When I am writing the implementation plan,
I find out that many details should be given consideration. Also, it seems that
no matter how well the plan is, it will be a different version when the plan is
actually implemented. After I read the article, The Art of Bootstrapping, I am
more confused about the importance of the implementation plan. Is it a specific
and detailed schedule or is it just a guide for implementation?
Facebook is not supposed to be the Facebook
when it was established. L’Oreal is started by a chemist and now it is almost
the largest cosmetic group. On the other hand, McDonald succeeds because the
founder wanted it to be fast-food restaurant. My point is that when an idea is
put into practice, the one who comes up with it may face more opportunities. For
instance, investors may have different opinions with the founder and require
changes if they invest. I am very impressed by the previous guest lecturer who
declined thousands of investments. He’s very clear about the goal and the plan.
If I were him, I might have accepted the conditions by the ventures. I think
that as long as my social venture survives, chances are that it will go back to
my original idea one day. However,
according to bootstrapping, the key to success is the venture’s self-sustaining
ability. My understanding is that if the idea is good, the venture will develop
one day even if there is less funding. The venture can find a way out itself.
Therefore, I am really confused about how
detailed an implementation plan should be? What aspects should implementation
plan cover most?
No comments:
Post a Comment