate fudge is neither about the chocolate nor about the fudge. How much sense does this make to you? I mean what is it about for gods sake?! And if it really is not about the chocolate, and not about the fudge, then, why are we calling it chocolate fudge in the first place?!

OK, enough about the singularity you may say. If it is not about the singularity, it must be about abundance, right?

Remember the business model: Create Scarcity to Sell Abundance

Well, let me give 2 examples: talk about just the most recent 2 examples – David Roberts’ OCE Discovery presentation and the most recent phone call about starting SU chapters in Canada and elsewhere…

In short, in the birthplace of abundance, scarcity rules. And it is even worse because it is not the real natural scarcity one may find but it is one that is manufactured on purpose. We have those lecture videos in abundance. We have keynotes in abundance and as Chiara and the other girl admitted we have all kinds and lots of other SU videos. But not for distribution. Now, to me that sounds more like one of the big music labels from 15 years ago. Or some of the 100-year-old book publishers. But it surely doesn’t sound like the abundance mindset of an exponential organization.

So keep in mind the business model I said: Create Scarcity to Sell Abundance

But the point here is that, despite Peter Diamandis‘ brilliant book on Abundance, Singularity University clearly does not take it seriously because it has both a scarcity mindset AND a scarcity business model.

Let’s talk about the 3rd seminal book that I believe everyone must read – Exponential Organizations:

The question is simple – is Singularity University an exponential organization?

Well, let me answer it this way: To this day I have not met one faculty member or GSP student of any year who has told me that they thought SU is an ExO. In fact, in my recent interview with Salim even he said that Singularity University is not.

So the question is how long can you sell others on the idea of ExO’s if you are clearly not one?

I already touched on the name and the books, and the discrepancy thereof. Let me talk about Singularity University’s Mission Statement now i.e. its Massively Transformative Purpose:

Positively Impacting 1 billion people within 10 years

..and, we are not even close to the 125-250 million people we should be at if it is an ExO and follows its own goal’s stated timeline.

Let’s further judge Singularity University on its own record and according to its own goal to “educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity’s grand challenges”

Has it been successful?! You may say “Yes” I will say “Not so fast!”

7 years after its beginning, as far as Grand Challenges are concerned I personally fail to see a single grand challenge where Singularity University has directly been able to make a measurable difference, let alone “solving” it.

In addition, when it comes to the “educate, inspire and empower” mandate SU has had some notable success but I would like to suggest that when one takes into consideration the Singularity University resources – its location, trillion dollar network, revenue stream, human resources, sponsorship and so on – it does not have a very good ROI. [Other than in publicity.]

For example, Khan Academy and Wikipedia both have better ROI as far as “educate, inspire and empower” are concerned, with much less hype too. And they are both actually exponential organizations.

If there is one area where SU has been undoubtedly successful it is to feed its own growth, raise and/or charge more money, to hire more people and spread the hype of its own legend. What is worse, I will argue that SU is already starting to show diminishing returns to scale – i.e. as Singularity University grows each unit invested in it will bring about fewer and fewer units of the desired outcome, while the previous two examples arguably still show accelerating returns per units invested. And that is one of the major differences between an exponential and classic organization.

Here are some other problems with Singularity University i.e. major obstacles to achieving its own mission statement – some are tactical and some are strategic:

Tactical: Singularity University’s current model does not scale

In my view SU is not an exponential organization; it does not scale. The business model of bringing people to a location and educating them is a thousand years old. Flying over and doing customer specific seminars is better but is still only a marginal improvement on that. So, in short, the tactical problem is that Singularity University has embraced a closed garden, classic scarcity educational model.

So perhaps the biggest break-through will come in a tactically new business model and structure which scales well – just like the Khan Academy, Udacity, Courcera etc, are all scalable and structurally new in a way that SU is not. Now, I am not saying Singularity University should necessarily become Khan Academy, but I am saying that it cannot claim to be a 21st century organisation, and hope to scale up its impact, if it is embracing an old model and structure – as it currently is. So, instead of embracing what has existed for a millennia, SU must be brave in innovating and embracing a new type of institutional structure and business model.

For example, currently SU is a closed garden – i.e. the only way that people can learn any useful material is to join one of the paid programs and attend Singularity University. In this sense, SU is actually very much behind the curve of even “old fashioned” universities that have the courage to put their courses on-line for free. SU so far has been lacking any such courage which means it is even further behind than old-school universities: What’s the use of improving your curriculum every 3 months if only a tiny number of people paying big money will actually see it?! Is that the way to make exponential change?!

