Dirk Schroeder

I think this question is misleading for less experienced entrepreneurs. In fact, I think that innovation REQUIRES careful planning. Innovation does not equal quick, random, unplanned actions. Innovation is a thoughtful, creative exercise that has a guiding light, persistence and some unexpected "aha" moments, but is it not not carefully planned. Also, careful planning does not mean slow - Innovation can be carefully planned and move at "internet speed", and should.

One area that I see many first time entrepreneurs get WRONG with assessing risk/reward of starting a business relates to COMPETITORS. Nearly every inexperienced founder and student I work with thinks that having No or few competitors going after their market is a good thing. When I question them, they drop names like Elon, Mark, Jeff, etc...."well they did, they say". Wrong! There were others delivering similar services at the similar markets in all cases - these guys executed better (and yes, were innovative in their way). So back to risk/reward. Find a market that is big and already HAS a good number of companies going after it, but not TOO many, i.e. on demand t-shirts. Doing so significantly lowers your risk.

Two recommendations here: (1) a setback in an entrepreneurial venture should not actually "wipe out" your network. In fact, an important part of entrepreneurship is Expanding your network while ideating, launching and growing your business. In sum, do NOT be afraid taking the entrepreneurial plunge will burn bridges with your existing network. Most will respect your entrepreneurial attempt(s). (2) You are most likely to succeed as an entrepreneur if you are BUILDING ON your existing subject matter expertise, relationships and industry-specific relationships. Many entrepreneurs fail because they try and innovate in an area they know little about - think healthcare. Stay pretty close to and leverage your SME and you'll be a step ahead.

Establishing trust and credibility is NOT something you can "cram" in a short period of time. This isn't an econ. final. Instead, make sure that you are establishing a solid "foundation" of trust and credibility at all times. Having a robust, up-to-date Linkedin profile and being active on the platform are critical. All smart potential investors will go to your Linkedin page BEFORE your pitch meeting. In the pitch meeting itself, a couple things are key: (1) be authoritative, BUT HUMBLE; and (2) Know your NUMBERS, by heart - seriously, you should be able to do your pitch, including the financials without the slides - nothing gives me more confidence than an entrepreneur who knows his projected EBITA 3 years out from memory.

The most important way to build confidence before a speech is to KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE! Whenever I am asked to give a talk at a conference or major forum, I always asked the organizers, or reflect for myself - "who will be in the audience?"; "why will they be there?"; "why are they taking their time and making the effort to listen?". And secondly, I use what I call the "going down hall" rule. When two people in the audience leave my speech, and one asks the other, "what did you think of that talk?"; "what's the one thing you took from that talk?", I want to have presented the information at a level of depth that is valuable, but in way that is simple for someone to tell their friends about it. Try it! This works.

Most people, entrepreneurs, vendors, and even consultants, don't spend enough time, energy and focus on Identifying the Problem. Going deep on the Problem and understanding it, not just from a business or technical perspective, but also from an administrative and financial perspective (e.g. who will pay to make this problem go away and what budget line item is that) are crucial. In addition, diving deep on the problem forces your counterparts or colleagues to reflect themselves on the problem: why it has occurred and its underlying causes. It also forces conversation that is free from forcing a preconceived solution. I find that frameworks can be helpful, but also can come across as too "theoretical" or academic.