A comprehensive analysis of your present levels of competences and those key skills, knowledge and behaviours you need so that you can enhance your entrepreneurial and creative potential

A comprehensive analysis of your present levels of competences and those key skills, knowledge and behaviours you need so that you can enhance your entrepreneurial and creative potential

1. Introduction
   • The success and excellence of entrepreneurs is not only based on one skill but they have competence in many other fields. (Lazear, 2005). FACETS is a structure that is based on nature themes which are recognized via the FACETS test (Bolton and Thompson, 2003). Focus is the target delivery stage of entrepreneurs. The opportunities are the advantage. Creative ideas are the creativity. There are two egos namely an inner and outer ego: the inner ego is the impel and the outer ego takes on difficulties. Your potential is helped by the team. Delivery with the cause is aided by social. To show the temperament and talent level you hold together with the right levels to become a winning entrepreneur. Darby (2002) carried out research on young entrepreneurs where he deduced that most of them depict symbols of innovative performance early.
2. Focus
   • My score for FACETS focus is eight, this is commercial. Focus plays a major role in entrepreneurship when joint with creativity and advantage; the focus builds the project or entire business. On Belbin’s test, my score was very high for both implementer and completer-finisher. There is a relationship between these roles and the focus since they are activities whose focus is on the beginning and ending of tasks. Focus would mean the delivery of results. Through the prioritising of the given activities, my real strength on focus will be brought out. I rated my commitment to learning and commercial awareness as 4 in my skills audit. This means that the skills are well developed; through such skills, my learning focus and achieving of goals is shown. Although the FACETS test rate my focus high, I personally rated 2 my time management skills and motivation skills. This shows that I lack self-confidence on working within the deadlines or motivation of oneself to begin working.

     Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

     GET CUSTOM PAPER
3. Advantage
   • Advantage is one of the skills that I believed that I lacked. I scored 3 on my audit skills test; flexibility/adaptability score and initiative portrayed this. My advantage results on FACETS were 4.8, in enterprising, this showed that I can take advantage of the give chances. My previous year’s SWOT had numerous chances including interpersonal skills and networking to put them in use in the assigned environments. Despite my self-motivation being low, i have had several opportunities to use in order to improve it with more deadlines and I have realised a slight improvement. Through internship opportunities, I believe that my skills on human resource will be further developed.
4. Creativity
   • My creativity skills are not exceptional, my skills audit shows that my innovation was rated a 2 (appendix 1) and also my result on FACETS was only 4.2 (appendix 2) which is enterprising but not entrepreneurial, this means that I am slightly creative and can pick up ideas from others but need support when it comes to new ideas. The brain test by Sommer and Sommer (2010) (appendix 6), Herrmann (2003) (appendix 7) and Caban (2004) (appendix 8) all show that I use both sides of my brain equally suggesting that areas such as creativity and strategy are equally utilised. Using these skills equally will enable decisions to be critically reviewed with a more emotional and strategic approach. The GET test shows the strengths of enterprising characteristics (Caird, 1988). The results show that I would be unlikely to set up an innovative business but I am likely to be enterprising in employment or as an intrapreneur (appendix 9).
5. Ego
   • The Ego comprises of two major components; the inner and the outer ego. Through the inner ego, my for focus is enhanced as I am being driven forward. Nevertheless, despite my focus being high, my score on the inner ego was only 3. People with a low score on the inner ego are likely to enjoy their comfort zone the most. On contrary, i differ with this idea. I enjoy learning new things instead therefore scored better for audit of this skill. According to my personality test, I was of ISTP type; it was suggested by my introverted intuition that I love my comfort zone as I frequently move on with my burn up feelings. In my outer ego, I had a temperament score of 3.6, comparing it to my inner ego, they are roughly the same. My outer ego showed my nature easily accepts any responsibilities in my career. The results from my skills audit show that I loved responsibility through my leadership skills which I scored highly; 4 marks.
6. Team
   • My group-based assessments within my degree brought out clearly that I am not a team worker. I achieve high score on the plant, implementer and completer-finisher roles. Since I have several roles that I can fill within a team, my results fit me here. My score for team entrepreneurship showed me as an enterprising; nevertheless, with regard to my FACETS, my team results may be used to compensate other areas of weakness and better my skill of enterprising. On the other hand, team was marked as my strength according to SWOT analysis and skill audit.
7. Social
   • My score on this aspect is 2 thus my weakest on the FACETS model. Drawing conclusions from my SWOT analysis and my skills audit clear evidence was raised that my social skills needed improvement. When these skills are left out on my SWOT, the only threats to on me were other business students as well as present employees with practice in the human resources field. Communication both written and verbal was marked as the social skill that required major improvements based on my audit. Because my FACETS score is below 40, I cannot be enterprising as a social entrepreneur. My social skills were better on the mid tools test. This was far much better than the results shown by FACETS test which were 9 out of 15 (Smith, 1996).
8. Conclusion
   • “Innovation is underpinned by creativity which in turn underpins enterprise” (Bolton and Thompson, 2003). To build the ideas resulting from innovation and creativity, a drive which is focus is required. For an entrepreneur, temperament and talent are the primary essentials and my FACETS score is low for both innovation and creativity. However, they are almost equal thus, I have an ability to attain my balanced objectives through my balanced temperament but that means that I am not an industrialist. Creativity, innovation and focus are the basic elements for entrepreneurial personalities. Due to my results on FACETS test, I am enterprising but not entrepreneurial.

