{
    "version": "https:\/\/jsonfeed.org\/version\/1.1",
    "title": "Artöm Mazurchak: posts tagged entrepreneurship",
    "_rss_description": "Product notes by Artem Mazurchak: JTBD interviews, customer segmentation, strategy sessions and AI. Founder of Biz-cen.ru and Lashoestring.com, writing from Berlin.",
    "_rss_language": "en",
    "_itunes_email": "",
    "_itunes_categories_xml": "",
    "_itunes_image": "",
    "_itunes_explicit": "",
    "home_page_url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/tags\/entrepreneurship\/",
    "feed_url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/tags\/entrepreneurship\/json\/",
    "icon": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/userpic\/userpic@2x.jpg?1700581632",
    "authors": [
        {
            "name": "Artöm Mazurchak",
            "url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/",
            "avatar": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/userpic\/userpic@2x.jpg?1700581632"
        }
    ],
    "items": [
        {
            "id": "99",
            "url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/all\/strategy-session-for-products\/",
            "title": "Strategy Session for Products: Building a 1–5 Year Plan to Hit Goals or Design a New Future",
            "content_html": "<p>Methodologist Georgy Shchedrovitsky developed a way to organize a team’s thinking and actions so it can deliver large, complex projects. I built my strategy session format on these principles. In this article, I explain how the session works and what a company gets at the end.<\/p>\n<h2>Why a strategy session matters — and what happens there<\/h2>\n<p>To work on big projects, you first need to pause and design the future. If you only follow trends, the project may either never happen — or it will happen with major difficulties and not in the form you originally planned.<\/p>\n<p>The reason is simple: we’re <a href=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/?go=all\/the-fourth-revolution-ai-how-do-we-use-past-lessons-why-cant-we\/\">standing at the edge of a new industrial revolution<\/a>. Old rules stop working, and new rules are still being created. The winners are the projects that shape those rules. Strategy sessions are where teams do exactly that.<\/p>\n<p>Most teams are good at day-to-day execution and quick results. But sometimes there is no shared understanding of where the company is going:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>what Point A looks like today and what future the company wants;<\/li>\n<li>what context the company will operate in — and whether it plans to influence it;<\/li>\n<li>what each department must do to reach Point B.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/departmentx2.jpg\" width=\"2098\" height=\"655\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">Here is how one department’s scheme looks: a person plays a specific role inside the department. The department operates in a certain context. Tasks move the department toward its goal.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/team_schemex2.jpg\" width=\"2098\" height=\"967\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">And here’s what teamwork sometimes looks like: each department is on its own, with its own goals and its own way to reach them.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/unitetheteamx2.jpg\" width=\"2098\" height=\"967\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">But it should look different: the team has one shared goal. Everyone moves toward it in sync and understands what is expected from them at any moment. To see this goal clearly, people need to take <i>a reflective position<\/i> — step back and look at their work from the outside.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>So what’s the real difference between these two pictures? In the “right” one, at Point A the team first builds a shared view of:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the single context of the company;<\/li>\n<li>how departments connect and communicate to each other;<\/li>\n<li>what roles people play inside departments.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Only then does everyone start to shape Point B — and design the context they want to end up in.<\/b><\/p>\n<h2>Planning the future: small company vs. big company<\/h2>\n<p>The approach differs depending on how many resources you have.<\/p>\n<table cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" border=\"0\" class=\"e2-text-table\">\n<tr>\n<td><b>A product with limited resources<\/b><\/td>\n<td><b>A product with a lot of resources<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Often follows external trends. Treats the existing context as the “rules of the game” for the next year.<\/td>\n<td>Can hold a position longer and set the context for the whole market. Often builds strategy for 3–5–10 years.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><i>Take Elon Musk’s Neuralink: a chip implanted in the head that lets you control a computer with your thoughts. It has been tested on paralyzed people — and it works. It’s possible that in 10, 20, or 30 years many of us will use such chips. <b>Musk is shaping the context we may all live in.<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n<h2>A key step: define Point A metrics through a company funnel<\/h2>\n<p>An important part of the session is to define your current metrics at Point A. The easiest way is a shared company funnel, where each conversion is owned by a specific department. Even if the company has no historical data, you can still assume a funnel to make the goal measurable.<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/simple_funnelx2-4.jpg\" width=\"2098\" height=\"621\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">Seeing the company as a funnel helps you consistently generate projects that improve conversion at each level. This is a very simplified version — in reality, the funnel is much bigger.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>When the funnel is ready, you can focus on three things:<\/p>\n<p><b>1. Create a list of projects that can significantly improve conversion between stages and key metrics.<\/b> These are not just operational tasks — they are new initiatives. For example: a new client acquisition approach, a new market segment, a new process.<\/p>\n<p>Projects are designed for specific funnel stages. Moving stage by stage, we:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>make sure we covered all key parts of the business, which helps us generate more ideas;<\/li>\n<li>discuss ideas tied to a specific stage, not in general terms;<\/li>\n<li>we’ll rank the projects and focus on the ones most likely to benefit the company.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>2.  Check if the projects are good enough to reach the strategic goal.<\/b> Maybe you need a fundamental shift and must rethink how the system works.<\/p>\n<p><i>Example: when I built an office rental service, we started with an ad-based model. At some point, we realized it couldn’t scale results fast enough. We created a new approach that didn’t exist in the market: we began closing brokerage deals remotely. The company increased revenue 5x in two years.<\/i><\/p>\n<p><b>3. Define success metrics.<\/b> Founders might name top-level numbers — revenue, market share, etc. Then the team builds the funnel from the bottom up and clarifies how each department will move toward the goal.<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/planningx2-1.jpg\" width=\"2098\" height=\"878\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">Only after the ideal outcome is defined can we move on to a real plan and concrete steps. It answers one question: “What exactly do we need to do to get to point B?”<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2>How Shchedrovitsky’s approach turns strategy into results<\/h2>\n<p>The approach fits into four steps.