Module-2 Opportunity-based Entrepreneurs & Necessity-based Entrepreneurs

Necessity-Based Entrepreneurship

Necessity-based entrepreneurship describes ventures started because the founder has no other viable option for income or survival. Unlike the popular image of a visionary entrepreneur seizing an opportunity, necessity entrepreneurs are pushed into self-employment by circumstances: loss of livelihood, lack of assets, joblessness, or calamity.

This category was first systematically identified by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), a UK-based consortium that studies entrepreneurial activity across economies. When GEM studied India and other emerging economies, they found unexpectedly high rates of entrepreneurship — but most of it was not the “opportunity” type. It was driven by compulsion, not choice.

---

Characteristics of Necessity-Based Entrepreneurship

• Motivation: “Nothing else to do” — no job, no land, no assets.
• Entry: Low-skill, low-capital, informal. No registration, no bank loans, no formal employees.
• Nature: Typically micro-enterprises (street vending, small repair shops, vegetable selling, pan stalls).
• Replication: High degree of mimetism — copying existing models from nearby areas. This is a survival strategy, not a lack of innovation; it reduces risk and leverages known supply chains.

Key distinction: Opportunity entrepreneurs choose to start a venture; necessity entrepreneurs have to start one.

---

Microfinance as a Key Enabler

Microfinance — pioneered by Prof. Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh and Grameen Bank — has been a critical resource for necessity entrepreneurs. Small loans are given to groups; the group acts as collateral, ensuring high repayment rates. This allows people with no formal credit history or assets to access capital.

Exam tip: Microfinance is often cited as a driver of necessity-based entrepreneurship in developing economies. Remember the mechanism: group lending substitutes for physical collateral.

---

Challenges (Illustrated by Field Experiments)

A first-hand account of attempts to help rural women start papad and energy-bar ventures highlights the real difficulties of necessity entrepreneurship:

Papad Venture

Workaround: Masala-heavy papads sold to bars with low lighting — but this was not a scalable solution.

Energy Bar Venture

Outcome: Sold at a loss to schools (“buy one, get three free”). Each experiment was as hard as opportunity-based entrepreneurship.

Key insight: Necessity entrepreneurship is not “easy” opportunity — it faces the same operational, quality, market, and supply-chain challenges. The only difference is the starting motivation.

---

How Necessity Entrepreneurs Usually Start

1. Work in an existing similar establishment (e.g., a bajji stall) to learn the trade.
2. Understand suppliers, raw materials, and customer preferences.
3. Set up an identical venture in a new location — replication rather than innovation.

This mimetism minimises risk: the model is proven, and the only variable is location.

---

Key Takeaways

• Necessity entrepreneurs start because they have no other income source — not from a passion or identified opportunity.
• GEM highlighted this phenomenon in India and other emerging economies.
• Ventures are informal, unregistered, and often survival-oriented.
• Microfinance (e.g., Grameen Bank) provides group-lending capital as a substitute for collateral.
• Running a necessity-based venture is not easier than opportunity-based — it faces the same production, quality, and market hurdles.
• Mimetism (copying existing businesses) is a common, rational strategy for survival.

Exam tip: Contrast necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship on three dimensions: motivation, access to capital, and growth orientation.

Understanding Necessity-Based vs. Opportunity-Based Entrepreneurship

Necessity-based entrepreneurship is driven by circumstance — the entrepreneur has few or no alternatives and starts a venture to survive. Opportunity-based entrepreneurship is driven by a perceived market opportunity and the desire to scale. The two are not rigid categories; many necessity entrepreneurs can transition into opportunity entrepreneurs if conditions align.

The key insight: many Western necessity entrepreneurs eventually scale and become opportunity entrepreneurs because they have better access to government support, education, and cheaper finance. In India, the same attempts often stall due to resource constraints and family obligations (siphoning profits to educate siblings).

Prof. Bhagavatula’s Journey: Learning by Doing

His own experience is a case study in how necessity-based ventures fail and reveal critical principles.

The grand vision (failed): Write business plans for papad, pickle, coir → buy ingredients → rural women make → he sells → profit. Assumption: “the rest of the world is dumb; I’ve figured it out.” Raised funds through AID (Association for India’s Development), set up an “Enterprise Research and Marketing unit.”

The reality:

• Food ventures spoiled; friends avoided him.
• Wedding cards came out blotched; had to be redone.
• Young girls who were trained left after marriage.
• “Everything was wonderful on Excel” — but the real world was different.

What worked: Screen printing. Non-perishable, flexible timing. But the workforce (young unmarried girls) left. Lesson: work with women already married into the village (stable labour).

The pivot in thinking: “If I were to start again, I would go to a woman already making one kilo of papad and help her improve efficiency, buy better raw material, rebrand — rather than teach new skills from scratch.” This is the learning-by-doing, corridor principle (see below).

