So Elizabeth doesn’t believe in a back-up plan; that’s interesting since her primary plan implementation went so poorly. I am a firm believer in contingency planning, we are taught this at business school as this is a prudent strategy. I am adding a few comments to a post I found in the archives, this is not a good look for the Stanford Business School, but to be fair, this is not representative of Stanford values.

Of course, as Elizabeth’s plan was to defraud investors, shareholders and financiers of their funds, this was her one and only plan. Dubbed as the female Steve Jobs, Elizabeth Holmes was seen as a new and brash entrepreneurial leader of the new economy. She even dressed like Jobs, she had a board consisting of high profile members including Henry Kissenger, George Shultz, William Perry and James Mattis.

However, as the dot.com tech crash of the early 2000s proved, investors need to actually analyse assets, cash flows, capital requirements and ultimately if the idea is viable. Elizabeth was a highly visible salesperson, I am loathe to use the term entrepreneur as she really didn’t display the attributes of a genuine and ethical innovator. We all love new ideas and technology, but one needs to be releastic here, science and engineering is based on logic – this was neither.

Possibly the original proposal was to develop a full range of blood tests from a single drop of blood. However, when it became clear the proposition was not viable, development halted, a press release organised and the company embarking on new research. I don’t believe the market punishes companies too harshly when a concept is proven to be non-viable, the company needs to regroup and reallocate research funds to more viable projects. This is the start-up culture, not every business idea is a winner, but the integrity of the enterprise ensures future opportunities.