9. References

1. Belbin, M. (1981). Belbin Team Roles. Available at: http://www.belbin.com/rte.asp?id=8
2. Bolton, W.K. and Thompson, J.L. (2003). The Bolton and Thompson Entrepreneur Indicator. Available at: http://efacets.co.uk/facets.htm
3. Caban, S. (2004). Brain Dominance Test. Eterna Management. Available at: http://www.ipn.at/ipn.asp?BHX
4. Caird, S. (1988). General Enterprising Tendency v2 Test. Available at: http://get2test.net/author/index.htm
5. Darby, G. (2002). Encouraging Youthful Enterprise. RSA Journal. pp 28-29.
6. Fraser, A. and Neville, S. (1993). The Belbin Test: For Assessing Team Roles. Available at: https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/bus/public/mktg1329_managing_teamwork/resources/Belbin%20Test.pdf
7. Heiss, M.M. (1998). Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™. Available at: http://www.humanmetrics.com/hr/JTypesResult.aspx?EI=-44&SN=25&TF=38&JP=-11
8. Herrmann, N. (1990). The Creative Brain. Herrmann International. North Carolina: Lake Lure.
9. Lazear, E.P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics. 23(4).
10. Lumsdaine, E and Binks, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship: From Creativity to Innovation: Effective Thinking Skills for a Changing World. Canada: Trafford Publishing.
11. Smith, C. (1996). Get Started with Mind Tools. Available at: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/get-started.htm
12. Sommer, G. and Sommer, T. (2010). Brain Test. Available at: http://braintest.sommer-sommer.com/en/

Task Two

Comparison of Creativity and Innovation

The current competition pitying one company with another, it is important to understand the critical differences and similarities of creativity and innovation as a basis for performance measurement (Peris-Ortiz, Adam, 2011). Some elements of performance such as the creativity and innovation require measurement in order to gauge the success involved. The two terms are however confusing and commonly used by business enthusiasts interchangeably. The truth is that they differ.

The main contrasting feature of creativity and innovation lies in the focus expressed. In creativity, it involves the harnessing of the potential of the mind to create new ideas. Under such a process, the manifestation of creativity can be felt in various ways such as smelling, hearing, seeing, touching or smelling. Creative aspects of the mind can also mean the good ideas still undergoing experiments in the mind.

One of the most difficult operations on creativity is that it is very difficult to measure it in logical terms. There are no known metrics for such measurements. On the other hand, innovation is measurable and can be measured in the extent at which change has been implemented on the inert systems. It is also the actualization of the creative ideas which means innovation comes after manifestation of creativity. Organizations can take advantage of the creative resources such as the workforce to design and obtain an appropriate solution which can provide adequate return to the investment. Businesses have been urged to focus on innovation as opposed to creativity. There are many ideas in the world but actualizing them is the problem. Innovation will need some resources while creativity does not. Which shows that innovation is expensive and can only be undertaken with the good will of the organizational leadership?

Creativity is made through inspiration on the environment while innovation is actualized through structured process of implementation. Capitalization on the creativity can easily be made through the implementation of design thinking. It is at this level that many companies can see what they have been missing due to lack of support for the next move. Applied creativity in any organization must show the signs of reaching the innovation stage. Design thinking in essence also calls for ideal support for engaged leadership.

The other contrasting characteristic of innovation is that more leaders who are focused on success of various strategies implemented will go for it in many situations. They try to interrogate what is possible and what is not possible in their next course of action.

Why Innovation Came Out

Innovation came as a result of competition in businesses and the need to create an edge over others (Manzini, 2014). Every organization feels that they should do something in a different way to get the uniqueness in its products. This will serve as a brand identity of the organization while at the same time is being able to sell the products of their innovations. Innovation is also taking place due to the human being need to make life easier and better. The innovation of some mobile phones and computers by companies such as Apple Company can show how interest to make work simpler has led to innovation.

What Drove Creative Spark

Inspiration from the leaders can be able to effectively drive the essence of creativity in an organization (Weber, 2016). Inspiration can allow many of the staff members to think of new ways of offering better services to the customers if their previous ideas were bought and implemented by the leadership. It is worth knowing that creativity also comes from an enabling environment where an individual can have a space of thinking about new methods of doing things.

The process of turning creative sparks into innovations basically takes the commitment of resources to this cause. Creativity does not use any resources while innovation need resources .The difference is therefore the resources which the leadership puts in the process of actualizing those important ideas. Organizations commonly assign staff to teams which are trained to use design and good ideas in order to bring a new brand.

Nature of Innovations

The nature of old forms of innovations and the current ones differ in some ways. Formerly, innovations were synonymous with technology and the need for business to design new products for the growing population (Salter, & Alexy, 2014). Currently innovation has turned and its technological nature is used as an enabler of innovation rather than the driver of innovation. Organizations are currently using innovations to pursue various creative ways of persuading customers. Some other current nature of innovations are necessitated by the need to tap knowledge about customers, creating global networks of sourcing and collaborative networks, global issues and the problems relating to warfare.

Innovation’s Radical or Incremental Change

Innovation has been described as a radical process (Salter, & Alexy, 2014). The changes in the way things are done do not usually take a slow pace. It is a radical step.

Impact of Innovation on Customers, Organization and Employees

Innovation as described above is the actualization of the spark ideas. Innovations have made interactions between the customers and the organization too close thus increasing sales to the organization while on the other hand improving the speed at which customers can be able to find out more about the company (Weber, 2016). Customers are also able to benefit from high quality brands which are obtained through innovation. On the part of employees, the credit of major innovations always goes to the owner of the idea and the implementer. The exception is the collaborative innovations which usually targets a group or focuses on group innovations.

References

Manzini, E., 2014. Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30(1), pp.57-66.

Peris-Ortiz, M. and Adam, M.R., 2011. Creativity and innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 31(12), pp.1903-1905.

Salter, A. and Alexy, O., 2014. The nature of innovation. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, pp.26-52.

Weber, M.B., 2016. creativity and innovation. Library Resources & Technical Services, 60(3), p.138.