<\/p>\n<h3>Step 0. Build a map for a new project<\/h3>\n<p>If you already found your market, go to the next step. But if you’re planning a big, long project (3–5 years), first map it and answer key questions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><b>What future does the organization want to live in, and how do you see it?<\/b><\/li>\n<li><b>Can the organization design that future?<\/b><\/li>\n<li>How does the organization act, and what is its role?<\/li>\n<li>How does the organization deliver value — what problem does it solve?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Step 1. Think of your project as a funnel<\/h3>\n<p>Map the business as a funnel, align on one North Star Metric so everyone shares a clear view of what matters most.<\/p>\n<h3>Step 2. Each department prepares in advance<\/h3>\n<p>Each department:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>describes the context, object, and role of key people in the department;<\/li>\n<li>fills in Point A data for its part of the funnel;<\/li>\n<li>prepares a plan with obvious solutions to save time during group discussion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Step 3. Run a shared meeting<\/h3>\n<p>First you set the overall frame for the session. Then each department presents its Point A and Point B.<\/p>\n<p>Then the team describes the projects at a high level so everyone understands their purpose and value in the same way. At this stage, we don’t go into details, so we don’t spend too much time discussing one idea. <b>During other teams’ presentations, people add important facts and clarifications, and if you already have a working business model, this kind of discussion usually takes about 95% of the whole strategy session. If you’re just starting out, you’ll spend more time defining point B.<\/b><\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/projectsx2.jpg\" width=\"2098\" height=\"878\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">In the end, you get a table of potential projects for each department.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2>Six principles and a quick glossary<\/h2>\n<p>Before we go into each principle, let’s align on terms.<\/p>\n<p><i>Imagine a factory line. Today it is assembled as-is — that’s Point A. In a year, it should run faster and more stable — that’s Point B. Each machine has an input, output, and a handover point. If you mix up operations, the line stops. If you set the handover and order correctly, speed and quality grow.<\/i><\/p>\n<p>Teams work the same way: we take work from neighbors, do our part, hand it over — and we can see where effect is lost on the path from Point A to Point B. Sometimes you just need better handover discipline. Sometimes you need to rebuild part of the “line” so the move to Point B can really start.<\/p>\n<table cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" border=\"0\" class=\"e2-text-table\">\n<tr>\n<td><b>Term<\/b><\/td>\n<td><b>Definition<\/b><\/td>\n<td><b>Example<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Points A and B<\/td>\n<td>A is the current state; B is the desired state.<\/td>\n<td>Average client launch time is 120 days (A). Target is 90 (B). The team forecasts, rebuilds the process, and agrees on cross-team projects to hit the goal.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Context<\/td>\n<td>The situation in which the company’s activity unfolds.<\/td>\n<td>Sales and marketing saw the situation differently. After discussing the shared context, they built a fuller picture of where the company stands and how to use trends.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Person<\/td>\n<td>A person’s role inside the organization, visible as a network of connections in real work.<\/td>\n<td>The marketing head could invent and test new acquisition methods, but had no time because of operations. After defining their Point A and Point B, the team created a project to reorganize that person’s work.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Reflective position<\/td>\n<td>An “above the action” position: stepping out of your role, context and organisation.<\/td>\n<td>Marketing takes traffic and outputs qualified leads → sales takes leads and outputs a service package → the client starts using the product.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Action position<\/td>\n<td>Participants come ready to take responsibility for execution, not just dream or complain.<\/td>\n<td>“Let’s build an AI support bot: it can solve 60% of tasks while keeping NPS as high as with human support. I know how to start.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Self-movement<\/td>\n<td>Internal activity and motion of a system or person. Management is only possible when there is self-movement.<\/td>\n<td>Anton is interested in AI and product and has suggested ideas. He may be ready to lead a project that matches his interests.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Management<\/td>\n<td>Influencing a moving object by using its own movement to reach the organization’s goal.<\/td>\n<td>We choose a project and check it supports the goal. Knowing the trajectory of self-movement, we adjust course so the project doesn’t drift away.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Work assembly<\/td>\n<td>How scattered tasks become one flow from request to result.<\/td>\n<td>Request → qualification → demo → proposal → contract → launch, with named owners.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Schematization<\/td>\n<td>Putting the situation on a board as a scheme. It helps build a shared language: key elements, connections, and how the scheme links to the goal.<\/td>\n<td>The goal was higher margins. When the acquisition system was mapped, it became clear current channels can’t deliver clients at the needed cost. The team invented a new acquisition method.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Organization \/ object<\/td>\n<td>Describing how elements are assembled into a whole and what connections bind them.<\/td>\n<td>In sales, a Business Developer did partners + closing + client support. Two problems: losing clients when BD quits; hard to measure BD efficiency. After analysis, the team split roles: SDR (attraction), BD (signing), Accounting (relationship growth).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Owner<\/td>\n<td>The person accountable for a specific area and its metric.<\/td>\n<td>Sales lead owns qualification.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<h2>Principle 1. The future isn’t something that happens — it’s made from the position you choose to take<\/h2>\n<p><b>Core idea. <\/b>You don’t need to guess the future — you can build it. To do that, you take and hold a position to “pull” the market into the reality you want (think Nike and sports culture, or Amazon and one-day delivery). The team chooses Point B and acts instead of chasing trends. This matters even more in the AI era, where new norms are still being set — and the future belongs to those who set them.<\/p>\n<p><b>Business questions it answers<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>What position do we hold so the desired future becomes real?<\/li>\n<li>What external conditions can we use to our advantage?<\/li>\n<li>What opportunities and projects must we create to “bring” the future closer?<\/li>\n<li>What should we refuse to avoid chasing hype?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>How it works in the session<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fix Point A and construct Point B.<\/li>\n<li>Map key elements of the future reality: the company’s core purpose, the rules of the game, critical assumptions.<\/li>\n<li>Turn the position into strategic “yes\/no” choices and a set of key projects.<\/li>\n<li>Align departments into one movement toward Point B.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Impact<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The team stops chasing trends and starts setting new rules in its niche.