There are various startup schemes and government grants provided by the government in Woodlands Singapore that you can benefit from. There are a number of business support grants for companies to help them overcome obstacles in their growth. Overall aim of these grants is to help businesses in capability upgrading and internationalization.
Government knows the important role that its startups and SMEs play in its economy and hence support these entities with business support grants. Financing is one of the most fundamental aspects of starting and growing your business. There are hundreds of government grants available for small businesses that help in saving money, lowering startup costs and helping grow your business.
Business support grants are small amount of seed money that further the goals of federal, state, or non-profit organizations. Unlike a loan, you don’t have to repay it. Most business support grants in Woodlands are awarded to help launch a start-up or new business, with the aim to generate jobs and stimulate the economy. There are fewer grants available for established businesses.
Six Types of Training and Development Techniques
Government can assist businesses in two ways- financial help and administrative support. Understand what government grants are available to businesses. Grants are available to sole traders, partnership, limited companies and social enterprises.
Now grants aren’t just government funded as more and more organizations develop grants program in Woodlands. Grants are now offered by government, private agencies, universities, corporations and humanitarians.
Business grants are available in all kinds of forms. Generally, business support grants are either a direct grant, equity finance or a soft loan. Direct grant is money given to your new business to cover startup essentials such as investment in equipment, training or reaching new markets. Equity finance, not strictly a grant, offers reduction in income tax on investment made in new businesses. Soft loans are actually loans with lower interest rates and more generous terms than other lending.
1.On-the-job Training and Lectures
The two most frequently used kinds of training are on-the-job training and lectures, although little research exists as to the effectiveness of either. It is usually impossible to teach someone everything she needs to know at a location away from the workplace. Thus on-the-job training often supplements other kinds of training, e.g., classroom or off-site training; but on-the-job training is frequently the only form of training. It is usually informal, which means, unfortunately, that the trainer does not concentrate on the training as much as she should, and the trainer may not have a well-articulated picture of what the novice needs to learn.
On-the-job training is not successful when used to avoid developing a training program, though it can be an effective part of a well-coordinated training program.
Lectures are used because of their low cost and their capacity to reach many people. Lectures, which use one-way communication as opposed to interactive learning techniques, are much criticized as a training device.
2. Programmed Instruction (PI)
These devices systematically present information to the learner and elicit a response; they use reinforcement principles to promote appropriate responses. When PI was originally developed in the 1950s, it was thought to be useful only for basic subjects. Today the method is used for skills as diverse as air traffic control, blueprint reading, and the analysis of tax returns.
3. Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI)
With CAI, students can learn at their own pace, as with PI. Because the student interacts with the computer, it is believed by many to be a more dynamic learning device. Educational alternatives can be quickly selected to suit the student's capabilities, and performance can be monitored continuously. As instruction proceeds, data are gathered for monitoring and improving performance.
4. Audiovisual Techniques
Both television and film extend the range of skills that can be taught and the way information may be presented. Many systems have electronic blackboards and slide projection equipment. The use of techniques that combine audiovisual systems such as closed circuit television and telephones has spawned a new term for this type of training, teletraining. The feature on " Sesame Street " illustrates the design and evaluation of one of television's favorite children's program as a training device.
5. Simulations
Training simulations replicate the essential characteristics of the real world that are necessary to produce both learning and the transfer of new knowledge and skills to application settings. Both machine and other forms of simulators exist. Machine simulators often have substantial degrees of. physical fidelity; that is, they represent the real world's operational equipment. The main purpose of simulation, however, is to produce psychological fidelity, that is, to reproduce in the training those processes that will be required on the job. We simulate for a number of reasons, including to control the training environment, for safety, to introduce feedback and other learning principles, and to reduce cost.
6. Business games
They are the direct progeny of war games that have been used to train officers in combat techniques for hundreds of years. Almost all early business games were designed to teach basic business skills, but more recent games also include interpersonal skills. Monopoly might be considered the quintessential business game for young capitalists. It is probably the first place youngsters learned the words mortgage, taxes, and go to jail.
How to Get Into an Apprenticeship Program
Many programs can assist small business to access professional advice and support in critical early stages of establishing a business. While there are a lot of grants available, getting a business support grant from the government can be a challenge. Government grants are often complex with lots of processes and stages, and each grant will have its own requirements and criteria for applying.
While being awarded a grant is winning, they are notoriously hard to acquire. Not only are grants programs highly competitive, they can take months to process. Aside from finding one you’d be eligible for, you have to compete with other companies for the same. The other downside is that grants usually come with specific instructions on how you can use the money.
A grant for companies in Woodlands Singapore can give your business a huge leg up and can be a great alternative to traditional finance. To apply for grants, first become familiar with the process. Eligibility for grants will vary depending on the grant in question.
Do your research. Identify programs that are a match for your business. Apply for the grant and submit eligibility requirements. Keep in mind that you’ll need to meet certain criteria to be eligible.
Innovation is about the networks among people, and more importantly, the interactions between those people. To be honest, that's not really what I had in mind, when I started thinking about this topic. When I started thinking about the failures I've had when it comes to legal technology and innovation.
I was thinking more along the lines of legal technology innovation being a full contact sport. Leading innovation and implementing new legal technology is hard work. You are going to make mistakes and you are going to feel beat up by the process.
When I work on these initiatives, I know I'm going to have to roll with the punches. I'm gonna share with you the story of a project that failed for us. The five mistakes that we made that led to that failure, and the lessons that we learned. Unfortunately, I can't tell you the project became a success. However, I can tell you that other projects which have followed have been successes because of this failure.
