New Company Setup Checklist: Fill & Download for Free

Hundreds of necessary things, actually. I’ll rattle off a few from the top of my head:It is very hard to start a company without a cofounder, money, or a product or service you can sell for a profitUnless it’s a hobby, it is a full time job for all concerned. Part time founders don’t work outThe stress of a new company will ruin relations with a friend, spouse, or sibling coworker, but create new friendshipsThe startup life is not for most people. Most people don’t have the disposition, life goals, or situation that lets them work in a low pay high risk profession. No matter how great a candidate is, and how much money or ownership you offer, you will not succeed in recruiting, integrating, or keeping them if they are not startup minded.CEOs earn their position through competence and leadership, not by having the most money, stock, credentials, votes, or expertise.Once you have a taste of startups, it is hard for most people ever to go back to larger companiesNearly every startup that ever succeeds has one or more near-death experiences like running out of money, getting sued early, facing massive competition, a PR disaster, or having a key person leave.Get your legal setup and ownership straight, done by a competent lawyer, and in writingYou must study your market, your customers, and your competition, and not try to create brand new fields in a vacuum. Almost without exception, everything worth doing has somebody trying to do it. If you think you have no competition, you’re either mistaken or you’re doing something that nobody wants to buyAs a counterpoint to the above, it’s best not to try to beat the biggest and best companies at their own game. You must invent your own game that they cannot play, serving the same customer need ten times better, faster, or cheaper, by taking a different approach.Most everything can be copied. You have to be the best, not the first or the most clever.Everybody needs vesting, or some other exit planning made upfront before it is a concern, not at the time it happensNever run a company without a bookkeeping systemYou cannot have “volunteers”, unpaid interns, or people working on site full time who are not treated as employees, subject to all the labor lawsNearly all cities require a local business licenseIt is easy to fall into legal and business pitfalls when raising money. Get professional advice.Some products and services are regulated at the state and national level; others are illegal entirely. Think before you try to sell something.Early on, there is no room in a company for someone unless they are indispensable and at the top of their game.Later on, you need to make sure that any single person, including yourself, could leave, and it would not sink the company. Building companies and increasing valuation is as much about removing sources of existential risk as it is about increasing market penetration or profits.No amount of preparation or knowledge will teach you how to run a new business. The only way to learn is by doing.I highly recommend David S. Rose’s book, The Startup Checklist, for a step-by-step list of a few hundred other absolutely necessary things, geared to tech startups, including all of the practical things like setting up a bank account.

Considering that only 50% of sales reps meet or exceed quota [CSO Insights], it’s extremely important to get them onboarded and trained as quickly and efficiently as possible. Add in the fact that 42.5% of sales reps take 10 months or longer to become productive enough to contribute to company goals [Accenture], and turnover really becomes an issue. To prevent that, successful onboarding and ongoing training is paramount in a growing tech company.OnboardingThink from the new hire’s point of viewStart by putting yourself in their shoes. What are the typical questions most new hires have? There’s often a lot, but here’s some of the most common:1. What do I need to know? 2. Where is the information? 3. Who can I reach out to in order to get things done? 4. What are the processes involved?Put the onboarding process together with these questions in mind. If they’re inexperienced, dumb it down. Assume they know nothing. Keep it on a high level overview and get deeper into the product as the progress through training.Setup checklistCreate a setup checklist for any login credentials they’ll need: email, instant messaging, demo account, screen share, etc. Making sure they’re able to access everything they need from the start will prevent confusion.The main goal here is to make sure they have access to communication channels. We use Slack for our company chat. I highly suggest setting up a new hire channel where they can communicate with each other to ask questions. It will not only allow them to start getting familiar with Slack and their team, but it will also help them to ask and answer their own questions instead of relying on you.Introductory trainingOnboarding training is going to be different than your ongoing training. This is much more of a high level overview. Make this as specific as possible to what they’ll actually be doing on the floor. Give them tools they’ll use. Define everything. Acronyms for new sales reps can be confusing. Telling them they’ll need to track their KPI’s means nothing to them.Training & DevelopmentTest to teachI’ve found this highly successful because it is more hands on. If they’re going to be doing product demos online, setup a demo account for them to use and create a checklist of everything they need to know how to do. As they complete each task, have them take a screenshot of the steps they took to complete it or the final step to ensure they did it correctly. Create a quiz/test for them to take at the end / end of training.Utilize videosVideos have been found to be the most engaging tool for training. 92% of people will watch an entire video compared to only 78% when given a presentation. Be sure to discuss it after and have a comprehension check when finished.Listen to live and recorded callsOnce these reps are on the floor the best thing you can do is to hear them live and provide feedback at that time. Think of it like when a dog is trained. If he pees in the house and you discipline him 10 minutes later, he’s not going to know why he’s being disciplined; whereas if you do it as soon as he’s peed, he’ll know. For sales reps, the details of that call will never be fresher than right after it’s completed. Being able to coach and provide feedback immediately will help them gain a better understanding.Daily stand upWe do a morning stand up every day. We cover different sales psychologies, current struggles, things that are working, etc. It lasts 30 minutes and can cover almost anything. Sometimes we’ll spend 2 weeks on a topic, other times it’s just that morning. If the team is struggling to get through gatekeepers, one 30 minute training session isn’t going to help. They need ongoing training each morning to practice what they’ve learned, role play, etc. This is why it varies.Positivity & encouragementAs soon as you hear something good, let them know. So many new people in sales get discouraged. Build them up. Encouraging them when you hear something you like will also let them rest of the team know what you liked. Remember this is a process. Focus on that, not the end result. Too many simply look at the numbers every day and think about how far behind they are instead of remembering it takes time and the biggest goal with new, inexperienced reps is constant improvement.