<\/li>\n<li>Functions align into one trajectory, reducing waste.<\/li>\n<li>Focused action speeds up results.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Principle 2. Reflection is a position “above” action<\/h2>\n<p><b>Core idea.<\/b> Stepping above operations lets you see the activity map, the gaps between Point A actions and Point B goals — and then build a focused plan.<\/p>\n<p><b>Business questions<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Are we doing the wrong things right now? What is truly priority?<\/li>\n<li>Which processes and projects are “weeds” that must be removed?<\/li>\n<li>Which market signals matter — and what should we ignore to stay on course?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>How it works<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Set the time horizon: how far ahead you plan.<\/li>\n<li>Look at the company across organization, people, and context. Fix Points A and B across these layers.<\/li>\n<li>Identify gaps and form projects needed to close them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Impact<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Better prioritization, less operational noise.<\/li>\n<li>Less wasted time and money; the Point B vector stays clear.<\/li>\n<li>Plans become concrete and doable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Principle 3. You can manage only what is already moving<\/h2>\n<p><b>Core idea. <\/b>Any project is based on self-movement. Management is trajectory correction — you can’t manage something static. In the session, we look at how departments and leaders actually move: where initiatives go, what motives drive them, and where movement needs adjustment.<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/guidingx2.jpg\" width=\"2098\" height=\"598\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">Management is only possible when something is moving—only then can we correct its direction.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><b>Business questions<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Where is the self-movement of each department and key person directed?<\/li>\n<li>Which projects steer that movement — and do they lead to company goals?<\/li>\n<li>What must be tuned or replaced so movement goes the right way?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>How it works<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Analyze current and desired positions, review ongoing initiatives, plan new ones.<\/li>\n<li>Build projects that set the right direction frame.<\/li>\n<li>Agree what self-movement matches Point B, and what must change.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Impact<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>You find inertia and “dead zones” faster and focus efforts where there is real traction.<\/li>\n<li>Teams become more proactive and autonomous.<\/li>\n<li>If a department’s trajectory conflicts with Point B, it becomes clear where adjustments are needed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Principle 4. Schematization moves the situation to the board — so reality becomes clear.<\/h2>\n<p><b>Core idea.<\/b> A shared picture is born on a scheme. A scheme forces you to be precise and fix the essence without long speeches. That reduces misinterpretation and speeds up alignment.<\/p>\n<p><b>Business questions<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>What is the company’s core position — and what reality are we building on purpose?<br \/>\n<i>– Where is it a task (solvable inside the current structure) vs. a problem (needs structural change)?<\/i><\/li>\n<li>If we can describe Point B, why aren’t we there yet?<\/li>\n<li>Which dependencies between functions are critical? What must be rebuilt from scratch?<\/li>\n<li>How do we measure success, and what are the decision boundaries and rules?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>How it works<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Put the situation on the board: objects, connections, forces, shared terms.<\/li>\n<li>Add rules, constraints, critical assumptions; mark disputed areas.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Impact<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>One shared meaning and “rules of the game,” fewer conflicts.<\/li>\n<li>Faster decisions, cheaper coordination.<\/li>\n<li>Clearer prioritization: resources go to key elements, not noise.<\/li>\n<li>Less rework: the scheme becomes a reference for process and communication design.<\/li>\n<li>More stability in turbulence: the scheme is an anchor for adjustments.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Principle 5. View the situation in layers — context, organization, person<\/h2>\n<p><b>Core idea. <\/b>A situation has multiple layers. To manage it, you must see context, the organization’s structure, and real people with their self-movement — and connect these layers to one goal.<\/p>\n<p><b>Business questions<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Which contextual limits and opportunities define the playing field?<\/li>\n<li>How are processes, roles, and resources built — and do they match Point B?<\/li>\n<li>Where do gaps between layers appear?<\/li>\n<li>Which changes in one layer will create the biggest effect in others?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>How it works<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>For each department, create a 3-column table: Points A and B for context, organization, person.<\/li>\n<li>Identify gaps and causes; mark contradictions and hidden assumptions.<\/li>\n<li>Form projects that stitch layers together (rules, processes, roles, incentives). Decide what must be rebuilt from scratch.<\/li>\n<li>Set local KPIs\/OKR per layer and cross-layer metrics (funnel conversions).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Impact<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Better cross-functional initiatives, because teams understand each other through joint discussion.<\/li>\n<li>Stronger ownership of goals: people see their impact on the whole.<\/li>\n<li>Faster root-cause discovery (not just symptoms).<\/li>\n<li>Management becomes systemic, not firefighting.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Principle 6. Company activity exists on four levels: operations, projects, programs, ideas<\/h2>\n<p><b>Core idea.<\/b> Any activity stands on the level of ideas. Ideas define what we do, why, and why it matters. Major results and key changes are not achieved at the operational level. So in a strategy session, we work at least at the project level — ideally at the program level.<\/p>\n<p><b>Business questions<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>At what level are we solving the problem now — and why are we stuck there?<\/li>\n<li>What must move from operations to project or program level to create a breakthrough?<\/li>\n<li>Where do we lack ideas or a conceptual frame for meaningful decisions?<\/li>\n<li>How do we measure progress and effect at each level — alone and together?<\/li>\n<li>Which decisions fail because levels are mixed up, and how do we fix it?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>How it works<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Introduce shared terminology for levels and label all initiatives.<\/li>\n<li>Review the portfolio: mark the current and target level for each initiative.<\/li>\n<li>Identify program tracks for 6–18 months with owners and shared metrics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Impact<\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Operations stop eating strategy; focus stays on what matters.<\/li>\n<li>Nonlinear shifts appear through program effects and capability building.<\/li>\n<li>A shared mission and strategic narrative form.<\/li>\n<li>Resource planning improves across time horizons and decision levels.<\/li>\n<li>The organization learns faster: good solutions become standardized and scaled.