Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Sr.
No.
1
2
3
3.1
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.5
5.6
6
6.1
6.2
7.0
8.0
9.0
Particulars
Introduction
Team Formation
Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument
Team Profile
Creative Problem Solving and Entrepreneurial Thinking
The Kirks Space model
The Ingenuity Process
Phase 1 Define
Snapshot of Survey Result
Flow of thoughts to arrive at problem
Phase 2- Discover
Innovativeness vs. Success (Kleinschmidt and R. G.
Cooper, 1991)
Idea generation
Phase 3 Determine
Pugh Method
Rough sketch of the supply chain of In-Difference
Business Plan
Process Flow
Technology: 3D Imaging Software - An Unique Selling
Point
Size of Opportunity
Financial Plan
Profit & Loss Statement - Snapshot
Balance Sheet -Snapshot
Marketing Plan
Competitor Analysis
Investor Pitch
Returns to Investor
Summary of Financials
Conclusion
References
Appendix
Page
No.
2
2
3
4
4
5
7
7
7
9
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
15
15
17
19
19
20
21
22
24
24
25
25
26
29
INDIVIDUAL REPORT
1.0 Introduction
The entrepreneurial foresight which facilitates impulsive learning leads to an
entrepreneur being rewarded by unforeseen gains because of following a
latent feeling which is caused by alertness to opportunities. (Kirzner, 1973)
The Timmons Model explains entrepreneurial process as one that begins with
an opportunity (not business plan, money, team or networks) and then
carves the opportunity into a prospective venture by assembling a team and
accumulating the requisite resources to commence a venture that exploits
the opportunity. With these cornerstones in mind, we commenced on our
journey to form an enterprising venture (in-difference) that could help to fill
an existing gap in the market by using the Ingenuity Process. (Kirkham,
Mosey and Binks, 2013)
It was a logical decision made by the group to appoint the person with the
highest average score in all areas of thinking preferences the CEO of the
venture.
Our team had a natural blend of extremely talented individuals with varied
backgrounds and experiences which helped us tremendously in putting together the
nuts and bolts required to make this venture a success.
The following table captures the backgrounds of each of the members of the team
and the roles allotted to each one of them in the venture:
We tried to leverage on our academic & work experiences to ensure that the
right person to handle the right job and this fusion of thinking predilections
brings out the best in all of us. Research supports creativity is promoted
through collective recognition by way of harnessing knowledge carried by
Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC
Page | 4
in
collective
learning
and
sharing
of
Our team discovered more than 50 problems but listed only about 35 after
initial filtering of the problems we found to have merit. Most of the balance
15 problems that were not listed were global problems such as development
of transportation between India and Pakistan, disarmament of arms from
American households, etc. that would need research of more than 1 week
and were hence naturally beyond our scope.
Cooper, R.G. (2001) suggests that the true innovation is different from the
standard new product development endeavors of conventional enterprises
and an essential value proposition is what the industry needs. However it is
very difficult to achieve in todays matured markets where most products are
commoditized. Therefore, we focused on finding the existing demands of the
market within these problems/opportunities in order to identify the idea
where we could add substantial value.
One such model was prepared by Kirkham et. al (2011) at The University of
Nottingham Institute for Enterprise & Innovation which was introduced to us
to be used as a tool for the venture creation exercise. The distinct phases
that this module follows are defining a problem, discovering potential
solutions and determining the best solution.
We were given post-it notes and were asked to generate as many ideas as
possible within a stipulated timeline. This involved creative thinking and we
witnessed a point of saturation after crossing 60 possible solutions. It was at
this point of time when I proposed my team members (in the capacity of the
CEO of the venture) to mingle with colleagues of other teams to gather fresh
ideas which would benefit our venture immensely. It was also important to
Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC
Page | 10
promote a culture of tolerance and openness to all kinds of ideas as ours was
a whole-brain group.
This was in line with the arguments provided by Kleinschmidt and R. G.
Cooper (1991) that the worst performing ideas were ones that were
moderately innovative while the highly innovative as well as non-innovative
products performed relatively well:
We were soon appreciating divergent ideas in line with Koestlers (1975) view
on the subject which states that creative mind was that the most fertile area
of the human mind for incubation was somewhere between full awakening
and sleep. This is the region where the disciplined thoughts are not yet hard
enough to block the dreamlike fluidity of creativity.
The following photograph captures some of our solutions put up on the wall
for further discussions:
Only when we were satisfied that we had produced adequate new concepts
to solve the problem and explored as many permutations & combinations of
these ideas as possible, we decided to move to the next phase.
The Pugh Method is typically used as tool for convergent thinking that
enables us to systematically remove flaws in the selected idea. We chose the
ranking matrix over the advantage/disadvantage matrix find the best
solution to the problem.
From the above matrix, Solution 2 emerged as the clear winner based on the
criteria listed above.
The above figures are the difference between the score of our venture vis-vis competitors & not score of the competitors by themselves.
