Can startups be manufactured?

This question was on my mind since I started my first company more than a decade ago. I ask this question because over the years the Singapore startup ecosystem has boomed. I have seen many local entrepreneurs import concepts from their American counterparts and successfully reproducing them here in this region. Think Uber, AirBnB, Amazon, and eBay.

The problem I have with startup cloning is not that it is wrong or that we shouldn’t do it. I think there’s something inherently missing in this approach. I mean, do we ultimately do a startup because we want to make a difference and change the world, or are we chasing financial success as the end goal?

I am somewhat an idealist. I may be wrong but I think that the only way for a startup to really be innovative is for founders to own the problems they are trying to solve. That ownership must drive them to the point where it becomes a passion that fuels their determination. Taking short cuts is not something that I encourage in any area of my life and that includes the startup career that I envision to have with MB™.

Startup cloning is taking shortcut. Perhaps it might lead to some initial success but I do not think that in its lifetime it will create major innovation. I’m sure that you might not agree with me.

Anyway, related to the idea of “startup cloning” is something called “startup manufacturing.” It’s happening in Singapore. This philosophy views startups like food. You know how to “manufacture” food right? Get a wok, put the right ingredients together, turn on the heat, and out comes the dish. The methodology goes something like this:

1. Setup an environment that encourages startup culture.
2. Group a few people who are interested to do startups together.
3. Give them a few seemingly interesting problems to solve.
4. Turn on the heat and encourage them to launch out.

Can startups be manufactured in this way? I wonder if this approach is perhaps a twisted attempt to seed for surprises. I’m not so sure if it will work but it goes against some of the best practices that I have learned as an entrepreneur.

Here is what I think is wrong with this approach:

• People are very important but the relationship between founders are even more critical to the survival of a startup and hence its success. Merely putting some interesting or talented people together might not always produce the synergy needed to ignite the flame.
• Startups must own the problem that they are trying to solve rather than be given the problem like homework in the classroom. It is an ownership of the problem that will produce passion and then determination down the long and lonely startup road.
• Market, product, and timing is everything. Without properly understanding these factors, launching any startup out of urgency to clock some statistics is like flushing a gold coin down the toilet. Even if the idea was perfect, it will most certainly die. Death is waiting at every corner for the startup and the math can be easily proven with historical data.

Startups are meant to be transformative and that is what differentiates it from the usual small and medium sized enterprises (SME). Transformation cannot happen if nothing changes, however. When we look at the manufacturing process, it thrives on fixed assumptions.

I would argue the notion of startup manufacturing is self-contradictory. Startups cannot be manufactured. I think that startups are more of an art than a science. Startups needs the freedom to explore, try and fail many times before it can find a place where it can flourish and blossom.

I have done multiple iterations of my own ideas before settling down on the problems that I want to solve personally. I understand that even if everything was done right, my entrepreneurial endeavors and hard work may eventually come to nothing. I guess this is just something that every entrepreneur needs to grapple with because startups are a unique voice that cannot be manufactured.

What do you think?