Key Lessons from Failure

• Craft vs. food: Craft can be sold anytime; food spoils. But food ventures, if they click, can scale faster (Vasanpoli, street food).
• Work with existing entrepreneurs, not beginners. Improve what they already do.
• Stay long enough to learn. You cannot plan success; it emerges through engagement.
• “The only way to learn is by doing.” Each failure teaches a boundary or a new corridor.

Amul and Lijjat Papad – The Gold Standards

• Created enormous wealth in rural areas.
• Most rural households still survive on milk (supported by microfinance via livestock).
• Amul now sponsors the Olympics; Nandini (Karnataka) sponsored cricket teams — clever signaling.
• Model: collective, decentralized production with central marketing.

Vasanpoli (Visakhapatnam)

• Started as a pushcart selling millet idlis in leaf pouches (tendu leaves stitched with coconut twigs).
• Used nostalgia and a unique name (“Vasanpoli” = old name for idli).
• Girijan Corporation gave him space; word-of-mouth spread (professors, officials).
• Pre-COVID, moved into a small kiosk; now has people asking for franchises — but he hasn’t deconstructed the model yet.
• Key: Food venture that clicked; imminently franchisable but not yet scaled.

The Cycle Repair Woman (rural Andhra)

• Husband died, leaving her with small children.
• Watched him repair cycles; with no other option, started doing punctures.
• Neighbours supported; someone advised moving to the main road; others suggested scooters, then motorcycles, then big vehicles (same logic: puncture repair).
• Bought land, built a pukka house; son started helping.
• Quote: “When your back is against the wall, you will just do anything.”

Dharavi Garment Worker

• Migrated from Bihar with no connections.
• Started picking up waste cloth for a garment maker.
• Learned the trade; after 7–8 years, the owner gave him ₹50,000 to start his own unit (contracting back to the original owner).
• Common pattern: ventures start at the very bottom; the former employer supplies the first capital.

Scaling Challenges Unique to Indian Necessity Entrepreneurs

• Capital cost is prohibitive: Interest rates of 24–36% mean servicing debt consumes a third of income.
• Family as a drain: The store supports siblings’ education/marriage; profits are pulled out for household needs rather than reinvested.
• Low formal education: In Europe/US, free quality schooling provides the conceptual tools to franchise and scale.
• High intelligence, but cautious: Successful attempts are rare; others observe failures and stay within safe boundaries.
• Government schemes exist but do not reach them effectively.

Emerging change: The internet gives visibility. Rameshwaram Café, Darshini chains, etc., are now widely known. Stories of scaling are becoming available, encouraging more necessity entrepreneurs to think big.

The Corridor Principle (Iterative Emergence)

Prof. Bhagavatula described entrepreneurship as “corridors” — you enter one, and then notice others that were invisible before. Business plans rarely survive contact with reality.

The cycle is continuous. You cannot plan the final outcome; you can only react to what emerges.

Fieldwork: How to Study Necessity Entrepreneurs

This is a core assignment: go talk to the local milk booth, chat stall, Kirana store owner, etc.

Essential approach:

• Be genuinely curious. Ask about the start, not the present. “What happened when they started? What difficulties did they overcome?”
• Talk during lean hours (e.g., Sunday afternoon). Do not interrupt busy times.
• Build trust. Visit multiple times; first answers are “official” (the version for police/officials). Deeper stories emerge after trust is established.
• Record with explicit permission (voice/video) — and ask beforehand.
• Take notes — what you asked, what they answered.
• Do not take family members the first time — go alone to appear approachable.

Why this matters: These ordinary ventures (milk delivery, chaat, cycle repair) are actual businesses with revenue. Example: a chaat vendor serving 100 customers/day (₹40/plate) = ₹4,000/day; weekends 200 = ₹8,000; cost of goods ~40%; net monthly ~₹1,00,000. By talking to them, you learn about industry logistics, survival tactics, and opportunity spaces.

---

Key Takeaways

• Necessity entrepreneurs start because they have no choice; opportunity entrepreneurs are pulled by market.
• Scaling in India is harder due to high capital costs, family demands, and lack of formal education.
• Failures are essential teachers — each tells you what corridor to avoid or explore.
• Successful necessity ventures (Amul, Lijjat, Vasanpoli) can create massive wealth; food ventures scale faster when they click.
• To understand them, talk to them multiple times, gain trust, and ask about their early struggles — not current success.
• The corridor principle: you only discover the next opportunity by engaging with the current one.

Distinction from Necessity-Based Entrepreneurship

• Necessity-based entrepreneurs start ventures because they lack job prospects or have lost employment due to circumstances beyond their control.
• Opportunity-based entrepreneurs start ventures by choice — they have clear career options but decide to pursue an opportunity instead.
• The plunge decision (the moment of committing to entrepreneurship) is driven by perceived opportunity, not survival.