7.0 Conclusion
It was through relentless combined efforts of the team that we were able to
succeed in the business pitch of in-difference. I personally felt that the
Ingenuity model ignited the virtue of creativity in all team members
irrespective of their position in the HBDI survey. A firm believer of
entrepreneurship being a quality since birth, I was often skeptical about
studies that claimed that various methods can be used to alter personal
values suchas creativity (Schwartz & Inbar-Saban, 1988; Ball-Rokeach,
Rokeach, & Grube, 1984). However, this assignment compelled me to think
that the reasonably stable dispositions of individual value systems can still
be disrupted by challenges such as these which spark the virtue of
entrepreneurial innovation in all of us.
Prepared by: Sirsanath Banerjee; Student ID Number: 014803; MBA: NUBSUNMC
Page | 27
8.0 References
Maria Popova. 2012. The Art of Thought: Graham Wallas on the Four
Stages
of
Creativity.
[ONLINE]
Available
at:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/08/28/the-art-of-thought-grahamwallas-stages/. [Accessed 27 March 15].
Neethling, K. (2000). The beyonders. In E.P. Torrance (Ed.), On the edge
and keeping on the edge (pp. 153-166)
Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S.G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Penrose, E.T. 1980. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York:
M.E. Sharpe.
Schumpeter, J., (1934). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper
& Row, New York.
Schwartz, S., & Inbar-Saban, N. (1988). Value self-confrontation as a
method to aid in weight loss. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 396404.
Selby, E.C., Treffinger, D.J., Isaksen, S.G., & Lauer, K.J. (2002). VIEW: An
assessment of problem solving style. Technical manual and users
guide. Sarasota, FL: Centre for Creative Learning.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge
management on the creativity and financial performance of
organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 118(1), 4-13.
Taylor, C.W., & Sacks, D. (1981) Facilitating lifetime creative process - a
think piece. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 116-118.
Timmons, J.A. 1990. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship in the
1990s. Homewood,IL: Irwin.
Timmons, J.A., Muzyka, D.F., Stevenson, H.H., and Bygrave, W.D. 1987.
Opportunity recognition: the core of entrepreneurship. Proceedings of
the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Wellesley,
MA: Babson College.
White, L. H. [1976] (1990) Entrepreneurship, Imagination and the
Question of Equilibration, in Stephen Littlechild (ed.), Austrian
Economics, volume III, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, pp. 87-105
9.0 Appendix
Sales Assumption
otherwise defined)
Year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Growth
197%
100%
100%
75%
43%
August
Year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
(units unless
January
February
March
April
May
June
20%
5%
4%
4%
4%
10%
July
5%
30
100
500
1,000
20,000
40,000
80,000
140,000
200,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
35,000
50,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000
10,000
20,000
40,000
70,000
100,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
35,000
50,000
October
November
September
4%
4%
10%
December
10%
20%
5,000
10,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
28,000
40,000
10,000
20,000
40,000
70,000
100,000
10,000
20,000
40,000
70,000
100,000
20,000
40,000
80,000
140,000
200,000
Total
100%
33630
100000
200000
400000
700000
1000000
Margin
($)
33630
100000
200000
400000
700000
1000000
2015
Provisio
nal
2016
Project
ed
2017
Project
ed
2018
Project
ed
2019
Project
ed
2020
Projecte
d
No of months
Total operating income (TOI)
12
33630.00
EBIDTA
106333.0
0
-316.2%
11500.00
400.00
118233.0
0
0.00
118233.0
0
94586.40
EBIDTA/TOI (%)
Interest
Depreciation
Operating Profit (OP)
Non-operating Income
PBT
PAT
PAT/TOI (%)
Net Cash Accruals (NCA)
-281%
94186.40
300000.0
0
290000.0
0
50000.00
Investments
29000.00
10000.00
10000.00
0.00
39000.00
10000.00
300000.0
0
16000.00
TOL/TNW
TOL/ ATNW
Total Current Assets
110000.0
0
426000.0
0
-10.92
-7.69
459000.0
0
-15.83
-11.77
20000.00
159000.0
Total Debt
Total Debt /ATNW
LTD/ ATNW
Total Outside Liabilities (TOL)
12
100000.
00
63710.0
0
-63.7%
8625.00
400.00
72735.0
0
0.00
72735.0
0
58188.0
0
-58%
57788.0
0
300000.
00
288000.
00
50000.0
0
112812.
00
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
102812.
00
10500.0
0
159188.
00
25000.0
0
110000.
00
294188.
00
2.86
1.55
316188.
00
2.80
3.08
20500.0
0
157000.
12
200000.
00
11031.0
0
-5.5%
6468.75
400.00
17899.7
5
0.00
17899.7
5
14319.8
0
-7%
13919.8
0
300000.
00
285600.
00
50000.0
0
98492.2
0
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
88492.2
0
11025.0
0
162157.
80
35000.0
0
110000.
00
307157.
80
3.47
1.83
329157.
80
3.34
3.72
21025.0
0
167000.
12
400000.
00
126415.
90
12
700000.
00
333607.
49
12
1000000.
00
540518.2
4
31.6%
4851.56
400.00
121164.
34
47.7%
3638.67
400.00
329568.