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>How the strategy session runs<\/h2>\n<h3>Before the session: departments prepare materials<\/h3>\n<p>Each department creates a presentation where it:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>describes its activity;<\/li>\n<li>explains its part of the funnel;<\/li>\n<li>shows which projects were done and how they changed the funnel.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For companies launching a new project with a long planning horizon, the main goal at this stage is to agree what will be done at all. Only then does it make sense to discuss preparation in detail.<\/p>\n<h3>During the session: two offline days<\/h3>\n<p>Early start. One big wall for schemes and flipcharts. A screen for presentations. We work in blocks with short pauses to process.<\/p>\n<p><b>Day 1: <\/b>build a shared picture. Each department shows Point A, Point B, and its plan. Other teams add their understanding and propose projects.<\/p>\n<p><b>Day 2:<\/b> continue presentations and project discussion. At the end, we summarize: everyone can share impressions and highlight projects they believe are strategically critical.<\/p>\n<h3>After the session: build an open backlog and align plans<\/h3>\n<p>Each department builds an open backlog and prioritizes projects. Then there is a setup meeting: each team presents its plan for the next quarter and the projects it will deliver.<\/p>\n<p>After the quarter ends, you run another meeting to review the results:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>check how the department’s funnel metrics changed;<\/li>\n<li>see blockers and delivery speed for each department;<\/li>\n<li>if new projects appeared during the quarter, assign priorities and, if needed, take them into work;<\/li>\n<li>each department builds the next quarter plan.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>What you will have after the session<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>A single movement map: how it is now → how it should be.<\/li>\n<li>A target scheme of how the company should be structured.<\/li>\n<li>One prioritized list of tasks with owners and metrics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>How I can help your team<\/h2>\n<p>For the past several years, I’ve been systematically studying the work of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Idealized-Design-Dissolve-Tomorrows-paperback\/dp\/0137071116?sr=8-9\">Russell Ackoff<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.litres.ru\/book\/georgiy-schedrovicki\/orgupravlencheskoe-myshlenie-ideologiya-metodologiya-6606999\/\">Georgy Shchedrovitsky<\/a>. I earned an MBA and studied at Stanford and Berkeley. I’ve been applying this foundation in practice for the last seven years, facilitating strategic sessions for both B2B and B2C projects. A typical group ranges from five to forty participants.<\/p>\n<p>If the approach described in the article resonates with you, you can run a strategy session on your own—this page includes everything you need. If you’d like support, I’m ready to guide you step by step.<\/p>\n",
            "summary": "Methodologist Georgy Shchedrovitsky developed a way to organize a team’s thinking and actions so it can deliver large, complex projects",
            "date_published": "2025-12-17T17:09:10+02:00",
            "date_modified": "2026-07-21T11:54:59+02:00",
            "tags": [
                "Berkley",
                "entrepreneurship",
                "leadership",
                "product",
                "Stanford",
                "strategy",
                "Strategy Session",
                "systems"
            ],
            "image": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/simple_funnelx2.jpg",
            "_date_published_rfc2822": "Wed, 17 Dec 2025 17:09:10 +0200",
            "_rss_guid_is_permalink": "false",
            "_rss_guid": "99",
            "_e2_data": {
                "is_favourite": false,
                "links_required": [],
                "og_images": [
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/simple_funnelx2.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/simple_funnelx2-1.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/simple_funnelx2-2.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/simple_funnelx2-3.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/planningx2.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/departmentx2.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/team_schemex2.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/unitetheteamx2.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/simple_funnelx2-4.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/planningx2-1.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/projectsx2.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/guidingx2.jpg"
                ]
            }
        },
        {
            "id": "58",
            "url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/all\/how-venture-studios-help-big-companies-survive-the-ai-era\/",
            "title": "How venture studios help big companies survive the AI era",
            "content_html": "<p>A venture studio is an organization focused on building and scaling startups. Unlike accelerators, studios are typically specialized in a specific industry and offer deep operational support to the startups they launch.<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes, large corporations launch internal venture studios. The biggest challenge they’re trying to solve is “the innovator’s dilemma”. This concept, described by Clayton, explains how big companies often miss out on new markets and breakthrough technologies because they’re too focused on protecting their current market share. And right now, many of those breakthrough technologies are connected with AI.<\/p>\n<p>Venture studios are also often founded by serial entrepreneurs with deep expertise in a particular vertical. Their experience gives them an edge in selecting the right projects to launch and in providing the kind of hands-on support startups need to succeed in that specific field.<\/p>\n<p>Take, for example, companies that made traditional hard disk drives. When SSDs first hit the market, they were expensive and the demand was small. But as costs dropped and the market exploded, many HDD makers who failed to invest in SSD technology early enough went out of business. Classic case of “the innovator’s dilemma” in action.<\/p>\n<h2>Key Traits of a Venture Studio<\/h2>\n<h3>1. Industry Specialization<\/h3>\n<p>One major trait of venture studios is their focus on a single domain like health, finance, developer tools, etc. Specialization makes it easier to choose which startups to launch and how to support them. Startups within the same vertical tend to face similar challenges, so operational help is more relevant and effective.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, investing in specific infrastructure costs less than trying to cover multiple verticals at once. Once a few startups are up and running, they can share learnings, data and network. That speeds up experimentation and improves decision-making across the board.<\/p>\n<p>A great example is Askona, a company that makes sleep products, launched a venture studio focused on wellness and recovery. Every startup in that studio benefited from Askona’s deep knowledge in the field.<\/p>\n<h3>2. Building Repeatable Processes<\/h3>\n<p>Industry focus gives studios clarity on what phases a startup goes through and that helps build the right infrastructure to guide teams through each stage. Studios create best practices, frameworks and roadmaps to help startups move faster.<\/p>\n<p>At this point, it’s all about finding the balance between freedom and structure. Founders need room to think like entrepreneurs, take risks and move fast. At the same time, proven processes help tackle the common challenges every startup faces more efficiently. The studio’s operational support should guide the direction, not hand out a strict playbook.