Once again about the Business Plan and a bit about ... the future of Microsoft
This note is a fragment from a blog published in my iTech Bridge - and it goes after two others: “ Curved mirrors of the Business Plan ” and “ Microsoft: We will go the other way ”. At first glance, what can bind them? I hope everything clears up by the end of the note.
I’ll be talking more here about the Business Plan. Although I thought that I had already tied up with startup themes. It turned out no. I went to an interesting conversation with one very interesting author . He goes directly (in comments to my or his notes, in letters), and indirectly (in our articles).
The subject of conversation was the question, do you need, to whom and when a business plan? My starting position was formulated in “ In the Curves of a Mirror of a Business Plan, ” it seems to me, in “ What do 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 to the project and, if (1) the project starts with a start-up company, (2) which does not have its own initial capital, and (3) is focused on a business model 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) the desire to give what is “wishful thinking”.
This feature is manifested in those sections where such an author proceeds to convert virtual users into a real coin . And my point of view is based on a very simple thesis: the advertising “pie” is a rather limited thing in its size, and the mechanisms of its distribution and redistribution have not really been studied by anyone yet.
')
The reader can become more familiar with our arguments in the main text and in the comments here [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Here I just want to offer some compromise point of view. After all, whether we wish it or not, we must admit that in a well-argued argument the truth always lies closer to the middle. At the same time, I once again draw attention to the fact that I speak only in the context designated above as (1) + (2) + (3) . After all, any discussion outside the previously agreed problem statement simply loses its meaning.
In our context, I propose to look at the Business Plan, as they usually look at a PhD thesis in the scientific world. Well, and the famous “horror story” under the mysterious title “Executive Summary” is the same dissertation author’s abstract. Having some experience in the scientific and business world, I take the liberty to use this analogy.
No one in the scientific world ever asserts that having a “good” thesis is the only condition that its author can achieve success in, say, the technical branches. However, having a dissertation certainly increases the likelihood of such a success.
At the same time, no one ever considers a thesis as a technical document. This is, at best, a reflection of the results of R & D. 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 asserts that having a “good” Business Plan is the only condition that the author of an idea can successfully bring to the market. However, having a Business Plan certainly increases the likelihood of such a successful outcome.
At the same time, it is not necessary to wait from the Business Plan, which appeared from the pen of the author of the idea, what is usually expected from the present and classical Business Plan. We see, at best, his sketch. For “manufacturing” on the basis of this sketch of this business document, again, we need specialists of the corresponding profile: marketing specialists, economists, financiers and others. And their author has no idea, by definition.
Moreover, I am sure that today investments in projects in the context of "(1) + (2) + (3)" can and with every day more and more will be made only by strategic investors . And under their strategic interests, long since already 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 tomorrow it will be renamed to Web 3.0. And now you can just ...... a little about the future of Microsoft .
- The topic touched upon here, and the discussion that has arisen around it, unexpectedly for me, continued its discussion in the discussion around my other note .
I’ll be talking more here about the Business Plan. Although I thought that I had already tied up with startup themes. It turned out no. I went to an interesting conversation with one very interesting author . He goes directly (in comments to my or his notes, in letters), and indirectly (in our articles).
The subject of conversation was the question, do you need, to whom and when a business plan? My starting position was formulated in “ In the Curves of a Mirror of a Business Plan, ” it seems to me, in “ What do 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 to the project and, if (1) the project starts with a start-up company, (2) which does not have its own initial capital, and (3) is focused on a business model 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) the desire to give what is “wishful thinking”.
This feature is manifested in those sections where such an author proceeds to convert virtual users into a real coin . And my point of view is based on a very simple thesis: the advertising “pie” is a rather limited thing in its size, and the mechanisms of its distribution and redistribution have not really been studied by anyone yet.
')
The reader can become more familiar with our arguments in the main text and in the comments here [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Here I just want to offer some compromise point of view. After all, whether we wish it or not, we must admit that in a well-argued argument the truth always lies closer to the middle. At the same time, I once again draw attention to the fact that I speak only in the context designated above as (1) + (2) + (3) . After all, any discussion outside the previously agreed problem statement simply loses its meaning.
In our context, I propose to look at the Business Plan, as they usually look at a PhD thesis in the scientific world. Well, and the famous “horror story” under the mysterious title “Executive Summary” is the same dissertation author’s abstract. Having some experience in the scientific and business world, I take the liberty to use this analogy.
No one in the scientific world ever asserts that having a “good” thesis is the only condition that its author can achieve success in, say, the technical branches. However, having a dissertation certainly increases the likelihood of such a success.
At the same time, no one ever considers a thesis as a technical document. This is, at best, a reflection of the results of R & D. 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 asserts that having a “good” Business Plan is the only condition that the author of an idea can successfully bring to the market. However, having a Business Plan certainly increases the likelihood of such a successful outcome.
At the same time, it is not necessary to wait from the Business Plan, which appeared from the pen of the author of the idea, what is usually expected from the present and classical Business Plan. We see, at best, his sketch. For “manufacturing” on the basis of this sketch of this business document, again, we need specialists of the corresponding profile: marketing specialists, economists, financiers and others. And their author has no idea, by definition.
Moreover, I am sure that today investments in projects in the context of "(1) + (2) + (3)" can and with every day more and more will be made only by strategic investors . And under their strategic interests, long since already 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 tomorrow it will be renamed to Web 3.0. And now you can just ...... a little about the future of Microsoft .
- The topic touched upon here, and the discussion that has arisen around it, unexpectedly for me, continued its discussion in the discussion around my other note .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/17034/
All Articles