For example, I am hearing from a number of people that some faculty at SU are afraid to publish the gold mine of hundreds of videos that SU has been sitting on for years because they are afraid nobody will actually attend the paid programs afterwords. Now, do MIT, Stanford and Harvard not have the same problem?! Then why are they fearlessly publishing many of their own courses for free?! Why Tesla can open-source all of their amazing innovation and SU cannot?! What organization is more likely to go exponential?!  Whose ideas are more likely to spread?

In short, if SU wants to change the world it has to be the living example of an exponential organization that is clearly changing the world. The longer the gap between its preaching and its own self persists the more its credibility is going to diminish.

Other tactical flaws: 

Singularity University is elitist and top down – it seeks to make change from the top down via “leaders” rather than the bottom up via, for example, networks. [It is also convenient for SU that usually leaders can pay while masses of people cannot]

Singularity University has financial incentives not to change: both personally – where key SU people likely have a personal and/or financial stake at SU, but also institutionally – where SU takes a cut from incubated businesses, which is fine if its main mandate is to produce businesses and to make money. But as long as this is not its mandate then this mechanism is not optimal.

Singularity University has a paid model of education – i.e. it aims to educate but only those who have money to pay for it. And if you don’t then SU provides no help whatsoever.

Singularity University has a single model of implementation aimed at accomplishing its goal – have an idea, start a company, create a product or service to sell – so that SU can have their 5%, and you will change the world. Well, if the Internet, the WWW or Wikipedia were created in SU they would have failed miserably because none of them fits that simplistic Silicon valley monetization model. And it is hard to argue they did change the world and maybe they did it because luckily those entities didn’t embrace the SU model. This single model, however, also leads to a lack of structural diversity of the SU projects because they have to fit the one and only mold proposed as opposed to following a more natural evolution-type of an approach which leads to diverse outcomes.

Singularity University is centralized, bureaucratic and hierarchical and is becoming even more so. Naveen Jain himself told me a couple of years ago that SU is becoming such a bureaucracy that is impossible to get anything done.

Strategic Flaws: Embracing an old socio-economic paradigm.

Singularity University is not looking at creating a new socio-economic paradigm but instead takes the easy road of seeking the most comfortable way to fit in the current one.

Salim often says during his presentations that “SU is not a university and is not really about the singularity”.

I covered the first point already and gave examples of how in some ways even traditional universities are more courageous, more current and even more impact-full than SU currently dares to be. Others such as Udacity and Khan Academy are clearly more scalable. So if Singularity University is not a university then why is it running what is more-or-less an old university model?!

During exponential finance many speakers gave examples of shortsightedness and inability to focus on the longer term so why is Singularity University only focusing on the 5 to 15 years from now – at the most? Why do we not focus at least a little bit on the potential ways of how our current socio-economic capitalist paradigm is likely to change the closer we get to the singularity?!

To me capitalism is by far the best that we have so far but it is not different from other economic systems – it was born during the industrial revolution and is rather likely to die in our lifetime – before or around the singularity. This is what evolution is all about – nothing stays forever, nothing is ever perfect but is always changing and evolving. Thus it only makes sense that capitalism as we know it will also have to at least change or potentially even go extinct.

I am not saying Singularity University should not make money or not embrace capitalist models. It absolutely should. But it should not be limited only to those. And it seems to me that currently SU is a classically structured organization with a corporate model focused on selling, making money, spreading the Silicon Valley capitalist gospel and riding the exponential wave as much as possible rather than being the living example of creative innovation – be it structurally – as a new kind of institution, or strategically – as one focused on fundamentally different strategic goals than anyone else.

And so the main implication of all of the above is that Singularity University is not structured to actually address its own mandate. If SU wants to change the world it has to naturally start with itself and be the living embodiment of the change it seeks to spread. And this is much different from being “a benefit corporation” or whatever other legalese non-sense it currently is.

[This point was skipped due to shortage of time:]

The Singularity University Global Plan revolves around 3 elements chapters, salons and competitions.

We have videos but we are not allowed to distribute them. If you want a local speaker it has to be approved by SU headquarters AND you have to apply for licence. Think about this: are exponential organizations those who need to issue a license to have a saloon? Or are they the ones where decentralization rules?

Tightly regulated branding. Everyone in the chapters participates as a volunteer but only past graduates can be chapter leaders. Which, of course means, just like if you are a scientologist for example, that you have to pay to climb the organizational latter. Chapters must be non-profit. But they secure sponsors and run events and competitions. Roman Catholic Church is also non-profit. But all the profit, the control, the power, branding and the credit flows to the center. While all the work is, of course, done by the periphery.