<\/p>\n<p>That support often includes:<br \/>\nA. Identifying a big enough market and applying the right evaluation methods<br \/>\nB. Structuring the idea discovery process for future projects<br \/>\nC. Selecting key metrics and developing strategies to move them<br \/>\nD. Providing resources for hiring, marketing, product expertise and CustDev.<\/p>\n<h3>3. Fail Really—REALLY Fast<\/h3>\n<p>Having established processes in place allows startups to move faster from the very beginning. Unlike independent startups, founders inside a venture studio don’t have to constantly worry about fundraising, they can stay focused on building and growing the company.<\/p>\n<p>So, if you define clear target metrics for each stage of a startup’s development, you can quickly see whether the project is on track to find PMF.  If the startup doesn’t hit its targets, it’s easier to shut it down and move on. So venture studios bring both discipline and speed to startup development.<\/p>\n<h3>4. Skin in the Game<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core risks Clayton highlights in The Innovator’s Dilemma is what happened when large companies set up R&D centers (the early predecessors of today’s venture studios). A common mistake was staffing those centers with teams from the parent company. Along with their skills, they brought the mindset and values of an established corporate environment rather than an entrepreneurial one. And that mindset crushed breakthrough ideas before they had a chance to grow.<\/p>\n<p>Venture studios should feel like startups. The team needs real entrepreneurial spirit. Functionally, that means owning and executing on a P&L. Emotionally, it means:<br \/>\nA. The mission should feel like a life’s calling, something you’d be proud to tell your kids about.<br \/>\nB. Your persistence, ability to shape strategy, flexibility and willingness to take risks can make or break everything. It’s about taking the kind of ownership Nassim Taleb calls having “skin in the game”.<\/p>\n<p>The same goes for startup founders in a venture studio. More often than not, they’re entrepreneurs, not corporate execs. And that entrepreneurial mindset is key.<\/p>\n<p>I once joined a long discussion about how to build effective venture studios. Someone suggested that companies could find people with entrepreneurial mindsets within their own ranks to lead startups. But we agreed that the very traits that made those people successful in a corporate setting might hold them back when launching something from scratch. So, it’s better to build teams with real entrepreneurs at the core.<\/p>\n<p><b>Summary<\/b><\/p>\n<ol start=\"1\">\n<li>Venture studios give big, established companies a way to stay ahead in a fast-changing market.<\/li>\n<li>Industry specialization helps startups get the exact support they need.<\/li>\n<li>Shared infrastructure and repeatable processes speed up growth and learning.<\/li>\n<li>Studios build knowledge around key success metrics, making it easier to decide when to double down or walk away.<\/li>\n<li>And finally, the entrepreneurial culture within venture studios is critical. Without that, even the best ideas won’t make it past the starting line.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n",
            "summary": "A venture studio is an organization focused on building and scaling startups. Unlike accelerators, studios are typically specialized in a specific industry and offer deep operational support to the startups",
            "date_published": "2025-01-06T22:15:28+02:00",
            "date_modified": "2026-07-21T11:54:56+02:00",
            "tags": [
                "AI",
                "entrepreneurship",
                "lead",
                "leadership"
            ],
            "image": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/innovation@2x.jpg",
            "_date_published_rfc2822": "Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:15:28 +0200",
            "_rss_guid_is_permalink": "false",
            "_rss_guid": "58",
            "_e2_data": {
                "is_favourite": false,
                "links_required": [],
                "og_images": [
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/innovation@2x.jpg"
                ]
            }
        },
        {
            "id": "61",
            "url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/all\/how-oleg-tinkov-helped-me-start-my-business-in-2009\/",
            "title": "How Oleg Tinkov helped me start my business in 2009",
            "content_html": "<p>With all the buzz around Tinkoff Bank’s sad rebranding, I figured it’s the right time to share a story about how Oleg Tinkov actually helped me launch my first business back in 2009. And no, this isn’t one of those “he inspired me” stories,  he really helped.<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/tinkov@2x.jpg\" width=\"1049\" height=\"529\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<\/div>\n<p>Back in high school, I got into design, and by my first year of college, I was working at design studios around St. Petersburg. Around the same time, Oleg Tinkov started filming his “Business Secrets” – interviews with entrepreneurs he knew. I remember binge-watching those episodes. At the time, he felt like a total role model to me, this wild mix of rock’n’roll vibes, raw energy and fun, fearless marketing.<\/p>\n<p>In my third year of college, in 2009, another economic crisis hit Russia and suddenly businesses lost much money. At the time, I was working in a company that focused on “premium” websites, not quick, cookie-cutter stuff, but full-on custom builds. We spent real time talking with clients instead of just handing them a generic brief and cranking out templated designs. But as the crisis hit, the head of the studio announced it was time to go assembly-line: fast, standard solutions. I was 20, full of idealism, and said no. Naturally, I got fired and honestly, it was fair.<\/p>\n<p>After I got fired, I went to my parents and told them I had to quit school and immediately enroll in a design program in London, because I couldn’t grow in St. Petersburg anymore. They, quite reasonably, said no.<\/p>\n<p>After thinking it over again, I decided that getting a diploma might not be such a bad idea after all. Since I had just been fired from the best studio in the city, there was really only one option left – start my own branding company (of course). I teamed up with a project manager from my previous job and we got to work on our website. We worked at his place, coming up with a name for the company, calling other design studios to better understand how they worked and creating fake projects to fill out our portfolio. We named the studio agrrr.com. Our email was emc2@agrrr.com and the favicon on the site was literally an icon of Jesus,  because, well, the word “favicon” clearly contains the word “icon.”<\/p>\n<p>While getting everything ready, we realized that no serious company could exist without an office.  So we rented a space in a warehouse complex for $200, 15 square meters, deep in the heart of an industrial zone. Next door, there were about 50 migrant workers sleeping in their unit and the bathroom was so disgusting that even the flies couldn’t handle it,  they basically dropped dead from the smell and the view.<\/p>\n<p>On February 13, 2010, we launched our website and I sent a message to Oleg Tinkov, who at the time was hugely popular on LiveJournal. LiveJournal was a blogging platform, basically the predecessor to today’s social media.<br \/>\nHere’s what the message said:<\/p>\n<p><i>Hi Oleg,<\/i><br \/>\n<i>We don’t need your money. But today we launched a branding company – AGRRR.com If you really want to support young entrepreneurs, post this message on your LiveJournal.<\/i><\/p>\n<p>Oleg posted it. He said he didn’t even look at the site,  just decided to help some young guys. We couldn’t have asked for better publicity the day after launch. By today’s standards, it’d be like Taylor Swift letting a band formed yesterday open for her show. It was a hit – thousands of people visited the site.