Great success is built on failures. Embrace failures.

While our government’s effort to encourage entrepreneurship deserves an applause, it is when we look at the detail things start to falter.

Having experienced raising funds (grants, equity, mix of equity and debt) from government agencies and related entities (government-linked venture capitals), I came to the impression that raising capital from government-backed agencies (in Malaysia) is not conducive in getting more people to embrace entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurs are resilient, we are quick to pivot, a master at finding opportunities and monetize it.

But this is not all.

Successful business ventures are often built upon numerous failures.

Failures serve as a great teaching, humbling moment for entrepreneurs to grow.

We grow from failures. We embrace the opportunity to learn, and do better.

In Malaysia, raising funds from government-backed agencies means you are not allowed in any manner to fail.

To make matters worse, getting funds from these agencies would require director’s guarantee and a plethora of other forms of obligations to the fund. In simple terms, if you fail = you are personally responsible to repay.

There is no room to allow a budding company to fail gracefully. In current funding environment, if you fail = you are on the hook for likely 5-10 years to pay back the fund.

There is no opportunity to take a step back and say “Hey, we have done our best. The market/timing/etc is simply against us. Let us close shop, and try out new ideas.”

In Malaysia, especially dealing with government-backed funds, one will have the impression that out of 100 companies receiving the fund, all 100 are expected to be successful.

This should not be the case. Nor expected to be the case.

High risk ideas are prone to failure. But if one takes off, the benefit to the economy significantly outweighs all the other unsuccessful ventures.

To spur the digital economy, our government need to realize that the funds allocated for startups need to have some leeway – an expectation that maybe only 1-2% of the companies will make it big. 10% will do ok, and the rest might falter.

Allow those that falter to stand up, recover and try out new enterprise.

Allow entrepreneurs to attempt wicked, high risk ideas.

Let them learn.

Let them attempt to do things differently.

Let them to also FAIL gracefully.

Do not make them pay (in literal and figurative manner of speaking) for the failure (except if there is a clear negligence or abuse of the funds).

A society that embraces failures is bound to discover greatness.

Understanding the needs of EV-owners

Of all the EV-charger equipped petrol stations in Klang Valley, this BHP station in TTDI is the only one that makes sense. It is smack in the middle of business areas, making it easy for EV/PHEV owners to park, charge and continue their business nearby for one or two hours.

It is also in a sweet spot for my daily hike in Kiara Hill Trail nearby. I would typically hike at 6am and return at 8am (7-10km hike) to find the car fully charged; sufficient for one day of movement with no fuel used. Do this daily, at times I would only spend RM80/month for fuel. Thats 75% lesser than the average consumer fuel-spent.

The rest of EV-equipped petrol stations are not positioned optimally to meet the behaviour of EV owners. No one wants to wait at a petrol station for hours just to charge their car.

When EVs become commonplace, petrol stations that are centrally located to housing and business areas have the best chance of being converted to EV stations…

… provided power utility companies (TNB, SESB) do not disrupt energy delivery by equipping regular parking spots with EV chargers using power from light/electric poles first.

With EVs, energy delivery to power our mobility is now democratised and decentralised. There is no need for expensive petrol stations with its strict HSE policies to built, maintain & run; now everyone can juice up their EV cars at home or at the car parks.

Why are petrol stations in close proximity to one another?

Why are petrol stations in close proximity to one another?

As we had plenty of free time during last year’s lockdown period, we did a quick analysis of petrol station clustering in Malaysia. Methodology was simple; consider the stations are in a cluster if they are within 500 meters of each other. Data was scrapped from map providers.

We discovered that Shell and Petronas (the two largest O&G companies) is the most popular pair of petrol stations in close proximity with one another.

If you are at a Shell station, you will have a 30% chance of seeing a Petronas station. If you are at a Caltex station, there’s only 17% chance of seeing a Petronas station.

So why do competitors tend to cluster together?

Well this boils down a theory called Hotelling’s Model of Spatial Competition (Google it to find an excellent video on TedEd):

  • A commercial area with many competing businesses attracts more customers than an area with a single business.
  • If competing businesses are spread evenly across a large area, customers need to visit each business to get what they are searching for. This would be inconvenient to the customers because they may or may not find the item in the first one or two providers. The customer might even get frustrated/exhausted and decided not to purchase at all.
  • Having competing businesses in close proximity allows customers to ‘shop around’ and ensures customers will at least buy something.
  • Naturally new competing business will open nearby because the crowd is there. The business wont have to spend much for marketing for customer discovery because it could just ride on existing marketing and customer base of their competitors.

