For the third consecutive year, Awesome Inc. employees and interns ventured outside of their comfort zone as they went on a team building trip to the outskirts of Lexington on a fall Sunday night.

The night was highlighted by a canoeing race as the staff was divided into two teams. Prior to the canoeing endeavor, flash light headbands were dispersed amongst the teams because trying to see without one, given the physical circumstances, would be like wondering through a maze blindfolded.

Each team had one practice run at trying to get into the canoe and figure out the best way to work with each other. To say that an overall sense of puzzlement clouded over the two teams, due to the fact that canoeing was a new concept to about half of all members, would be delicately put. But when it comes to survival, its sink or swim and even though meeting the bone chilling water face first in the near pitch black conditions only seemed inevitable, the two teams each worked together to develop on-the-fly strategies and member roles to ensure success despite the fact that failure was looming.

The successful night was capped off with conversation and s’mores around a camp fire.

When a businessman is looking at all the different things that need his attention and he then creates 'priorities', what distinguishes something of high priority and something of low priority on a practical level? The allocation of 'resources'. Higher priority initiatives get more 'resources' than lower priority ones.

But what does the word 'resources' mean? Well, it can mean a lot of things, like equipment, office space, marketing budget, staffing, etc. but they all boil down to two things: time and money. The equipment, office space, and marketing budget are all just different forms of spent or allocated to be spent money. The staffing is simply man hours. So, if you see a crazy awesome billboard for a pizza shop and then drive there to see that both the outside and inside are decked out like DisneyLand and you order a pizza and it tastes worse than a Little Ceasars cheese pizza with no spice pack, then don't let that owner tell you that his priority is 'high quality'. He can say it all he wants, but he's obviously put most of his time and money into the marketing and promotional aspect of his business. I'm not saying that is right or wrong – but those ARE the priorities of the business...not what it says on a plaque on the wall or what the owner tells you when you ask him.

The same thing goes with your life. If you want to know what matters to you most – look at your calendar and your bank statement. What are you spending your time and money, your 'resources' on? If it's not what you want it to be, then put some new things on your calendar and make some new purchases/investments/donations. If it is, then good for you. If it's not, though, and you don't plan on changing anything, then consider telling people your real priorities (the ones that you spend your resources on) instead of kidding yourself and them by saying what you think they want to hear. You'll just end up sounding like the guy with the DisneyLand pizza shop.

Entrepreneurial Communities, How to pitch a VC, Customer Development. These were a few of the topics that were discussed at the Techstars Network Conference in Las Vegas last weekend. This was a gold mine, for an entrepreneur in his 20's (since I turn 30 this week, I'm using that phrase excessively).

I plan to write separate posts on each of the topics above, but this post is about how Techstars is building a dynasty among startup accelerators while simultaneously lifting up accelerators nationwide.

In early 2011 Techstars decided to launch the Techstars Network - a group of independently owned and operated accelerator programs from around the globe. The network currently has about 35 programs participating. Not only is this network great for all of the participating programs, it has placed Techstars at the center of the accelerator space.

David Cohen, founder of Techstars, says this about the network:

"Over the next 3 years, the TechStars Network will ensure that 5,000 successful and experienced entrepreneurs and investors will mentor and support 6,000 promising young entrepreneurs, increasing their success rate tenfold and creating 25,000 new jobs by 2015 and a sustained engine for growing these figures over time."

I believe that the Techstars Network will accomplish all of that, as well as the following:

• Increase deal flow for all programs in the network - this helps all programs.
• Bring the overall quality of participating programs up significantly - this helps entrepreneurs.
• Secure Techstars place as the "Stanford" of accelerators for startup entrepreneurs - this helps Techstars.

So, that makes it a win, win, win, right? Ok, so maybe it's more like win, win more, and win the most, respectively for programs, entrepreneurs, and Techstars. But, how can you argue with a program that is benefiting all parties. It's brilliant. And to be honest, Techstars is doing plenty of other things right to be the number one accelerator.

As a participant of an accelerator (Betaspring, Providence, RI) this past summer, I've already witnessed some of the benefits of the network first hand. When my team started the application process, we went straight to the list of Techstars Network programs to decide where we wanted to apply. This essentially gave programs that weren't on this list a huge disadvantage. And, with the exception of Y Combinator, we didn't even consider applying to any accelerators that weren't in the Techstars Network.

One benefit to the network that was not in place at the time we applied was the Universal Application Process. Teams can now apply at accelerato.rs and fill out one application for all the accelerators to which they wish to apply. The application process allows for accelerators (even ones that aren't a part of the Techstars Network) to accept a standard set of accelerator application questions and even add custom questions if desired. The Universal Application is an initiative supported by the Kaufman Foundation, which will use aggregate data from applications for statistical purposes. Individual application information is private to the accelerator that owns the application. I would encourage all accelerators to use this application process as it saves entrepreneurs tons of time (our most valuable resource) and includes some great tools for acceptance selection.

I'm excited about all of the good that the Techstars Network will do for startups. I clearly remember one quote that David Cohen made at the event, "If it's good for the entrepreneur, then we support it". I genuinely believe that about David and Techstars. I'd like to thank them and every other initiative that is helping startup entrepreneurs across the globe.

Buzz words get on my nerves (and yes, I recognize the irony of that statement considering the Awesome Inc's three buzzword tagline - Technology, Creativity, Startups) . They so often indicate that the person using them hasn't actually practiced them, and more often than not they imply no real action. One of the buzz words I hear often not only gets on my nerves but I think whos value is overemphasized is 'collaboration'.

The idea behind it has the best of intentions:

• If our organizations have similar goals then why don't we just pool our resources to make an even greater impact.
•  If we get together then we can bring different ideas to the table and come up with something better than what we could have in the first place.

Now, I have no problem with people getting together to talk about ideas, etc. as long as it's not under the pretext that we're doing anything other than just talking...which is fine...there's nothing wrong with talking. The problem with collaboration, I think, comes in two forms:

• People get together to 'collaborate' on a project that is just a side hobby for both of them. They meet and the project ultimately goes nowhere. This is not a bad thing in some cases, as the meeting could ultimately result in making friendships, learning new skills etc. (i.e. Startup Weekend) but the argument could very easily be made that if 'progress' is the point – then perhaps those two people should have spent their time doing their own thing, which they know they will be sticking with, rather than trying to 'collaborate' on something that, because they don't own 100% (or for a myriad of other reasons) never comes to life.
• Collaboration slows people down or causes them to stifle their own desires and ideas because they are waiting for everyone else's approval and opinion. There is, of course, a difference between collaboration and consensus...but the two are not free of influence from each other. It may be politically difficult to go meet with someone saying you want to collaborate with them about something, but ultimately just take one idea of theirs and add it to what you are already doing and not actually create anything 'with' them. Though I think this is usually the ideal outcome of 'collaborating' with people, it isn't what people that come together to actually 'collaborate' actually think of...and some get offended by it.

Ultimately, anything that keeps you from doing your thing or provides you an excuse to not take action (like planning) for not doing your thing ("I'm waiting to hear back from so-and-so before I get started" etc.) I am adamantly opposed to.

The argument could also be made that the duplication of effort is inefficient in a global sense. While this may be true, the complete opposite, which is centralization and complete coordination of all efforts (also called "communism") is even more inefficient...because incentives are not aligned. I'd rather have a bunch of people running around passionately pursuing projects that are 30% similar, than all of those people being forced into doing one specific part of a project that has only 30% of their interest and effort.