Thanks

PEY

Thanks for the feedback, I’ve darkened the url links. You’re right, it was too bright before.

As for videos, I don’t usually take videos at events – I can’t multitask enough between taking notes, Twittering and taking pictures. But I’m sure if you Google around, you should be able to find some.

I am encouraged to see iJam companies coming here to defend their Mentors, but I am sure there are others who are not so fond of theirs as well. MDA definitely has done a lot for the community and I share the view with Daniel, we are here to improve the culture, system and hopefully processes to guide and direct the talent to shine at the highest level and believe me some of you are ready. What is left is a little more spark.

As one of the first 3 incubators approved under the MDA iJAM programme, I would like to speak in my working capacity on how we have worked together with the MDA IDM Programme Office since its inception over the past 2+ years in reshaping the various initiatives and seeing how the agency has tuned its “large company” focus into one that (in my view) quite successfully addresses a number of chronic issues faced by startups in Singapore, namely the easy access of a comfortable amount of initial seed capital to actually get things started, market access via startup consortium-type arrangements and constantly creating publicity opportunities for startups.

In my personal experience, the iJAM programme is one of the first programmes (in my 14 years as an entrepreneur) that makes available to the general public a relatively substantial amount of seed capital with a minimal amount of hassle to a budding ground-zero entrepreneur to undertake a potentially high-risk, lose-all project; not even in the dot-com days of the late 1990s was there a similar programme that specifically provides such a facility to any company which is not already 2 years old and have demonstrated a relatively stable monthly cashflow.

Additionally, via the iJAM programme, a startup can now choose from a diverse set of mentors he/she feels would be best able to assist in their startup (be it academics or experienced entrepreneurs) thus addressing an often neglected portion of government assistance of expert advise on-tap.

Contrary to popular belief, just because the mentors are not famous or vocal does not mean they are incapable of adding substantial value to startups; one cannot disregard their achievements in their own respective fields of which some startups would benefit greatly from, and not forgetting that each incubator has its own unique capabilities (For example, Azione Capital co-invests anything from $9,000 – 40,000 into each startup funded by the iJAM microfunding scheme, conducts regular market expansion exercises around the South East Asia region every 2 months for any portfolio startup that is ready, hands-on involvement and direct support to the startup from the directors, senior associates, associates and advisers), with other incubators choosing to focus on zero-equity arrangements or adopting a focus on specific sector focus.

Other follow-on programmes like the iMATCH programme came along shortly after iJAM reached its limits (of early stage financing) and from my understanding, other new programmes are soon to follow to address other gaps within the startup life cycle.

Without a doubt, every programme has its shortcomings and the various programmes under the IDM Programme office is no exception; MDA as a government agency has demonstrated by its actions that it is willing to listen and to change to better address the needs of startups by making incremental adjustments after obtaining feedback from industry, incubators and the startups and evolving every few months. That in itself is quite an achievement considering the fact that most other government agencies works on “set in stone” annual plans. One cannot claim in the same breath that the iJAM programme (and the other supporting programmes from the MDA positioned for startups) has not provided a much needed boost in encouraging many budding technopreneurs to come out of the woodwork without at the same time rejecting the vast numbers of new startups that we have seen forming in the past 2 years, some with relative success too.

From my experience and the experience of various startups within my portfolio, MDA has also did what it could in connecting the iJAM to the big boys, the ones that typically wouldn’t even consider giving you the time of day if your revenue numbers does not match theirs. It would be absurd to expect more (ie. Forcing the big boys into deals), particularly as I certainly would not want my startups to grow to be soft and be spoonfed with free money and, worse still, to become uselessly vocal and concerning themselves with noisemaking rather than on value creation.

Just sharing my 2 cents as an incubator, I do hope this provides an alternate view from “the other side”.

Nicholas Chan (in Kuala Lumpur)
Executive Director, Azione Capital Pte Ltd

Considering that the rest of the UnConference was a smashing success (other than the long registration queues at the start and the technical problems with Scott Rafer’s presentation), MDA’s presentation was the one that was left in the dust. But this is not a witchhunt – I rather look at it as a way to identify areas that can be improved.

iJAM – the website, not its microfunding schemes – is a joke lah. Come on, even Aaron admits it.

As for the rest – you’d be surprised, but I actually do agree with some of your points:

1. Kudos to Priscilla, she has reacted very well to this despite the potential embarrassment this post may have caused her. She has contacted me, and with the most professional manner, requested for the image to be taken down (which I have) – because she didn’t want the conversation to be detracted from the true issues on hand. She now has my utmost respect.

2. Entrepreneurship is a learning process. There are many paths to an end goal. What I am doing here is not to put down the work that MDA has done, but to challenge them to continuously access, and improve, their schemes to make sure that they give our startups the best chance of success. Impatience? Perhaps. The question is do we really have time to muck around?

Oh, thanks for calling this an influential blog. Nowhere near as yet, but am working towards it.

Keep the conversations coming, guys. This is all excellent feedback that needs to be heard.

First of all, kudos to Priscilla for managing her comments with a neutral and professional reply.

Pertaining to the remark of ’missing the plot’ and of i.Jam being a joke, are we being a tad impatient here?

There needs to be a healthy number of startups (of quality), in order for MDA to better craft something appropriate for subsequent growths.

Its heartening to see few companies leapfrog this process, but its only prudent that the institution starts ground up, to be inclusive and mindful of the entire vertical. Would skipping this risk alienating aspiring Startups? On the other hand, if given that scenario of the Valley now, would it really propel us to international standards or make a mockery of our startups, and taint the rest of the community? As it is, finding sound web companies here are getting tougher as technology is evolving at breakneck speed.

Learning is not a product, it’s a process. There must be loads of planning, a starting point, a learning curve, and tonnes of experimentation along the way, to finally the end result – and no matter how successful, its usually not what we set out to achieve initially. Its through this process, we find something that works for us and not yet another copy of the Valley – its about finding our niche, and crafting something that works for us here.

The Valley took decades before it reached today’s matured innovation culture that subsequently naturally attracted investment money and the best minds. I would say we need to give Singapore’s authorities and the environment here time, understanding and support – to test and develop what will actually work for us here.