If you do not want to share your thoughts in public, please contact us at support ablebits. Incredible product, even better tech support…AbleBits totally delivers! Anyone who works with Excel is sure to find their work made easier. The best spent money on software I've ever spent!
How to use Fill Blank Cells
Ablebits is a fantastic product - easy to use and so efficient. Excel is at its best now. I don't know how to thank you enough for your Excel add-ins. Anybody who experiences it, is bound to love it! AbleBits suite has really helped me when I was in a crunch! I have enjoyed every bit of it and time am using it. I love the program, and I can't imagine using Excel without it!
Entrepreneurship is a Calling
One word… WOW! Love the products! It is like having an expert at my shoulder helping me…. Your software really helps make my job easier. Thanks for a terrific product that is worth every single cent! Once you've begun the quiz, you can log out and come back one time -- but just once.
Some of the questions will require you to distinguish between Demand and Quantity Demanded , as well as S upply and Quantity Supplied. Make sure you understand that distinction before you start. Which of the following statements is true? Which of the following statements is false? When the price of an item goes down, the quantity supplied will go down, but the supply will not change. A change in the supply of an item will cause a change in its price, but a change in the price of an item will not cause a change in its supply.
A price floor set above the equilibrium price, in a particular market, will have no effect on that market. Which of the following is true? A price ceiling on gasoline, set below its current equilibrium price, would assure that everyone would be able to buy gasoline at an affordable price. A price floor for a resource, such as the minimum wage, set above its equilibrium price, would increase the demand for that resource.
In the factor market, as shown in the circular flow diagram on page 43 in the textbook, the household does the supplying and the firm does the demanding. A decrease in the price of an item, say a widget, will cause:. Which of the following is not a determinant of demand? Which of the following would cause the supply curve for widgets to shift to the left? Which of the following is not correct? A price ceiling set below the equilibrium price of an item, say a zerc, could result:. An argument that some economists make against the minimum wage is that:.
It will decrease production costs and ultimately make the price of the product they produce too low. A good example of a price floor is rent control. The difference between the two values is known as:. The society as a whole is better off when:. In this and the remainder of the questions on this quiz, only one curve shifts per problem.
What would happen in the beef market if the government issued a report that red meat can increase the risk of heart attacks? What would happen in the beef market if the price of chicken goes down beef and chicken are considered substitutes by the consumer? What would happen in the beef market if there was an increase in the price of grain that was used to feed the beef? What would happen in the beef market if there was a technological innovation that allowed slaughter houses to become more efficient and process cattle faster.
What would happen in the beef market now if consumers expected the price of beef to rise dramatically on July 1, ? What would happen in the American beef market if the Chinese government has decided to feed its people 1. What would happen in the beef market if the government raises taxes on cattle ranchers? A new tool — the Market Opportunity Navigator — helps do just that. It provides a wide-lens perspective to find different potential market domains for your innovation, before you zoom in and design the business model or test your minimal viable products.
With a little more thinking up front these entrepreneurs and innovators could have identified more promising business contexts to play in, and thus avoided this difficult pivot down the road. But while the academic literature is full of papers covering market selection and the literature has some popular books Blue Ocean Strategy , et al.
In large companies and government agencies the problem is even more acute. Where do we spend our limited time and resources on our next moves?
While the Innovation Pipeline tells us how to go to from sourcing to delivery how do we prioritize our choices? The Market Opportunity Navigator is a useful adjunct to the curation and prioritization steps. Developed by Prof. Marc Gruber and Dr. Sharon Tal and based on hundreds of cases they studied during their practical and academic work, the Market Opportunity Navigator is described in their new book, Where to Play. I asked Sharon and Marc to summarize why market selection is important and describe an example of how to use it. Different Playgrounds mean different Rules of the Game There are many ways in which you may have identified a market for your business.
Some of you may have identified a market need based on your own experience, or you may have been approached by potential customers, or if you are corporate innovator you may have applied an innovative solution to an existing target market. Yet, are you sure that this is the best opportunity? Could there be greener pastures larger markets, more profitable markets, etc. Taking the time to reveal the most promising market — the best starting position — before you engage in a focused customer development process is critical, because market domains vary in their value creation potential, competitive landscape, regulatory regime and risks associated with launching new products.
Beyond the possible loss of revenues, this early decision may be difficult to change, or even irreversible: it influences how you develop your technology going forward, raise money, write patents, recruit employees and pick a brand name. If re-start in another target market is required, such a pivot is painful, costly, and sometimes even impossible.
