Thanks for the response, and thanks for re-clarifying the position on the IP – I think I finger flubbed the wording on that point a little.

The reason the latter part of the post leans back to supports for start up businesses is I am querying why the existing frameworks and functions that exist have been, as far as I can see, entirely by-passed rather than including them (given their experience in evaluating and supporting new ideas).

All business proposals start with a concept that needs to be worked up. Many of them might require changes in procedures, methods of administration etc. (that is one area where gaps in a market are often identified). In some cases, the business proposal might even require a legislative change to become viable (for example, deregulation of a market such as telecommunications or electricity). In other cases, the existence of legislation creates the opportunity (e.g. Health and Safety training or Tax advisors). So I would have to argue that the point of entry is not sufficiently different that a totally divergent initiative which has drawn down a significant tranche of funding from the Department of Enterprise Trade & Employment is warranted, at least not one that seems to exclude the existing frameworks for enterprise development that exist in this country.

I take your point that YCYC is not about helping one company or developing one product. But then, funding 400 feasibility studies or 60 CORD placements wouldn’t be helping just one company or one product. Even if we only focus on the €300k provided by the Dept, that’s a lot of support for existing startups who are struggling to secure funding that has been diverted at the stroke of a pen and, it seems, zero publicity of the fact (apart from some Twitter activity).

The key question I was asking in the post is what do the promoters of YCYC feel is so broken about the current enterprise supports in this country that they have bypassed them? Do the promoters of YCYC think that CEBS and the Campus incubation centres aren’t up to the job of finding the “Next Big Thing”? If so, why?

If you do think they are up to the job but just need a little help, why are they not included in or represented in the publicity and operation of YCYC? And if they are, why is everyone keeping it so quiet?

Daragh,

Interesting and obviously informed contribution. I won’t rehash all that was discussed in the Tuppenceworth and Value Ireland blogs but will make a few points.

You acknowledge early on – YCYC is “not [looking for] a business… [but] an industry” but the latter part of the post leans back into points about “supports for start up businesses.

To be absolutely clear, this competition is not about identifying specific business proposals which might result in the development of one product, or growing only one company’s work force. It is looking for something that is still at the concept stage and needs to be worked up. Winning proposals will describe a significant preparatory process which could require legislative, administrative or procedural change before implementation can be effected.

That is a different point of entry to the enterprise creation market to that occupied by the CEBs etc? and that is why a different fund has been created by YCYC – again this competition is not to fund a single company start up idea. It is trying to do something different.

There is BTW also, no ambiguity about the IP issue referred in the first of your numbered points. Although we don’t expect too much IP in the winning the proposal, any IP in either of the two wimnners goes to YCYC.

If our current systems of entrepreneur support are broken or inefficient, lets tackle that problem and spend €300k (or €2million) on that and make the systems currently in place work better in a sustainable way.