<\/p>\n<p>We started getting inquiries from clients who had found us through Oleg’s LiveJournal. One of them was an invitation to join a pitch for Mirel – the biggest confectionery company in the Urals. We actually won that pitch and signed a contract for what felt to us like an insane amount: $40,000. For context, my salary at the previous company was around $1,000.<\/p>\n<p>At the time we won the pitch, we hadn’t even registered the company yet. And we started working without any upfront payment. To officially register the company and fly to Chelyabinsk for our first business trip, all before we saw a single ruble from the client, I borrowed $1,700 from my mom to buy the tickets.<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<div class=\"fotorama\" data-width=\"1049\" data-ratio=\"1.3623376623377\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_1@2x.jpg\" width=\"1049\" height=\"770\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_2@2x.jpg\" width=\"1049\" height=\"770\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_3@2x.jpg\" width=\"1049\" height=\"770\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_4@2x.jpg\" width=\"1049\" height=\"770\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_5@2x.jpg\" width=\"1049\" height=\"770\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_6@2x.jpg\" width=\"1049\" height=\"770\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">Some of the works we managed to do at Agrrr<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Then came the security check, they couldn’t figure out why the company had been registered on the same day the contract was signed. Trips to Chelyabinsk, lectures on cake recipes, 30 hours of interviews with key people at the factory, a fancy 60-square-meter office (obviously), our first employees, and of course, a full-time accountant, who also happened to be my partner’s sister (because obviously a five-person company needs proper bookkeeping). The branding agency lasted about a year, and after that, I moved on to other projects.<\/p>\n<p>Without Oleg Tinkov, we’d never have taken off like that at the start. But more than that, it was a signal of support – an act of belief and approval in the spirit of entrepreneurship. That same boost still shows up in the projects I’m working on today. I don’t think many people have done as much for entrepreneurs now in their 30s and 40s as Oleg has.<\/p>\n<p>Oleg, thanks, you’re cool!<\/p>\n",
            "summary": "With all the buzz around Tinkoff Bank’s sad rebranding, I figured it’s the right time to share a story about how Oleg Tinkov actually helped me launch my first business back in 2009",
            "date_published": "2024-06-08T07:04:00+02:00",
            "date_modified": "2026-07-21T11:54:56+02:00",
            "tags": [
                "entrepreneurship",
                "Oleg Tinkov",
                "Tinkoff"
            ],
            "image": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/tinkov@2x.jpg",
            "_date_published_rfc2822": "Sat, 08 Jun 2024 07:04:00 +0200",
            "_rss_guid_is_permalink": "false",
            "_rss_guid": "61",
            "_e2_data": {
                "is_favourite": false,
                "links_required": [
                    "jquery\/jquery.js",
                    "fotorama\/fotorama.css",
                    "fotorama\/fotorama.js"
                ],
                "og_images": [
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/tinkov@2x.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_1@2x.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_2@2x.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_3@2x.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_4@2x.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_5@2x.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/agrrr_6@2x.jpg"
                ]
            }
        },
        {
            "id": "72",
            "url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/all\/how-responsibility-gets-shared-why-building-systems-matters-and\/",
            "title": "How responsibility gets shared, why building systems matters and the skill of putting out fires",
            "content_html": "<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/fire@2x.jpg\" width=\"634\" height=\"320\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<\/div>\n<h2>How do people share responsibility?<\/h2>\n<p>Responsibility, whether at work or in personal relationships is always split the same way: 100% on one side and 100% on the other. When you’re working toward a goal together, it’s not about shifting the responsibility onto someone else. It’s about agreeing on how to build a system that will help you reach that goal.<\/p>\n<p>The moment someone says, “I’m 99% responsible,” they’re already starting to give up control over the outcome. And if things don’t go well, it’s easy to just blame the other person. That’s how you slip into a victim mindset. And once you’re there, it’s hard to learn or figure out how to actually get things done.<\/p>\n<h2>Focus on the system, not on who’s to blame<\/h2>\n<p>— Okay, but if I’m not blaming anyone and taking full responsibility, how am I supposed to get things done? I can’t do everything by myself.<\/p>\n<p>When you discussed the task as a team, you were actually building a system together, figuring out how you’d work to reach the goal. So if the result doesn’t happen, the only thing worth focusing on is how to improve that system. What needs fixing to make it work? The key question isn’t “Who’s to blame?” but “How do we improve the system to get the result?”<\/p>\n<p>In all of this, we’re assuming the people you work or build relationships with actually want to get things done. But if they don’t, even then, it’s on you. You’re the one who chose to work with them. That’s 100% your responsibility. And chances are, there’s something in it for you, some reason you picked that person or keep acting in a way that stops you from getting the result.<\/p>\n<p>When I started Biz-cen.ru, I was responsible for pretty much everything. And when the first team members joined, I was sure they’d mess things up, make mistakes, miss the mark, maybe even ruin our chances. But the truth is, that mistrust wasn’t about protecting the business. It came from my need to control everything and feel important. Whenever someone on the team got something wrong, I’d jump in and tell them they were doing it wrong. But people don’t like feeling blamed and pretty quickly, our conversations would turn into blame-and-defend mode.<\/p>\n<p>It took me a while, but I finally realized there’s no point in blaming anyone. What actually helps is getting the team together and figuring out how to improve the system so we can do better tomorrow than we did today. That simple shift really worked. First, it made it clear who actually fits the team and shares our values. And second, people started to feel like they mattered, because they had the power to make a difference. <b>When you give people space to make decisions, you give them a chance to show what they care about.<\/b><\/p>\n<h2>How do you get things done?<\/h2>\n<p>People differ in how they solve problems. And there are two key traits that define your approach: first, taking responsibility; second, the ability to build systems. That means setting up parallel processes that not only help you solve the problem faster but also keep it from coming back in the same way later.<\/p>\n<p>Let’s use a simple example: you’re in a village and your cousin’s house catches fire while he’s away. What you do next shows a lot about how you deal with problems and if this were at work, it would say a lot about your professionalism. There are five levels of how you can handle a situation like this.<\/p>\n<p><b>Level one.<\/b> You see the house on fire and just start running around yelling, “Ahhh! Fire! We need to do something!”