Now you would argue that this scenario is moot for petrol stations as they are selling regulated products (fuel price is capped). Well, do you know that petrol stations value foot-fall into their retail stores? This also explains why stations nowadays are mini-malls; they sell anything from chicken rice, to fast food and car wash.

So dont be mad on having competitors. They help the market to grow.

Kesan IKEA (The Ikea Effect)

Perabot pasang-sendiri, ramuan kek segera, dan kapal terbang mainan.

Tiga benda yang berbeza, tapi mempunyai persamaan besar untuk membentuk sebuah teori psikologi kecondongan kognitif (cognitive bias) yand dikenali sebagai Kesan IKEA (The Ikea Effect).

Apakah persamaan mainan plastik, ramuan kek segera, dan perabot IKEA?

Mainan pasang sendiri oleh Airfix, United Kingdom

Pada tahun 1952, syarikat mainan Airfix membuat keputusan untuk menjual mainan-mainan mereka dalam bentuk komponen yang masih tercantum di acuan plastik. Keputusan ini dibuat untuk menjimatkan kos pengeluaran kerana mereka tidak perlu menggaji pekerja untuk memasang setiap satu mainan secara manual.

Maka berdoyong-doyonglah manusia dari kanak-kanak kepada bapa kanak-kanak terjerat dengan konsep ‘pasang-sendiri’. Saya pun tidak ketinggalan.

Sahabat yang membaca artikel ini pasti terkenang saat tangan berdarah terkena pisau semasa memotong acuan kapal terbang atau kereta lumba Tamiya Dash! Yonkuro, jari-jari yang terlekat pada gam gajah, dan saat pertama kali menggunakan cat minyak untuk memberikan keunikan pada mainan.

Ramuan Kek Segera

Pada awal 1950-an juga, suri rumah diperkenalkan satu inovasi baru yang memudahkan hidup mereka, iaitu ramuan kek segera.

Namun pada permulaannya, suri-suri rumah tidak berminat menggunakan ramuan tersebut kerana beranggapan bahawa ramuan segera ini adalah tersangat senang digunakan. Mereka risau, jika kerja memasak dijadikan terlalu mudah, maka kerja mereka yang leceh & rumit akan dipandang rendah.

Ekoran itu, pengilang ramuan kek segera lekas mengubah sedikit resipi mereka. Perubahan yang dibuat adalah mudah, iaitu resipi ramuan kek segera itu memerlukan suri rumah memasukkan sebiji telur ke dalam adunan.

Perabot pasang-sendiri IKEA

IKEA ditubuhkan oleh Ingvar Kamprad pada tahun 1943. Beliau berumur 17 tahun pada ketika itu. Ayahnya memberi sejumlah wang kerana berjaya dalam peperiksaan dan beliau menggunakan wang tersebut sebagai permulaan empayar IKEA.

Pada permulaannya, pengasas IKEA menjual pen, dompet, bingkai gambar, jam, dan juga stokin.

IKEA mula mengilang perabot sendiri pada tahun 1956 apabila pesaing-pesaing mereka memaksa para pembekal memboikot IKEA. Pada satu ketika, seorang pekerja IKEA mencabut kaki meja supaya mudah dimasukkan kedalam kereta & mengelakkan kerosakan dalam perjalanan. Sejak itu, IKEA mengukuhkan konsep flat-pack untuk memudahkan pembeli membawa balik dan memasang sendiri perabot mereka.

Jadi, apakah Kesan IKEA (The IKEA Effect)?

Apabila seseorang membeli produk yang memerlukan usaha pemasangan sendiri, nilai sesebuah produk kepada individu tersebut menjadi lebih tinggi berbanding harga beli.

Sebagai contoh, apabila seorang kanak-kanak meluangkan masa seharian untuk memasang kapal terbang mainan, atau si bapa menghabiskan masa berjam-jam memasang kabinet TV, atau si mak memasak satu kek untuk keluarga, mereka akan menghargai hasil usaha itu.

Produk yang dihasilkan oleh diri sendiri mempunyai nilai terpendam yang menjadikannya lebih berharga dan bermakna.

Inilah teori kecondongan kognitif yang digunakan oleh syarikat-syarikat besar untuk menjadikan produk mereka sebahagian daripada hidup kita semua.

Produk seperti ini bukan sekadar produk yang boleh dibeli wang ringgit, ia adalah produk yang sudah terserap usaha pemilik, menjadikannya lebih bernilai.

Inilah kereta Tamiya saya. Mungkin tayarnya senget sedikit, tapi saya tahu betulkannya. Mungkin catnya tak sama seperti cat kereta lain. Tapi ini adalah kereta saya. Saya yang buat, dan saya bangga.

Buah fikiran seorang kanak-kanak.