This is the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) of India. Made exactly as per Indian Army (IA) requirements, it was ready for induction in late 1990’s, but IA suddenly changed its requirements and back to the drawing board it went. The IA wanted more heavy armor and much wider chassis, so the Indian defense research arm (Defense Research and Development Organization or DRDO) redesigned it and after several years gave it to the army to test. However, the army objected again, saying the tank was too wide and too heavy to be carried on railway wagons, despite the fact that the original requirements had come from the army itself.With the former head of DRDO (Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam) as the President of India, IA was forced to test it and not reject it outright. However, quite cleverly, the bureaucrats managing the procurement of IA, forced the IA to modify the test and created a checklist to compare it with Russian T-90, that India was considering purchasing at that time. T-90 is a much lighter tank and served a different purpose. The checklist was clearly manipulated to favor the T90, and did not include features that were Arjun’s core strength like highly effective Kanchan armor, crew protection features including air-conditioned compartment and its highly accurate Fire Control System (FCS).Obviously the Arjun did not look as good as the T-90 and deliberate news stories were planted in Indian media that Arjun tank is worthless and Indians are not capable of developing any weapons system. The news media was funded by several middlemen (Indian politicians, weapons dealers and Indian bureaucrats) who had a stake in IA purchasing the T-90 tanks. Arjun’s initial flaws, as with any newly introduced system, were overly exaggerated, in spite of DRDO’s excellent work in quick turnaround with issues reported by IA.The propaganda of the middlemen was so effective that even today well-meaning Indians and military enthusiasts believe Arjun is a crap tank. Needless to say, the IA went ahead and ordered 2000+ T-90s (a phased order totaling $3+ billion). Some percentage of this order, guessed around $350-500 million, went to several middlemen who brokered the deal. To compensate and console the ‘Made in India’ crowd a small order of 124 Arjun MBTs was made.Then there is this:The Indian New Small Arms System or INSAS rifle.This much maligned weapons system is the backbone of IA, Navy and Air force as well all para-militaries serving in India. Since INSAS is made in India, by the government, it implies a loss of $100-200 million dollars to middlemen as no order is made for a foreign weapons system.The middlemen with IA’s help tried their best to discredit the rifle initially, but IA and others were forced to buy it due to obsolesce of its FN-FAL rifles. After successive tries, the middlemen launched a massive media campaign with planted stories of how barrels cracked in Siachen (a common problem with any new high end rifle - later fixed by Ordinance Factory Board (OFB) by change in metallurgy), and how rifles jammed when firing. The news item did not contain information that even the most modern field rifles jam if not properly maintained. Even some ex-IA officers were roped in to discredit this weapons system.Another problem cited for INSAS was that it performs badly in Close Quarter Battles (CQBs) for which the forces preferred AK47. However, INSAS was a field weapon and its 5.56mm ammo (designed to injure, not kill) was not suited for CQB, very much like the any 5.56mm weapon with NATO ( e.g. M16) ,is not suited for CQB. However, the media kept on harping this to the naïve Indian public who did not know any better.Fortunately, orders kept coming. OFB even released a LMG version of INSAS which was loved by the infantry. INSAS also became the favorite rifle of Maoists and Islamic terrorists who will steal the weapons from police and para-militaries they ambushed. Lately all major ambushes on Indian para-militaries (mainly CRPF) by maoists have been carried with stolen INSAS rifles and some AK-47s. No one asked the question, that if INSAS was so bad why do Maoists prefer it in spite of AK47s and other weapons being more readily available in the black market ?The same stories and negative media stories were planted for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and other weapons. It is likely that the Indian Air Force (IAF) will send the LCA Tejas, to the same death spiral as it did to the HAL Marut (after ordering a few token squadrons, of course).And here is a catch, that no one in the public has asked:Why are there no negative stories on India’s nuclear weapons, its ballistic missiles and its SSBN’s (nuclear ballistic) submarines. For example, any coverage on LCA starts with:“The LCA project which has been going on for over 30 years and has sucked more than $2 billion over budget, is still far from deployment…”.However, a story on the Agni IRBM/ICBM does not start with:“The Agni missile which has been under development for over 35 years and has failed multiple times (in the past)… “.The story for Agni starts with:“The Agni V missile which can reach all parts of China was successfully tested…”. No negativity, only pride and positive feelings.Ever wondered why this is the case?This is because no other country will ever sell strategic weapons like nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and SSBN’s to India. The middlemen will never ever get to make a single penny from selling these weapons system to India, hence they never spend money on influencing the media on these weapons. Reporters have a free hand on reporting these news, unlike news for Arjun,INSAS etc where they are instructed by their bosses to report everything negatively, as the news media owners have been well paid to do that.No one asks another