Important nuance: Necessity-based ventures can grow very large, and opportunity-based ventures can remain modest. How the entrepreneur plays the game after the plunge matters more than the initial motive.

The Core Definition of Entrepreneurship

A clean, resource-independent definition:

Entrepreneurship = pursuing opportunities, although you don't have all the resources with you.

This definition avoids personality traits (passion, hustle, need for achievement). It frames entrepreneurship as a cognitive game — detecting weak signals, analysing whether an opportunity is real, and amplifying it into a viable venture.

Resource Constraints as an Advantage

A central insight: too many resources can be counterproductive.

Key principle: In entrepreneurship, you are more likely to "die of indigestion than of hunger." Resource constraints can be a strategic advantage when paired with different thinking.

Worked Examples

1. The Painter Who Cycled to Sweden (circa 1975)

• Resources available: Drawing skill (caricatures) + a bicycle.
• Resources lacking: Money, maps, foreign currency, visas.
• Strategy: Pedal west; earn local currency by sketching in marketplaces; rely on goodwill of strangers.
• Outcome: Reached Sweden, married his fiancée.
• Lesson: The combination of a modest skill and extreme determination can substitute for missing resources.

2. Mango Technologies vs. Qualcomm (2007–2008)

• Mango Technologies (small startup on Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore) aimed to build an operating system for low‑cost feature phones.
• Constraints: Could not raise venture capital; used revenue from IT services to fund product development; no elite team.
• Qualcomm (Fortune 500) had virtually unlimited resources, top engineers, proprietary chips.
• Pivot moment: At a conference, Mango’s founder demonstrated their OS to a Qualcomm engineer. The OS was solving problems Qualcomm’s own team hadn’t cracked.
• Outcome: Qualcomm invested $250,000 and shared chip technology.
• Lesson: A resource‑starved startup can out‑innovate a giant because constraints force different thinking — “playing chess” rather than throwing money at the problem.

Key Takeaways

• Opportunity-based entrepreneurs choose to start, whereas necessity-based entrepreneurs start out of limited options.
• The definition of entrepreneurship is pursuing opportunities without having all resources — a cognitive, not personality‑driven, activity.
• Resource constraints can be a creative accelerator; abundance can lead to inefficiency.
• Real‑world examples (cyclist, Mango vs. Qualcomm) show that limited resources do not prevent world‑changing outcomes.
• Success depends on cleverness, patience, and insight rather than initial resources or passion.

Opportunity-based vs Necessity-based Entrepreneurs: The OpenGrad Case

Entrepreneurial motivation falls along a spectrum from necessity-driven (forced by lack of alternatives) to opportunity-driven (pursued by choice to exploit a market gap). The OpenGrad Foundation founders, Sahil Sameer and Mohammed Shahid, exemplify the opportunity-driven entrepreneur — they identified a clear social problem, had viable career alternatives, and built a non-profit model by deliberate choice.

Intuition: What drives an entrepreneur?

• Necessity-based entrepreneurs start because they have no better option — unemployment, survival, or external pressure.
• Opportunity-based entrepreneurs start because they see a gap they can exploit — even when safe corporate jobs exist. They are pulled by the problem, not pushed by circumstance.

Exam tip: The key differentiator is choice — not the sector (for-profit vs non-profit), nor the outcome. An entrepreneur who leaves a high-paying job to solve a social issue is still opportunity-driven.

The Founders’ Motivation: Opportunity-driven

Both founders had clear alternatives:

They were not forced into entrepreneurship by necessity. Instead, they were pulled by:

• A personal trauma (universal Indian coaching struggle) that created deep empathy.
• A proven insight: mentorship (not just teaching) solves cognitive and emotional barriers.
• A belief in community (inspired by the KeralaRescue.in disaster-response platform).

Exam tip: Necessity entrepreneurship is more common in developing economies; opportunity entrepreneurship is linked to higher-growth ventures. OpenGrad is a classic opportunity-driven social enterprise.

The Business Model: Social Entrepreneurship as Opportunity

OpenGrad is registered as a Section 8 non-profit (India). This was a deliberate choice — not a fallback.

Why non-profit rather than for-profit?

• Trust – The coaching industry is “toxic”; a non-profit signals integrity.
• Volunteer motivation – Most volunteers give time because of personal trauma, not money.
• Decentralized future – Goal to hand control to the community via voting.
• Ease of access – Government and NGO partnerships easier as a non-profit.
• Revenue streams (for sustainability): philanthropic grants, CSR (after 2-year certification), white-labeling tools, cross-subsidization.

Key operational model:

• Mentors from top-tier institutes (1 mentor : 3 aspirants) – handhold, not teach.
• Content platform (LMS) – free video lectures, mock tests, practice questions for all.
• Volunteer management system (VMS) – track hours, issue certificates.