- Printable worksheets, activities, and tests!
- The Evolution of Marketing?
- Before you start;
Finding the best starting position is a learning process that takes time and bandwidth — two scarce resources. So instead of taking a deliberate step back to understand their portfolio of opportunities, entrepreneurs and innovators often just start running. In other words, understanding your arena of opportunities is a key asset for entrepreneurs and innovators.
Identifying your Arena and Choosing Where to Play The Market Opportunity Navigator provides a visual framework to discover, compare and prioritize different market domains and business contexts. The Navigator walks you through a three-step process that helps you to make a more informed choice. It does so in a friendly, intuitive manner, with a visual design board and 3 worksheets to guide the process.
You can download the Navigator and its worksheets here. Putting it all together: A Superset of Tools Mapping out your market opportunities to understand your most promising starting position generates valuable insights for your innovation journey. Having a market opportunity portfolio to draw from offers an additional benefit. By having gamed out multiple markets, you can bake agility into the DNA of your venture — a key component in the Lean methodology.
It allows you to carefully select and keep open backup and growth options.
Flyability develops drones to inspect difficult-to-access locations. In theory, they can custom-build their drone to perform different jobs in completely different markets: industrial inspection, search and rescue, entertainment or surveillance — to name but a few. Each of these markets varies significantly in its business context and in its promise for growth. Furthermore, each market would require its own customer development process to reveal a scalable, repeatable business model — clearly a demanding process that is difficult to run simultaneously in multiple domains.
They used the Navigator and its three worksheets to guide their process. Yet, by going through the first step of the Navigator, the team began to uncover alternative markets where their drone could add value for customers. Overall, five market domains seemed interesting and required further evaluation. Worksheet 2: Evaluate market opportunity attractiveness Using the second step of the Navigator, the team systematically examined the potential of each market and its unique challenges.
This allowed Flyability to map out their options and visually compare their attractiveness. They could now use the Business Model Canvas and the lean experimentation processes to design and validate a scalable business model within this market. Worksheet 3: Design your agile focus strategy Once the founders chose their primary market, they could leverage alternatives to create a more agile company by mitigating risk and avoiding locking-in.
Specifically, using the third step of the Navigator, the founders designed a small portfolio of backup and growth options that they would keep open. This foresight laid the ground to early key decisions that have long-term consequences, like how they developed their drone or chose their brand name. In addition, it helped them clearly define which options they would place in storage for now as focusing is about saying no more than anything else. Insights for VCs, Tech Transfer Officers, and Social Entrepreneurs Identifying your arena of opportunities is not only key for startups and established firms, but for anyone dealing with technology commercialization.
How to Create a Concrete Buyer Persona (with Templates & Examples)
It also offers a portfolio perspective when screening initial or successive investments. If you are working for a Tech Transfer Office, a wide-lens perspective is essential for assessing the value of an invention, and for figuring out in which hands you should put it. Furthermore, if you are trying to address a social problem, the Navigator helps ensure you identify a market that allows you to generate an economic bottom-line in addition to your social impact.
In doing so they may have removed one of the key incentives that made startups different from working in a large company. Why Startups Offer Stock Options In tech startups stock options were here almost from the beginning, first offered to the founders in at Fairchild Semiconductor , the first chip startup in Silicon Valley.
On its surface this was a pretty radical idea. The investors were giving away part of their ownership of the company — not just to the founders, but to all employees. Why would they do that? If the company was successful, you could sell it at a much higher price when the company went public when its shares were listed on a stock exchange and could be freely traded or was acquired.
Not everyone got the same amount of stock. Early employees got a smaller percentage, and later employees received even a smaller piece — fractions of a percent — versus the double digits the founders owned. Of the four startups I was in that went public, it took as long as six years and as short as three. The rationale was that since there was no way for investors to make money until then, neither should anyone else. Everyone—investors, founders and startup employees—was, so to speak, in the same boat.
And Mark Suster of Upfront Capital has a great post that summarizes these changes. And currently there is an influx of capital to do that. Founders Rule The emergence of Growth capital, and pushing an IPO out a decade or more, has led to a dramatic shift in the balance of power between founders and investors.
For three decades, from the mids to the early s, the rules of the game were that a company must become profitable and hire a professional CEO before an IPO. That made sense. Twentieth-century companies, competing in slower-moving markets, could thrive for long periods on a single innovation. If the VCs threw out the founder, the professional CEO who stepped in could grow a company without creating something new.
