Stephanie McKenzie:


I have known Stephanie for roughly 20 years but had lost touch with her until I came to University of Washington Tacoma. I did not know the struggles that she faced making her business work and keeping it viable. Of our guest speakers, i believe that this was the only one taking the "just run the business" approach. This was an opportunity to learn about a different type of entrepreneur, the type that only cares about one thing, and doing it well. Many of other speakers have taught us about pivots, or when to move on from a venture, but this is the first one that was content to simply do the one thing that made them happy. All things considered, even with the amount of risk that comes with being a small business owner, she also explained that there was a fair amount of security that a well run small business can provide. The ability to employ family and loved ones when times are hard is a huge advantage. All things considered, working hard to do what makes you happy seems to be a better idea than working hard just to make money, even if it is more money. Also, it was again reiterated to us the importance of interpersonal relationships when running any sort of business. Hearing from a range of different types of entrepreneurs seems to bring a wider variety of perspectives and approaches. All of this is valuable information when thinking about starting your own business even if it does not relate directly to what you are trying to do.

John Dimmer:

This speaker provided the most complete picture thus far as how funding works. Comprehensive graphs with detailed descriptions of when to seek funding, and from whom were provided. Also discussed were various pitfalls of running a business while seeking funding. This was an extremely informative lecture, and i am very happy I was able to attend it. He also discussed his work as an investor and discussed  some do's and don'ts of seeking funding. It was insightful to hear this information from an investors point of view. Some of the things I learned from this lecture include how to avoid diluting your ownership, how much (roughly) of your business to allow investors to purchase and at which phase of funding, what size investors to seek, and why. It was a very frank and to the point explanation of how things actually work. While all of our guest lectures provided invaluable information, this one provided the most comprehensive view of how to grow a business financially .Essentially, a large part of my take away was seek to take on as few investors as possible, while giving up as little of your business as possible, and to only seek funding upon reaching the appropriate milestone. On a side note, we were also prompted to read our mission statements before hearing from this lecturer while he was seated in the audience, it was interesting to see him either nodding or pursing his lips as we presented as if he were also evaluating the content of our presentations as if measuring their efficacy.

Erik Hanberg:



I was forced to miss this speaker due to medical issues, never the less i attempt to capture the gist of this presentation from reading blog posts from other students. Mr. Hanberg is a writer and publisher that is also responsible for founding channel 253 (a podcasting channel). He has also written and directed films as well as currently sitting on the metro parks board in Tacoma. On paper he appears to have a well accomplished career, and by most accounts (by classmates) was a fairly inspiring speaker. I once again find myself poorer for having been forced to miss class. He utilizes Amazon marketplace for much of his book sales and also advertises through Amazon as well. Becoming a successful published author is impressive enough, but much of his success seems to build toward other success (at least according to a quick google search). Other useful information provided includes topics such as how to build an income graph, which can be used to help build our business plans. This speaker seems to be an example of continuous multifaceted entrepreneurship, or a "many irons in the fire" approach to entrepreneurship. With this approach any one endeavor could have a bad quarter or fail outright, and because your eggs aren't all in the same basket, there is always something to fall back on. This seems to be a reasonable approach assuming that one has the time, energy, and money to peruse multiple ventures simultaneously. This approach has the problem of possibly diluting ones efforts in any single business endeavor if done poorly...

Mission and vision:


Dead_Last_Gaming's (look at that, i just named my company) mission statement will be:

"to strive for perfection of engineering and innovation of design in order to make truly exciting creations".

Basically anyone can build a computer by watching a video or following a guide. What we bring to this space is a new level of customization and precision. From custom C&C'ed water blocks to fit AIB (add in board) partner hardware (usually has better VRM and clocks than reference hardware) to precisely machined case modifications, we strive to make hardware not just more functional, but beautiful. This commitment to excellence and design drives this company hence our vision statement:

"to change public perception of what hardware should look like".