Worked Example: Scaling Proof of Concept

The approach: small cohorts → validate model → scale with partners. This reduces risk and allows tailoring per entrance exam.

Key Takeaways

• Opportunity-driven entrepreneurs choose to start despite having viable alternatives; necessity-driven entrepreneurs start due to lack of options.
• OpenGrad founders are opportunity-driven: both had corporate jobs, left by choice to solve a social problem.
• Social entrepreneurship can be opportunity-driven; non-profit status does not imply necessity.
• Personal trauma (shared experience of coaching struggles) is a powerful volunteer motivator.
• Scalable social ventures require a clear model (mentorship + free content), tech as an enabler, and strategic partnerships (government, NGOs, foundations).
• “Marry the problem, not the solution” — stay attached to the problem, pivot the solution as needed.

Opportunity-based Entrepreneurship: Case Study of Satya Sam (ZeOmega)

Opportunity-based entrepreneurs are driven by a perceived market gap, personal passion, and the desire to build something new — not by survival or lack of alternatives. Satya Sam’s journey from a middle-class Indian upbringing to founding ZeOmega, a multi‑million‑dollar health‑tech company, is a textbook example. This case study extracts the key entrepreneurial traits, decisions, and lessons from his interview.

Defining Opportunity-based Entrepreneurship

Intuition: An opportunity-based entrepreneur chooses to start a venture because they spot a chance to create value, innovate, or solve a meaningful problem. Satya Sam explicitly rejected the typical “wealth creation” path (raise money, plan exit, “bury 10 people”). Instead, he was driven by:

• Passion for open source technology
• Conviction to build against the herd (chose Python in 2001, avoided Microsoft for 10 years)
• Long‑term vision – 20+ years building a single product (Jeeva) instead of serial flipping

Exam tip: The key distinction is why the entrepreneur starts. Opportunity‑based entrepreneurs are pulled by a vision; necessity‑based entrepreneurs are pushed by circumstance. Satya Sam’s story illustrates the former.

Satya Sam’s Entrepreneurial Journey

Early Influences: The Foundation

The Spark: Identifying the Opportunity

While working at American Airlines, Satya Sam:

• Noticed they could repurpose old 386 machines by installing Linux to run automated tests for free.
• Asked the CIO why the company wasn’t adopting open source.
• Realised that healthcare was far behind in IT – “for them, software was basically Excel.”

“It’s that self experience that gives you the passion.” – Satya Sam

Building ZeOmega (2001 onwards)

1. Co‑creation with early adopters

   • Sent an email blast to independent case managers (nurses) offering free use of a workflow platform in exchange for help designing it.
   • Four nurses stuck; they became the first Subject‑Matter Experts.
   • Later, the first health‑plan customer (2006) became the Chief Nursing Officer of ZeOmega.

2. Open‑source conviction

   • Used Python and Linux when both were obscure.
   • Zero Microsoft software for the first 10 years.
   • Attracted unique talent (e.g., Jeff Rush, VP of Technology) who shared the open‑source philosophy.

3. Long‑term product focus

   • Built Jeeva, a population health management platform, over two decades.
   • Jeeva was rated #1 in its category for three consecutive years.

4. Global brand from India

   • Inspired by SAP (Germany, 75 M people) – argued that India (1 B people) could build world‑class products.
   • Motivated team: “We don’t need wooden ships to conquer; we have our minds.”

Present & Future: Becoming Their Own VC

• Buying out investors; using the wealth to fund new ventures (e.g., Jeevayush – elderly care in India).
• Expanding into integrated care combining traditional medicine (Ayurveda) with modern platforms.
• Adopting generative AI to augment clinicians (e.g., reduce documentation burden) rather than replace them.

Key Entrepreneurial Traits (From the Interview)

The Entrepreneurial Process: From Spark to Scale

Advice for Young Entrepreneurs

• Passion over hero worship – “not everybody can be Bill Gates.”
• Tempered expectations and healthy ego – learn the hard way, but be aware.
• Be selfless and listen – “you always have to have that habit of listening.”
• Leverage open source – examples: genetic medicine, herbal science, data aggregation services.
• Build IP from India – the country has the talent to build global products (SAP analogy).

Key Takeaways

• Opportunity‑based entrepreneurs proactively pursue a vision; Satya Sam’s driving force was open‑source conviction, not survival.
• Key enablers: a transformative mentor, co‑creation with early users, and a long‑term focus.
• He explicitly avoided the short‑term “wealth creation” mentality (raise money, exit).
• Building a global brand from India requires sophistication and investment in learning & development.
• Generative AI is adopted cautiously – to augment clinicians, not replace them – due to regulatory and personal‑touch concerns.
• New opportunities in India: elderly care, integrated traditional medicine, and data‑as‑a‑service using open‑source tools.