<\/p>\n<p><b>Level two.<\/b> You grab a couple of buckets, run to the pond and start hauling water back and forth, hoping you can put out the fire.<\/p>\n<p><b>Level three.<\/b> You call Nick and Mike from the next house over. You tell them what to bring, where the pond is and what they need to do.<\/p>\n<p><b>Level four.<\/b> You tell your younger son to run and call everyone from the neighboring houses. Once they show up, you organize a bucket line from the pond to the burning house. Fire’s out.<\/p>\n<p><b>Level five.<\/b> Same as level four, but you also figure out the fire started because of old wiring. You call an electrician to fix it and while they’re there, you ask him to ground the roof antennas too.<\/p>\n<p>At level five, you took full responsibility for getting results. But you didn’t do it all alone, you got others involved and set up parallel processes that kept things moving without needing your constant attention. And in the end, you made sure the same problem wouldn’t happen again. What level of fire-fighting skills do you want the people on your team to have?<\/p>\n<p><b>Takeaways:<\/b><\/p>\n<ol start=\"1\">\n<li>Responsibility is split like this: 100% on you and 100% on the other side;<\/li>\n<li>Don’t look for someone to blame, build systems that work better tomorrow than they did today;<\/li>\n<li>To solve problems at level five: set up parallel processes and build systems that keep the problem from coming back.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n",
            "summary": "Responsibility, whether at work or in personal relationships is always split the same way: 100% on one side and 100% on the other",
            "date_published": "2020-06-28T19:57:10+02:00",
            "date_modified": "2026-07-21T11:54:57+02:00",
            "tags": [
                "development",
                "entrepreneurship",
                "leadership",
                "management",
                "responsibility",
                "thinking"
            ],
            "image": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/fire@2x.jpg",
            "_date_published_rfc2822": "Sun, 28 Jun 2020 19:57:10 +0200",
            "_rss_guid_is_permalink": "false",
            "_rss_guid": "72",
            "_e2_data": {
                "is_favourite": false,
                "links_required": [],
                "og_images": [
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/fire@2x.jpg"
                ]
            }
        },
        {
            "id": "93",
            "url": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/all\/entrepreneurship-module\/",
            "title": "Entrepreneurship module",
            "content_html": "<p>In September we had the first Entrepreneurship module as part of my MBA program at Skolkovo. We dove into how investment funds work, how companies are valued at different stages and how decisions are made in high-uncertainty conditions.<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/dots.png\" width=\"634\" height=\"320\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<\/div>\n<p>Before that, we had an “intro game” to get to know our group and the campus. Besides lectures and group work, the program included two guest speakers, a welcome evening with the MBA-7 group and a few organizational events. The daily schedule went like this: breakfast at 8AM, lectures and group sessions from 9AM to 6PM, a guest speaker from 6PM to 9PM and then group prep for the next day until about 1AM.<\/p>\n<p>Before the module, they sent us pre-readings, mostly case studies, about 200 pages in total, plus a list of recommended books. Each case was a detailed breakdown of a real-world business, packed with metrics and in-depth descriptions of its processes.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the cases were from Russia, but most were international examples. When I first started reading, I thought, “If it’s not about Russia, how is this going to be relevant?” Turns out, working through a case is really about learning the methods and approaches, and those are universal, no matter the context.<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/IMG_3332.jpg\" width=\"974\" height=\"730\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<div class=\"e2-text-caption\">View of the classroom during the lecture<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>The lecture part is always mixed with group work. Each group session ends with a presentation of our solution, followed by a discussion in the classroom. After that, the professor walks us through how the case actually played out in real life. My group had six people.<\/p>\n<p>Everyone’s different, some have experience running production, others come from consulting or auditing. The group is super active and that’s probably the biggest challenge. At the start we spent a lot of energy just figuring out how to structure our workflow. You learn a ton from your classmates and even more, if you pay attention to how you behave in the process.<\/p>\n<p>The course was led by Benoît Leleux from IMD. He’s originally from Belgium but spent many years in the US. He’s invested in 20 companies and had some level of involvement in every case we studied, you can really feel that. Here are a few key takeaways for me:<\/p>\n<h2>Raising money<\/h2>\n<p>— The cost of raising money for a startup is different at each stage. There are four main stages:<\/p>\n<ol start=\"1\">\n<li>Seed – when there’s just an idea and a team. At this stage, an investor might put money into the idea if the founders can convince them they’ll get a 75–100% annual return;<\/li>\n<li>Start-up – when there’s a product and the first sales in the target market. Here, investors expect around 75% annual returns;<\/li>\n<li>Growth – by this point, the core ideas are validated and funding is for scaling up. You need to show investors the company can deliver growth, returns of 25–50%;<\/li>\n<li>Late – when the company has already gone through its rapid growth phase. Funding usually comes not from funds but from corporate partners. For example, teaming up with a large company to access their customer base. Investors at this stage expect about 15–20% annually.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>— A company’s valuation and the size of the funding round is always discussed together with the conditions the company must meet (with all the “ifs”). Valuation by itself is an abstraction, the terms make it real.<\/p>\n<p>— Companies raise money in rounds because it makes the valuation more accurate. You give up a smaller equity stake, promise more predictable results and it’s easier to convince investors. This process is called staging.<\/p>\n<p>— Staging is interesting because if an investor comes in during the first round and the startup delivers on its promises, the valuation goes up in the next round. Then the investor can sell part of their shares at a higher valuation.<\/p>\n<p>— Staging also pushes founders to assess their company and their ability to deliver on all those “ifs” more realistically at each round. If they overvalue the company early on, they risk ending up in a situation where the share price in the next round is lower than in the previous one. And that’s a really bad signal for the market.<\/p>\n<p>For example: we value our company at 10 million and raise 1 million for 10%. We commit that in 18 months we’ll have a working technology that can increase a sow’s litter size from 25 to 32 piglets.<\/p>\n<p>— Reading TechCrunch announcements about funding rounds without all the “ifs” is pretty pointless;<\/p>\n<p>— When raising money, negotiations are often all about those “ifs.” The conversation usually goes like this: “Whatever valuation you want, you can have it. But if you don’t deliver on all the ‘ifs,’ we’re taking it all back”;<\/p>\n<p>— You don’t need to spend hours debating exact deadlines for each “if”, everyone just understands they need to be met fast;<\/p>\n<p>— A normal, healthy entrepreneur hates risk;<\/p>\n<p>— One idea kept coming up: Dilution is nominal. Run out of money is terminal;<\/p>\n<p>— A business plan itself isn’t as important as the process of thinking it through;<\/p>\n<p>— Early-stage startups aren’t really interesting to clients or big companies. First, you have to earn their trust.