I have to keep the details confidential, and when I anonymized everything, I realized that this is a case study that could apply in any organization, across multiple different types of legal technology. A number of years ago, we embarked on a pilot of a new legal technology tool. We were introduced to the tool by one of our partners who thought we should check it out.
I was excited by its prospects, and we had a few lawyers who were willing to try it. Mistake number one - KM was the champion of this project. This was a huge mistake. It was not enough. Despite the fact that we had a partner who brought the technology to us that person did not have a vested interest in using it personally in his or her practice.
As a result, we did not have anyone standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us, telling their colleagues to use the application and why. When the project failed, KM was left holding the bag. As a result of this mistake, we have changed our approach. We now want one of two things in place before we start on anything new. The first is that we have someone, preferably a partner, who is willing to put their name to a project in a meaningful way. Or second, we have a critical mass of lawyers who are all interested in using the technology, such that we feel we have enough momentum to move forward.
It is incredibly frustrating to know that a new technology tool is out there that could make the lives of your lawyers more efficient, yet you just can't get the buy-in to move forward. No matter the temptation, you can't go it alone.
If the technology is not sparking interest, you are better off taking the time to find out why than pushing ahead. We saw several demos of the product and we asked a lot of questions. We really thought we knew what we were getting. Still, lots of technical issues came about, it couldn't do everything that we needed, and the lawyers did not think it was as easy to use as the vendor did. Mistake number two - we were wearing rose-colored glasses.
To be fair to the vendors working in this space, I don't think that anyone is trying to sell us snake oil. I actually think that a number of the problems and challenges that our technology vendors are trying to solve are really, really difficult; and we are difficult customers. We're slow to make decisions and we have very high expectations. However, for those of us trying to implement and use these new technologies, it is never ever as easy as we are led to believe.
My point is this, if you're trying a new technology, then be prepared. Plan for the fact that it probably will not work as you think it will. Plan for the fact that you can't anticipate every single use case, and plan for the fact that you will need to spend a lot of time with the vendor giving them feedback. Forging ahead with our pilot, we promoted the software, demoed it to practice groups and tapped individuals to try it. In all of these interactions we were enthusiastic, optimistic, and talked about how great the software would be.
Mistake number three - we did not anticipate failure. We treated the pilot of this new innovative software, the same way we treated pilots of established proven software.
Knowing that new technology is not going to be perfect, you need to manage expectations with the lawyers who are willing to try it. We now communicate in a way that sets the stage for possible failure. There's a fine line we walk between selling, in order to get pilot participants, and also being realistic with them, that trying out the software will require effort on their side. We also support them in ways that we don't, for proven software. We also give them lots of kudos for participating, because they are guinea pigs and they are taking one for the team.
As I noted, this was a new technology product, while a couple of firms were using it, we would certainly be an early adopter. Some of the functionality was not quite ready, but the vendor promis edit would be released during the pilot.
Mistake number four - bad timing.
Our timing was terrible, it was way too early for anyone to be trying this software. If being an early adopter gives you a competitive advantage, then it makes sense. Otherwise, if you do not have the time and the patience and the resources to be an early adopter, you need to think twice. I am now quite prepared to let others go before us. Do the hard work with the vendor, iron out the kinks, and then we will start using it. This is really, really difficult for those of us working in this area. Standing on the sidelines while others are trying new technology that we think can help our group, and we're always anxious to get our hands on it.
But, understanding and appreciating the culture, and what drives the business models of our organizations is really important. As with most of our pilots, someone on the KM team was responsible for arranging the demos and the training, working with IT to install the software,testing the tool and finding pilot participants. This is a successful proven approach that has worked for us in the past. But it didn't work in this case and we weren't sure why. We had trouble finding pilot participants. Those who tried it, didn't really like it. What was worse, was that those who tried it said it made them less efficient. This was a terrible result for an innovative legal technology tool. Mistake number five - under estimating the importance of people and processes. New legal technology tools that embed legal knowledge or legal processes, often require lawyers to change the way they work, in order to take full advantage of the software. If you don't change the way you work, or approach your work, the software may not help, and in fact, it might hinder your existing ways of working. Successful pilots and implementations of these new technologies must take that into account. One of the key takeaways that has informed our innovation efforts going forward, is that these tools are not like other technology tools that we have in the firm. They are designed to be used by lawyers, but not on a day to day basis.
We need to have the people resources to support the lawyers in using these tools,in order to make the most of them. As I said, I would like to tell you that this project ended up being a success, but it was not.
It was a failure,full stop.
We kept at it for about six months before we threw in the towel, gave up and turned it off. I know we all talk about being agile and failing fast; but when you work in an organization where there are professional, ethical and legal obligations that are core to the services you provide, failure is not something that really happens. So having a project that failed, and explaining that failure, was an interesting experience. The lessons we learned have set us up for success in projects that have followed.
Lesson number one - don't go it alone. Look for that key champion or make sure you have a critical mass of lawyers who are prepared to back the project.
Lesson number two - be realistic about what you're getting into. Using brand new technology is not for the faint of heart. How much tolerance do you and your organization have to be early adopters?
Lesson number three - manage expectations. Prepare participants that getting up the learning curve will take time. Prepare management that the project may fail.
Lesson number four - sometimes it's just better to wait.
And lesson number five - it's not really about the technology.
There is a reason that that phrase goes,"people, process and then technology.
I hope that by sharing these lessons learned, you will make different mistakes. And if you are feeling a bit beat up by legal technology and innovation, it means you are probably doing something right, and you are actually making progress. My only advice is to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and keep at it.
Each scheme is different. Check you meet the general terms and conditions. Talk to the grant body to assess chances of success. Read grant objectives carefully. Have a great business plan.