82
54.1%
2729.00
400.00
537389.2
4
0.00
121164.
34
0.00
329568.
82
0.00
537389.2
4
96931.4
7
263655.
06
429911.3
9
24%
97331.4
7
38%
264055.
06
43%
430311.3
9
300000.
00
282720.
00
50000.0
0
195423.
67
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
185423.
67
11576.2
5
54448.8
0
45000.0
0
110000.
00
209448.
80
1.13
0.29
230448.
80
1.18
1.24
21576.2
5
176000.
371843.
20
351107.
20
50000.0
0
259078.
72
10000.0
0
10000.0
0
0.00
249078.
72
12155.0
6
53338.6
0
52000.0
0
110000.
00
215338.
60
0.86
0.21
236338.
60
0.91
0.95
22155.0
6
183000.
804347.7
0
779464.5
0
50000.00
688990.1
1
10000.00
10000.00
0.00
678990.1
1
12762.82
40000.00
65000.00
110000.0
0
215000.0
0
0.32
0.06
236000.0
0
0.34
0.35
22762.82
196000.0
Current ratio
ROCE (%)
ROE (%)
Interest cover
Term debt/ NCA
DSCR
Average DSCR
Inventory Days
Debtors Days
Creditors Days
Without considering non
current liabilities
Ratio
Total Non current Liabilities
Total Debt /ATNW
Term debt/ NCA
Leverage
Particulars
TOL
TNW
ATNW
TOL/ TNW
TOL/ ATNW
Other Ratios
Particulars
Sales / TNW
Current Assets / TNW
NWC / TNW
ROCE
Movement of NWC
Particulars
Long term sources
Long term uses
Surplus / deficit
Opening balance
Closing balance
Cash flow
Particulars
Cash from operating activities
0
139000.0
0
0.13
-35.94%
-189.17%
00
145975.
00
0.13
-3.74%
-28.64%
00
154423.
75
0.12
41.33%
193.86%
-7.19
-3.36
0.00
00
136500.
00
0.13
-20.88%
116.38%
-5.70
-3.19
-2.14
-1.15
-14.16
-0.27
21.06
1.02
2.59
0.00
108.53
349.85
0.00
36.50
23.38
0.00
18.25
10.09
0.00
9.13
2.73
2015
0.00
-10.92
-3.36
2016
0.00
2.86
-3.19
2017
0.00
3.47
-14.16
2018
0.00
1.13
1.02
2019
0.00
0.86
0.40
2020
0.00
0.32
0.24
2015
459000.0
0
29000.00
39000.00
-15.83
-11.77
2016
316188.
00
112812.
00
102812.
00
2.80
3.08
2017
329157.
80
98492.2
0
88492.2
0
3.34
3.72
2018
230448.
80
195423.
67
185423.
67
1.18
1.24
2019
236338.
60
259078.
72
249078.
72
0.91
0.95
2020
236000.0
0
688990.1
1
678990.1
1
0.34
0.35
2015
-1.16
-0.69
4.79
-0.36
2016
0.89
0.18
-1.21
-0.21
2017
2.03
0.21
-1.48
-0.04
2018
2.05
0.11
-0.79
0.41
2019
2.70
0.09
-0.62
0.89
2020
1.45
0.03
-0.25
0.67
2016
202000.0
0
199500.0
0
2500.00
2017
5369.80
14844.8
0
-9475.00
2018
99811.4
7
108260.
25
-8448.78
2019
267111.
06
273532.
22
-6421.16
2021
752227.3
2
78302.01
139000.0
0
136500.0
0
136500.
00
145975.
00
145975.
00
154423.
75
154423.
75
160844.
94
2020
434058.
59
446450.
86
12392.2
7
160844.
94
173237.
18
2016
2017
63710.00
11031.0
0
0.00
2018
126415.
90
2019
333607.
49
2020
540518.
24
-1000.00
0.00
0.00
00
160844.
94
0.12
88.99%
527.31%
0
173237.1
8
0.12
67.18%
859.82%
73.57
158.68
0.40
0.24
5.55
7.96
3.38
0.00
0.00
5.21
3.65
1.62
1.15
673925.3
1
173237.1
8
0.00
11000.00
14547.00
60163.0
0
1100.00
59563.00
6501.05
500.00
10000.00
Closing balance
10500.0
0
525.00
10500.0
0
11025.0
0
102560.
56
551.22
11025.0
0
11576.2
2
2015
-35.9%
2016
-20.9%
2017
-3.7%
Income tax
Total Cash from operating
activities
-3579.95
7451.05
24232.8
7
101183.
03
65913.7
6
267693.
73
107477.
85
433040.
39
1475.00
1928.75
69366.0
1
197748.
87
578.84
11576.2
5
12155.0
9
429365.
06
-3067.60
607.73
12155.0
6
12762.7
9
2018
41.3%
2019
89.0%
STRENGTH
Time saving
Price/product comparison
No time constraints
Cost effective
Mobile platform
WEAKNESS
Security
Fake websites
Fraud
Limited exposure
Limited advertising
Customers satisfaction
Opportunity
Changing trends
New technology
Advertising
Threats