How many of you have ever had the desire to have a successful IT company? I guess it's quite a lot. I am among them. Especially during the mid-90s dot com boom, almost every college student was inspired to be like Bo Peabody, Tripod.Com founder who in 1997 successfully sold his company for $ 58 million (once again Tripod was never profitable).
But if we look at, out of the millions of people in the world who want to have a successful IT-based company, the results can be very different, for example:
First, some have never started making an IT company at all.
Secondly, there were those who later made IT companies, but did not succeed, and stopped.
Third, there are those who pursue and do other things. And every night brood, why don't I have a successful IT company.
Fourth, there are those who really build IT-based companies, big and rich successes such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Larry Page & Sergey Brin (Google), etc.
Of the same desire, namely to build a successful IT company. It turns out the results can eventually vary. Why?
Mark Joyner provides an interesting perspective in his remarkable book: "Simple-ology: The Simple Science of Getting What You Want". It's simple like this, according to Joyner, we often don't succeed in realizing what we want because it ignores the first law of simple-ology, namely: "the shortest distance from two points is a straight line".
In theory it's really simple isn't it? But in practice, in fact indeed we often do things that are not relevant to the main goal we want to achieve. Like instead of making a straight line that is firmly between two points, we often even make a twisting line, turning around uncertainly. This simple simplicity often ends up forgetting our true purpose.
I have a friend who is building a consulting services business. Together with their team consisting of a number of experts with a Doctoral, Master degree and professional certification in line, I value the business potential enough. Moreover, knowledge owned by my friend was classified as highly sought after big companies today. Unfortunately his business for more than a year is underdeveloped. What made me wonder, every time I met my friend, the topic of conversation that was talked about was always that - that's all: the problem of the room for the office. Apparently, for my friend, building a consulting service company meant having a representative and comfortable office space in a strategic location. So, it's always a matter of office space being "topic of the month" in their company. Starting from finding a location, choosing between various alternative locations, then renovating problems, choosing furniture, paint colors that match the corporate color, etc. Things that I think are far from relevant to efforts to sell their services.
Even if I want to sell consulting services in my opinion it is straight to the point: sell to prospective clients who need and have money. Get the contract. Do the project. Then collect the money. Mission accomplished. Simple. What about office space? Who needs office space if we spend most of our time at the client's location. What about the representative address? Hello ... where ever ?, have you never heard of a "virtual office" ready to be rented at the best locations in Jakarta? What if you want a meeting? This is even easier, believe me, clients prefer meeting in his office. Wow, you don't need to invest in buildings, rooms, office equipment? How come it's delicious? Yes indeed so the consultant is good, the pay is big again, hehehe ...
The point is, by thinking according to the "straight line principle", things that are not directly relevant to how to make money we put aside first. Although the above example is a consulting services business, this principle is common, so you can apply in your own business model.
You can simplify many things, with reference to the following 3 simplicity:
• Simplicity in Purpose
You can review your destination. The easiest analogy is a computer program. Every computer program installed on your computer is written for a specific purpose. For example, MS Word for word-processing, MS Excel for spreadsheets, MS PowerPoint to create presentations and MS Internet Explorer to read my blog, (hehehe ... of course can also if used for just browsing). Each line of the program code was written according to the purpose of the program. What if the goals tried to be stacked together?
It is conceivable that the writing of the program must compromise with many of these goals, so that the resulting program is not "lean" and inefficient.
• Simplicity in Method
Perhaps your goal is actually quite simple: Go to from Jakarta to Bandung. But many ways to Bandung. You can use the car via the Cipularang toll road, by train via Gambir station, using an airplane through Soekarno-Hatta Airport. Hmmm ... because now there is no flight Jakarta - Bandung, then you can use flight Jakarta - Surabaya, and Surabaya - Bandung. Which method is the simplest? You can certainly answer it.
• Simplicity in Execution
Say your goals are quite simple. The method you choose is also the simplest. However, there is still one more trap, namely the complexity of the execution. Many years ago, I (who at that time was 20 years old) had been an equipment section at an event on campus. We want to make a simple program. With a simple stage, and a simple backdrop with a simple writing. Fonts and materials are very simple. We make the letters from the cut carton. Simple and quick to make it. What is not simple is how to attach the writing on the backstage wall! It turns out to be very difficult. I even still attach the last letters when guests start arriving. Her shyness is really not simple.
Mark Joyner still has 4 more principles in Simple-ology. But the most important thing is the "straight line principle" above. Besides this article I mean for simple. So even though there is still much I want to say, I have to end it to keep it simple. Ah, don't linger, please try to apply Simple-ology.