As important as financing is... quality is determined by vetting ideas.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr. Norman LaFave on August 3, 2008 at 10:04pm

Although I see the point you are trying to make, I like to be a bit more systematic in my appraisal of ideas. I ask the following questions:
1.) Does the idea follow known principles?
2.) Does the initial analysis of the concept make sense from a feasibility perspective?
3.) Is there a market for the resulting product?
3.) Will the projected cost estimate be low enough to make it marketable?
4.) How does the resulting product compare to potential competing products?

This is my "smell test".

But I also believe in critical mass. I believe that consideration of many ideas and allowing for many efforts is the only way to really find the golden nugget. Commercial entities are limited in this regard by their profit goals, but an entity like Paradigm Shift has no such profit constraints and can work toward longer term and high risk/high reward concepts.

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 3, 2008 at 11:39pm

I think we're saying the same thing. I just execute it faster than most. I said that's my criteria as an investor.

My experience as an Entrepreneur has taught me that a fast "NO" is much better than a protracted one. While both are not the desires 'yes' the fast no lets me move on without wasting any more effort on gutless, spineless, investors.

Of the hundreds of fast "No Thank Yous" Ive returned, I've received many notes, thanking me for the prompt response, and mentions that this is the way they wished all investors behaved.

Finally, I have to take issue with 'lack of profit constraints'. I invest to make $$$, I work as an entrepreneur to make $$$. If you take away that primal need then you take away the incentive to succeed. If you only wish to engage older successful players that could afford to take the 90% hit on their personal net worth, then you seriously limit your talent pool.

I can offer you any one of 3 potential forms of commitment:

1) I can do fast, high quality technical vetting for free
2) I can invest capital, but I demand to see a ROI
3) I can participate as an entrepreneur seeking funds and offering equity & profits.

Or I can combine #1 with #2 or #3 under suitable NDA & non-compete clauses.

I suppose I could also combine #2 & #3 with or without #1, but then you and I are talking about a partnership arrangement... Hey, stranger things have happened.

Permalink Reply by Dr. Norman LaFave on August 4, 2008 at 12:24am

Although I have nothing against a good profit margin (been in business myself), I dont see that as viable in the model I put forward here. PSI is an investment in the future of our nation by producing the next-generation of innovative technologies and technologists. We want the kids to stretch their wings a bit and think about some crazy ideas under the guidance of experienced professionals to keep them grounded. For profit entities may be able to do some of this, but it is not their primary focus.
I believe there is a place for both kinds of entities. By forming this as a nonprofit, I also provide a service to those making lots of money in their for-profit entities and who are in need of tax relief.

Thought of looking for sponsors for us for a fee?

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 4, 2008 at 9:51am

Hi Norman,

OK, I guess I under-weighted the aspect of your plan devoted to developing inquiry and pure investigation. I've also had a bad experience with a 'tax-shelter' company... I was young and didn't fully grasp the reality of the pink sheets... I couldn't comprehend that the president of the company I worked for could have motives other than the best interest of the company!

I'm not a *fee* kind-of-guy. I'd rather limit my participation to #1, but thanks for the offer!

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 4, 2008 at 10:55am

Hi Bruce,

I looked at #1 -- 20 minutes. I'm not going to say is stinks, it does not. But I hafta' say isn't not particularly appetizing either. I'd say it violates Norman's 3rd & 5th above, It does in fact meet the other 3 criteria in an interesting sort of way. I see technical merit, and social disaster; but I'm not a social engineer.

When I first saw it the immediate reaction was 6/9 < 5/7 But I realized that bumping the workday to 8.57 hr corrects that. There are lots of reasons to agree with the conclusions for productivity etc. But we gotta look at the harsh reality... Too much of the world runs on a 7 day week. You'll never get it past the religious objections. You'll toss a lot of those advantages away in lost days. Too many folks will call in sick on the 6th & 7th day following a Sun-Sun synch event. I don't think the culture is ready.

Well you know what they say about opinions... and that was mine and mine alone, nuthin' personal, no hard feelings. :^)

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 4, 2008 at 1:35pm

Hey Bruce,

Point taken! It was fun too. I knew you'd see how I was poking a bit of fun into the response. But you nailed it in the previous post I'm a pragmatist. There's upsetting the apple cart, and, there's laying waste to the cities. Given my public outcry for the retooling of Washington DC, I guess I missed an opportunity to shine.

Ya know, you've raised an interesting point. I've never been one to try to mold the perceptions of the masses. I've concentrates on solving to problems as a string of individual challenges. I'd rather correct a flawed premise of supply than than adjust the perceived need. Hmmm, Isn't that the fundamental difference between engineers & marketeers? I may be on to somethin' here... Naah!

Like I said... *FUN* :^)

The Light is Green!

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 4, 2008 at 6:02pm

Hi Bruce,

I went to the web site looking for 1,2,6 but only saw #1???

Ahhh, on your profile page...