From fabricating component modifications to complete solutions, functional solutions do not need to be another "beige box" design. We believe that form and function go hand in hand and that form is too often neglected.

I hope this isn't too "sales pitchy", but it seems to be a decent jumping off point for this exercise. I have experience building gaming rigs, workstations, NAS's, server cabinets, as well as machines for specific purposes. My only concern is that i may have gone too wide with my approach. The question is; should i focus on a more specific market segment, or is it okay to start off a bit overly ambitious?
Also, though i feel i may have gone a bit overboard with some of the language, I am actually competent enough in this area that i'm not promising the moon. That said, most of what I've done are either personal projects or projects I've helped friends with, so i'm a bit fuzzy on how to monetize this.

Shadrach White:

Shadrach White is the entrepreneur who spoke to us about some of his past and present endeavors. His "don't be afraid to fail" approach seems (on the surface) very different than that of the speaker who visited us on the previous class period. This was further tempered with "failing sucks but" we should see it as a part of a learning experience. Where they do share similarities is in that they are both involved in emerging markets. I call this an emerging market because while government contracts are no new thing, the legalized sale and distribution of cannabis is Mr White spoke to us at length about past projects before showing us his pitch deck. He runs a company called CloudPWR which is currently seeking local government contracts involving software solutions pertinent to the sale of legalized and medical cannabis. He showed figures for projected growth as well as explaining why his company is best positioned to fulfill the growth needed. The big take-away from his presentation were that success are largely dependent on  hard work and luck. He explained that he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to become involved in the legalization process in Washington state and that the direction that his business changed from there. Had he not been relentlessly seeking contracts at the time he was that opportunity may have passed him by. Though sometimes success seems to hinge on good planning and at other times it seems to hinge on luck, highlights the fact that hard work is required for both conditions to find purchase.

Matt Tolintino:

Matt runs Namatad which makes firefly. It is an very promising product that aids fire fighters in locating each other in emergency situations while working a fire. As impressive and innovative as the product he produces is, it was not my biggest take away from this lecture. Firstly, it is easy to see that having a stable situation can be essential to starting a business (evidenced by his ability to not take a salary for a year). Also, Money is useless if there is no unified focus for your business (evidenced by the "sheepish" way he explained the 30 million dollar pivot he had previously been a part of). finally, some ideas are just waiting for a purpose (see his explanation for how firefly came about). Some final thoughts are that he does not appear to be set up for the expansion that will likely be necessary. Also, there are likely maritime applications that have not been explored. Not only for emergencies, but for cargo container location (container logs can be a pain) etc... (if i understand the tech correctly from the pitch deck). The tech seems to have potential for explosive growth is the point i am trying to get to, which brings me to another point; he did  not have time to discuss the patent process, their defense, or how to tell if an idea is worthy of the application process. I would like to have learned more about these topics, but sometimes an hour is not enough time for everything.

Brian Forth:

I missed this lecture due to family medical issues, but i did a bit of research and read other blogs (actually only 1 posted at the time of writing this) about the lecture. I found his profile on SiteCraft, i poked around the site a bit and found a very polished space populated with various web based services. Not much is information is actually presented in Brian's profile. In his lecture he talked about how his business grew out of side projects he took on as a teacher. I get the impression that there is a lesson about persistence in pursuit of  ones goals to be found in this journey, and i am a bit sad that i had to miss it. (Edit) After reading through some other blogs I have a more complete view of this speaker. Gear lab was spun off of SiteCraft and employs 40 people and was also spoken about during this lecture. I later found out that Chuck Johnston works for Gear Lab and is one of the core members there. I had him as an instructor for computer ethics while progressing through the CSS program. Although this would seem to be an indirect connection, it is important to note that many of professor Johnston's examples come from his work history. It does sort of show how interconnected that the software industry is and how important interpersonal relationships are. Knowing this demonstrates how simply maintaining positive relationships can draw someone into a startup.