“Bringing Singularity University to this place and bring SU to that place.” So SU has become the mission. Where as I thought that the mission is to improve the life of a billion people and SU is hopefully the best means to achieve that. But that is what happens to all beurocracies – their first rule is self-perpetuation and self-preservation. Roman Catholic Church done the Silicon Valley Way. With scaled franchising and all.

Singularity University is like the Catholic Church – everything material etc flows to the center and is controlled by it. More and more tightly than ever.

It is like SU is saying: The emperor is dead long live the emperor — the gatekeepers are gone so let all old gatekeepers come to SU because we are the gatekeeper of exponential technology and the Gods of disruption. And so again, in essence, it is the same old cry “the Emperor is dead long live the emperor.” My cry here tonight is rather different: “The emperor is dead. SU has no clothes. The hell with the monarchy. Long live the republic.”

At any rate, time is advancing so let me finish here with Peter Diamandis’ brilliant 6 D’s of Exponentials:

Digitalized – it is absolutely not digitized. That’s why a small-time amateur blogger like me can have more traffic on my YouTube channel than Singularity University.

Deceptive – yes it is deceptive, it sells exponential i.e. it sells something it does not have in the first place. How can you sell exponential org if you are not one?

Disruptive – Yes, it is very disruptive but mostly to people’s and organizations’ bank accounts. Started by charging around $100,000 went through $200,000 and, most recently from 1/4 to 1/2 of 1 million dollars per event. Clearly it will reach a billion dollars way before reaching a billion people. And will disrupt the balance of a number of bank accounts no doubt. Started not for profit and now it’s somewhat half way but the reality is that it is totally for profit if you actually watch what’s being done.

Furthermore, how disruptive and exponential can be a few middle-aged people who fly first class and ask for half a million to do a two day event?!  Revolutions are made by the young and the poor… I can think of a few people whose middle name is disruption and they don’t fly in first class and don’t make the big money. The people who do are business people. People who disrupt, well they just go around and disrupt… its’ what they do, whether they are getting paid or not.

Dematerialized – Singularity University is geographically clustered, based on in-person learning and funded by an artificial scarcity based business model.

Demonetized – it is the exact opposite of that. It is very monetized and trying to be even more so all the time by raising its prices and creating artificial scarcity.

Democratized or Decentralized – Singularity University is neither. It is a classic top down pyramidal structure. So there is nothing fundamentally new, democratized or decentralized about it.

And so I find it be a great irony of exponentials that 7 years later Singularity University is none of those things either.

Conclusion:

As I said in the beginning of my talk today: The Emperor has No Clothes.

Our emperor has no clothes my friends.

Singularity University is not about the singularity. SU is not a about abundance. SU is not an exponential organization. And the exponential irony is that SU charges enormous amounts of money by going to all kinds of organizations that are none of those things themselves and asks them:

Do you know about the Singularity? Do you know about abundance? Do you know about exponential organizations?

And then tells them that they should listen if they want to survive.

And of course, this is what I just did. And so I do hope that SU has a big fat check for me today – and I am happy with only $100,000 because I am giving them the warning they love and get paid to give to others. Which is simply this:

Disrupt yourself or be disrupted. Lead by example and from the front. Seek to monetize abundance, rather than scarcity. Put the mission before the organization. Live your message. Do these and you will reach your goals. Fail to do so and you will fail as an organization.

So, if Singularity University is not about the singularity, not about abundance and is not an exponential organization then the natural question is, of course:

What is SU all about?!

Well, humor me with this absolutely crazy and totally outlandish hypothesis:

Singularity University is a child of silicon valley. And silicon valley is about one thing: start a business, build it up and sell it. In other words Silicon Valley is about IPO’s. It is about taking companies public. And, the strategic drift that I have been getting based on all the observable changes and what’s been happening for the past few years is that Singularity University follows that mold and is being built up and groomed with the idea to eventually be sold to someone like Google, for example.

So, ultimately, Singularity University is about selling to the highest bidder. Most likely Google.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. But that is a fundamentally different purpose than impacting the life of a billion people.

And so where does all of this leave us?!

I honestly have not a clue. But I do know that when the Singularity Hub never called me back to become a staff writer for them that was like winning the lottery because I will not be here tonight if I they had called. Because it would have not occurred to me that I can do it on my own. I also know that while I do love Singularity University SU does not have a monopoly over exponential technology, disruption or the future of humanity. So while it is great to have a strong organization it is even better if we have more than one. We need many, many Singularity Universities. That is why for example when people are sometimes surprised that I allow other tech bloggers and podcasters to post on my blog, link to their sites and quote “steal my audience”, I reply that it is totally awesome. Because I believe in the mission more than I believe in my own organization. Because I believe we need many, many singularity universities, singularity blogs and singularity podcasts. And because I believe in abundance.