In that environment, replacing a founder was the rational decision. But 21st century companies face compressed technology cycles, which create the need for continuous innovation over a longer period of time. Who leads that process best? Often it is founders, whose creativity, comfort with disorder, and risk-taking are more valuable at a time when companies need to retain a startup culture even as they grow large.
With the observation that founders added value during the long runup in the growth stage, VCs began to cede compensation and board control to founders. See the HBR story here. Rather, when a startup first forms, the founders grant themselves Restricted Stock Awards RSA instead of common stock options. Essentially the company sells them the stock at zero cost, and they reverse vest. Founders take a lot less risk, raise multimillion-dollar seed rounds and have the ability to cash out way before a liquidity event.
Early employees take an equal risk that the company will crater, and they often work equally as hard. What has happened in founder compensation and board control has mirrored the growth in corporate CEO compensation. In the last 50 years, corporate CEO pay went from 20 times an average employee to over times their compensation.
Consider that the median tenure in a startup is 2 years. So why should non-founding employees of startups care? There are four problems:. This is a bundle of Human Resources startup practices that include hiring, self-managing teams, rapid and decentralized decision-making, on-boarding, flexible work assignments, communication, and stock options.
And there is evidence that stock options increase the success of startups. Successful startups need highly committed employees who believe in the goals and values of the company. But this level of commitment depends on whether employees perceive these practices to be fair , both in terms of the process and the outcomes. At the same time, they may have removed one of the key incentives that made startups different from working in a large company.
What Should Employees Do? In the past the founders and employees were aligned with the same type of common stock grant, and it was the VCs who got preferential stock treatment. The founders have preferential stock treatment and the VC have preferred stock. Add to that all the other known negatives of a startups— no work-life balance, insane hours, inexperienced management, risk of going out of business, etc. That said, joining a startup still has a lot of benefits for employees who are looking to work with high performance teams with little structure.
Your impact likely be felt. Constant learning opportunities, responsibility and advancement are there for those who take it.
Schoolhouse Technologies | Resource Creation Software for Teachers
What Should Investors Do? The lower the strike price, the less you have to pay to own a share of company stock. But to keep employees engaged, they ought to be allowed buy their vested RSU stock and sell it every time the company raises a new round of funding. The team presentations are at the end of this post. So in , with support from the Stanford Technology Ventures Program the entrepreneurship center in the Stanford Engineering School , we created a new capstone entrepreneurship class — the Lean LaunchPad.
This new class aimed to mimic the uncertainty all startups face as they search for a business model while imparting an understanding of all the components of a business model, not just how to give a pitch or a demo. I-Corps is now offered in 88 universities. I-Corps NIH. The syllabus is almost identical, the teams still get out of the building to do customer discovery every week, then come back to class and present what they learned weekly, etc.
Each of them brings decades of industry experience to the class. This type of teaching firepower and headcount was necessary as the teaching team expanded the class size to meet student demand. Class Size For the first few National Science Foundation classes, we taught 24 teams at a time with three instructors. We did it by breaking the class into three separate sections, having all teams together for our lectures and separating into sections of eight teams each when the teams presented.
After painful trial and error, we had discovered that the teaching team could listen to 8 teams present before our brains melted down. At Stanford we limited the class to 8 teams — four students per team. However, this year, the class was so oversubscribed, and the quality of the teams applying was so high, the teaching team admitted 14 teams and reverted to the original NSF model of separating into sections.
The additional teaching team members made it possible. This head start has allowed the teaching team to accelerate the velocity and depth of learnings past the basics. Women In past years, the student teams in the Stanford classes were weighted toward men, reflecting the makeup of the applicants. After Mar Hershenson joined the teaching team last year, she made an all-out effort to recruit women to apply. A role model as a successful CEO and VC, Mar successfully sparked interest in women students and sponsored women-only lunch sessions, mixers and meetings to introduce them to the class.
My goal was to use the canvas to expose engineering students to other essential aspects of a successful business they may be less familiar with sales, marketing, finance, operations. Obviously, there is no right answer to what and how to teach, and the answer may change over time. Each years TAs have continued to make the class better although I must admit it was interesting to watch the TAs remove any uncertainty from what students need to do week-to-week, as I had designed a level of uncertainty into the class to mimic what a real-world startup would feel like.
Finally, the mentors unpaid industry advisors who volunteer their time have been professionalized and managed by Tom Bedecarre. The same holds true for pushing the students. Every time we slacked off relentlessly direct feedback we saw a commensurate drop in the quality of the teams output. The Teams In the end, this class is not only about what the instructors try to teach the students but also about whether students processed what we intended for them to learn.