question: if India can developed ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and SSBNs why can’t it develop a tank or a even a simple rifle. Is development of a tank more complex than an ICBM ? Only a fool will think it takes more research & development and manufacturing ability to build a tank than an ICBM. The answer lies is in the deep rooted corruption in defense procurement of India.India builds its own cars, trucks, two wheelers, heavy vehicles, ICBM’s, nuclear weapons, large ships and SSBN’s but somehow, almost magically, India can’t build a tank and a rifle ? When you ask this question only then one realizes the deep rooted and massive degree of systematic corruption in defense procurement of India. Several generations of politicians, IAS officers and some military officers have become millionaires and even billionaires through defense deals done by India with foreign companies.Bottom line it that defense procurement in India is the goose that lays multiple golden eggs a year, and the stakeholders who get the golden egg will never let their goose being killed. Hence Indian developed and manufactured weapons will never be accepted and will always be viewed negatively. While there are several Indian made weapons which are defective but there is the know how and the skill set to fix the problem. But it will never be fixed, unless no other country decides to sell India that weapon. Several labs of DRDO will be allowed to rot as it fits the agenda of the stakeholders in arms import.Only labs which work on ballistic missiles or weapons which are not importable, will be allowed to flourish.Later Edit:Thank you all for the good feedback. Based on some of the excellent points raised by others here are some additions:1. It is indeed a sad fact that several labs of DRDO are gradually becoming defunct. It wont be far stretched to say that 50% of the DRDO employees are deadbeats, who are unemployable outside DRDO. These deadbeats are only interested in a secure government job. However, rather than being the source of the problem, this is another manifestation of the corruption in defense procurement. DRDO's research labs working on strategic projects (Ballistic missiles, rocket propulsion, MIRVs etc) are well funded , well managed and have highly capable people. Rest of the labs working on armored vehicles, explosives etc are rotting away, with very incapable management and high attrition. However, in spite of such adverse environments, these labs still posses some 5–10% high caliber and motivated people who carry forward all the work and are responsible for all notable achievements.The government is not doing anything to make the labs more potent and fix the problems, but remember that inaction is another form of deliberate action. These labs, which are allowed to rot, produce weapons systems that directly compete with weapons peddled by the arms suppliers. If these labs become effective, several $$$s lining the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats will go away. If the government wants, it can fix the issue in these labs by appointing a solid leadership team (like government has done in several PSU's, ISRO and other high performing government organizations), but that will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The only hope for DRDO to become even better than ISRO, is if all countries sanction India and refuse to sell it any weapons for at least 10 years, which is unlikely to happen (even in 1998 sanctions, after India’s nuclear tests, there was no major ban on weapons sales - subtly other countries also know that it is better to feed the fish, else Indians will learn how to fish)2. The arrival of private sector in defense production is good news, and the only hope for ramping up defense capability in India. The thirst of Indian politicians, IAS officers and military leadership for easy $$$s and other perks will not go away. However, the Indian private companies can also provide the $$s and assorted perks like call girls, foreign trips etc to the people involved in defense procurement. These $$s and perks will of course be less than those provided by international arms suppliers, which implies that expensive weapons systems like fighter aircraft, submarines, tanks etc will still go to foreign companies. However, lesser expensive weapons system like heavy vehicles, towed artillery, helicopters may go to Indian companies, if they play the game right.3. (Updated based on inputs from Pratesh Gandhi) The final say in procurement of defense system rests with Defense Minister (Raksha Mantri or RM) and finance ministry. The military leadership recommends which systems to evaluate and then buy. IAS and politicians (apart from RM) still have a huge say in deciding which companies are in running for selecting the defense system, by indirect influence and control over the defense setup. Importantly, the final price negotiations, for purchase and spare parts, is done by the bureaucracy. Across the world, it is usual practice to ‘bump’ the price in government contracts to allow for kickbacks.4. As per new NATO doctrine in the late 80s it was analyzed that injuring a soldier is more lethal to the enemy than killing one, as you have to expend other soldiers to carry the injured soldier. As per this doctrine, NATO moved to 5.56mm ammo, which have higher chances of injuring someone than killing. Indian Army, wanted to follow the same doctrine hence it asked INSAS to be a 5.56mm weapon, unlike AK 47 or FN FAL which are 7.62 mm weapons. Chances of survival from a 7.62mm ammo, especially at close range are low or nil.Credits:[1] All Image Credits, Wikipedia[2] Indian military information: The Consortium of Indian Military and Defence Websites :[3] Information on past defense scams: Various archives in the web, including india-today.com, timesofindia.com,