And so I plan to keep doing what I do best. Even if, at times, that comes at a high price. And I think that now you may have a better idea as to what that might look like. But in the end of the day I am not here to be right. And I am not here to make money. Unless, of course, Yuri has my $100,000 check somewhere there. I am here to start a conversation. I am here to tell you that our Emperor has no clothes and it is our responsibility to say it loud and clear.

And so, in that sense, I admit that I am here to make a ruckus.

But the rest is up to you.

And so, as always, the question is:

What are YOU going to do?!

Thank you very much for your time!

Giving Up Is the Enemy of Creativity

What determines whether the ideas we generate are truly creative? Recent research of ours finds that one common factor often gets in the way: we tend to undervalue the benefits of persistence.

In a series of experiments we observed that people consistently underestimated the number of ideas they could generate while solving a creative challenge. In one, we brought 24 university students into the laboratory during the week leading up to Thanksgiving and asked them to spend ten minutes coming up with as many ideas of dishes to serve at Thanksgiving dinner as they could. Then we had them predict how many more ideas they could generate if they persisted on the task for an additional ten minutes. After that, they actually persisted for ten minutes.

On average, the students predicted they would be able to generate around 10 new ideas if they persisted. But we found that they were actually able to generate around 15 new ideas.

Several similar follow-up studies we conducted produced the same result. We asked professional comedians to generate punch lines for a sketch comedy scene; adults to generate advertisement slogans for a product; and people to come up with tactics a charity organization could use to increase donations. In each of these experiments, participants significantly underestimated how many ideas they could generate while persisting with the challenge.

Importantly, after each study we asked a separate group of people to rate the creativity of the participants’ ideas. Across the majority of our studies we found that ideas generated while persisting were, on average, rated to be more creative than ideas generated initially. Not only did participants underestimate their ability to generate ideas while persisting, they underestimated their ability to generate their most creative ideas.

Why do we underestimate the benefits of persistence? It’s because creative challenges feel difficult. People often have the experience of feeling “stuck,” being unsure of how to find a solution, or hitting a wall with one idea and having to start over again.

Trying hard and failing to make progress on a non-creative task, like an advanced physics problem, may appropriately signal that it’s time to stop working. But creative ideas take time. They are often generated after an initial period of thinking deeply about the problem, considering different ways to frame the problem, and exploring different possible solution paths. Consider that Sir James Dyson developed over 5,000 prototypes before he patented his best-selling Dyson vacuum cleaner. Or that Walt Disney animated cartoons for nearly two decades before his first big hit, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

But our work shows that when creative challenges start to feel difficult, most people lower their expectations about the performance benefits of perseverance, and consequently, underestimate their own ability to generate ideas.

It’s important to accurately value persistence because our beliefs powerfully regulate our behavior. If you do not recognize that persistence is valuable for creativity, you will be less likely to persist when you face your own creative challenges.

In another study, we asked participants to work on a creative challenge, and we paid them a small sum of money for each idea they generated. Then we told them they could continue generating ideas (and make more money) if they first paid a small fee to go on. We included the fee to simulate how the decision to persist always has an opportunity cost: persisting on one task means having fewer resources to invest in other tasks. Even though nearly all participants were expected to profit from persisting (based on the results of pretesting), only 54% of participants chose to continue, and as we expected, those who chose not to generated fewer creative ideas and made less money.

Our research suggests that workers typically underestimate the benefits of persistence when it comes to being creative. In other words, some workers may have creative potential that goes untapped when they decide not to persevere with a challenge. Based on our research, we offer two recommendations to avoid this:

1.Ignore your first instinct to stop. When working on a tough creative challenge, you will likely face a moment when you feel stuck and can’t come up with any more ideas. You’ll first want to quit and spend your time doing something else. Temporarily ignore this instinct, especially if you’re still in the early stages of the work. Try to generate just a few more ideas, or consider just a few more alternatives. You may find that your next creative idea was closer than you imagined.
2.Remember that creative problems are supposed to feel difficult. Most involve setbacks, failures, and that “stuck” feeling. It’s part of the process. Suppress your instinct to interpret these feelings as a signal that you just aren’t creative or that you’ve run out of good ideas. Reaching your creative potential often takes time, and persistence is critical for seeing a challenge through to the end.