<\/p>\n<h2>Negotiating with investors<\/h2>\n<p>— Investors use three moves to test whether a founder is realistic:<\/p>\n<ol start=\"1\">\n<li>They ask if the founder understands that a different CEO could be brought in if that person would be more valuable for the company. If the founder freaks out, it’s a red flag, they could end up hurting the company. You can’t think of yourself as untouchable.<\/li>\n<li>They set up a board of directors with four investor representatives and only one from the founders’ side. Investment funds have the reputation of being laser-focused on making money, while founders usually don’t have much reputational weight yet.<\/li>\n<li>When the founders present their business plan and all the “ifs,” investors might say: “Okay, we agree with your valuation. We believe you’ll hit revenue of N with the profitability you’ve outlined. But let’s include in the agreement that no dividends will be paid until you actually reach N with all the ‘ifs’ met.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>These kinds of questions are called “smoking out of entrepreneurs”.<br \/>\nExperienced founders respond with something like: “No problem, of course we’re committed to hitting the targets we set. But if we reach them in N months, we want to keep a bigger share of the equity.”<\/p>\n<p>— If a company raises funding but doesn’t become a unicorn, just turns into a “walking zombie” with steady revenue, investors can ask to have their money returned with all the accrued interest. Only after that can the founders start taking a share of the dividends.<\/p>\n<h2>Due Diligence, the situation in Russia and sexy businesses<\/h2>\n<p>— It’s harder for B2B companies to go public because, at the end of the day, it’s “regular” people buying the shares;<\/p>\n<p>— A business plan itself isn’t as important as the process of thinking it through;<\/p>\n<p>—A pitch deck is never truly finished, it’s an endless iterative process;<\/p>\n<p>— Big companies often avoid entering the same market with a new technology because of the “why shoot yourself in the foot?” mentality. (By the way, there’s an explanation of this in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ozon.ru\/context\/detail\/id\/1936823\/\">The Innovator’s Dilemma<\/a> );<\/p>\n<p>— Once an investor confirms they’re ready to invest, a Term Sheet is signed and the Due Diligence process begins. During Due Diligence they check the founders’ and key team members’ backgrounds, the functionality of the solution, potential patent infringements and the overall “cleanliness” of the company. This process can take quite a while and cost anywhere from a few thousand to several million dollars. Only after that is the investment agreement signed;<\/p>\n<p>— There are few investment rounds in Russia or business acquisitions because doing a full, legally sound Due Diligence is often nearly impossible;<\/p>\n<p>— If the round closes, the startup pays for the due diligence. The cost is deducted from the funding amount;<\/p>\n<p>— A situation where a startup takes the Due Diligence report from one investor and shows it to another is basically impossible. Investors are usually more like friends than competitors;<\/p>\n<p>— Investors insist on getting preferred shares, which give them priority in getting their money back if the company goes bankrupt;<\/p>\n<p>—It’s always better to have more resources than you think you need. That gives the company more resilience. If you don’t have that buffer, cut down the number of directions you’re working on;<\/p>\n<p>— In developed countries a lot of processes are outsourced. In developing countries that usually doesn’t work, there just aren’t companies with well-established specializations. That’s why many businesses end up being vertically integrated. For example, a model pig farm might start selling specialized feed storage platforms to the market because they had to figure out how to make them themselves and the product turned out to be in demand;<\/p>\n<p>— You win long-term if you’re a maniac about operational work;<\/p>\n<p>— Slip age is when the business is making money overall, but you don’t really know which areas are driving it and you fail to notice when a part of the business is running inefficiently;<\/p>\n<p>— Some brands make products specifically for sales. For example, Nike has collections that are sold only in outlet stores;<\/p>\n<p>— Do not ask for permission, ask for forgiveness. A short way to describe the entrepreneurial spirit inside a company;<\/p>\n<div class=\"e2-text-picture\">\n<img src=\"https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/graphic.png\" width=\"634\" height=\"320\" alt=\"\" \/>\n<\/div>\n<p>— Companies can roughly be divided into three types:  VC \/ Startup – no established model or market yet, business processes are still messy.  Growth – the model works, and the company is in a rapid growth phase.  Buyout \/ Mature – the business is stable and fully developed. The VC stage is what many entrepreneurs see as the “sexy” business. But there’s often more money in the third stage, which people tend to ignore because it seems boring. Benoît admitted he loves boring businesses – the more boring, the better, in his view. Sexy businesses always have more competition, full of players chasing their ego rather than making money.<\/p>\n<h2>About entrepreneurship<\/h2>\n<p>—  Management is creating a role that others perform, while you remain responsible for the outcome;<\/p>\n<p>— People see the world differently. Some think it’s completely unpredictable, so why bother making any plans? Others believe it can be predictable, so if you have a stable job and salary, you’re safe. In reality, the world is somewhere in between, with a high level of unpredictability;<\/p>\n<p>— Entrepreneurs spend their time gathering means, methods and leverage points. Once they’ve built up enough, they discover new opportunities. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA\">Steve Jobs’ Stanford speech<\/a> touches on this;<\/p>\n<p>—  Methods build up by answering these questions: Who am I? What do I know? Who do I know?<\/p>\n<p>— Start with intention, don’t wait for opportunities to come to you.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>The module gets a 9 out of 10. The best part is: it set a high bar for the rest of the courses and the material is packed with value. The pre-readings and group work add a lot. The downside is that the guest speakers didn’t really connect much to the module’s topic.<\/p>\n",
            "summary": "In September we had the first Entrepreneurship module as part of my MBA program at Skolkovo. We dove into how investment funds work, how companies are valued at different stages and how decisions are made",
            "date_published": "2017-11-14T19:03:36+02:00",
            "date_modified": "2026-07-21T11:54:58+02:00",
            "tags": [
                "entrepreneurship",
                "MBA",
                "skolkovo"
            ],
            "image": "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/dots.png",
            "_date_published_rfc2822": "Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:03:36 +0200",
            "_rss_guid_is_permalink": "false",
            "_rss_guid": "93",
            "_e2_data": {
                "is_favourite": false,
                "links_required": [],
                "og_images": [
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/dots.png",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/IMG_3332.jpg",
                    "https:\/\/mazurchak.com\/pictures\/graphic.png"
                ]
            }
        }
    ],
    "_e2_version": 4199,
    "_e2_ua_string": "Aegea 11.5 (v4199)"
}