BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

Launched in 2016 as a joint venture between a major Chinese real estate developer and a Malaysian partner backed by the Johor state government, this artificial-island megaproject in southern Malaysia was pitched as one of the most ambitious urban developments in the world: vertical gardens, smart infrastructure, and eco-luxury towers built on reclaimed land just a short crossing from Singapore, designed to eventually house 700,000 residents. Much of the early sales strategy leaned heavily on mainland Chinese buyers, marketed as an accessible foothold near one of Asia’s most expensive property markets.

The bet on Chinese buyers became the project’s undoing almost as fast as it became its foundation. Beijing tightened capital controls on money leaving the country, shutting off much of the buyer pool the development had been built around. The Covid-19 pandemic then froze cross-border property tourism entirely for two years. And starting in 2023, the parent developer’s own finances collapsed under a broader Chinese property-sector debt crisis, with the group reporting billions of dollars in losses and defaulting on debt obligations globally — instability that inevitably bled into confidence around its flagship overseas project. Local staff numbers were cut through repeated rounds of layoffs, falling by some estimates from around 1,700 in 2019 to a few hundred within a handful of years. By 2024, independent reporting put the island’s actual population at roughly 2,000 residents — mostly maintenance staff — inside infrastructure originally built for hundreds of thousands, with thousands of residential units still unsold.

Rather than let the project die quietly, the Malaysian federal government chose to intervene directly. In January 2025, the prime ministers of Malaysia and Singapore signed a long-negotiated special economic zone agreement covering the wider Johor-Singapore border region — and the ghost-town development was handed a headline role within it, designated as a standalone “Special Financial Zone” offering corporate tax rates as low as zero to 5%, a flat 15% personal income tax for knowledge workers, tax exemptions running up to 20 years, and fast-tracked licensing for foreign financial institutions setting up branches there. The pitch flipped almost overnight: a project once sold to Chinese homebuyers as a lifestyle destination was being re-sold to global family offices and fintech firms as a tax-efficient base a few minutes from Singapore’s border.

Early signs of the shift are real but still modest. Company representatives disputed the “ghost town” framing well before the tax-zone announcement, insisting occupancy had grown to over 10,000 residents by some counts and that millions of tourists visited annually — figures that sit awkwardly next to independent reporting describing empty boulevards and half-full towers as recently as 2024. The zone’s backers, including Malaysia’s monarch, have thrown political weight behind the plan as a flagship initiative for the state’s economic future. Whether family offices and fintech firms actually show up in numbers large enough to fill towers built for hundreds of thousands of residential buyers remains, as of today, an open bet rather than a proven turnaround.

What makes this story worth watching isn’t just the scale of the original miscalculation — a $100 billion city built on a single, unhedged assumption about one buyer nationality’s continued access to capital. It’s the audacity of the second act: a government essentially trying to rescue a failed residential mega-development by rewriting its entire purpose, mid-construction, into something almost unrelated to what it was originally sold as.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. When a $100 billion project is built almost entirely around one narrow assumption — sustained capital outflow from a single foreign buyer market — is that ambition or just concentrated risk dressed up as vision? What would a hedged version of this bet have looked like?

2. Can a government-backed tax-zone designation actually reverse years of empty towers and eroded buyer confidence, or does it just delay the reckoning by giving the story a new headline to run on while the underlying occupancy problem persists?

3. If the same physical development can be re-marketed from “eco-luxury residential city for 700,000” to “tax-free financial hub for family offices” within a few years, what does that say about how much substance was really behind the original vision — versus how much was simply whatever story would sell fastest at the time?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

This Indonesian marketplace was, for over a decade, a genuine national success story — a homegrown e-commerce platform that merged in 2022 with the country’s dominant ride-hailing and payments super app to form one of Southeast Asia’s largest listed tech groups. But the combined group never found a clean path to profitability, and by 2023 Indonesia had banned social commerce apps from running transactions directly on their platforms, cutting off a Chinese short-video giant’s local shopping arm from its biggest growth channel in the country.

The two problems solved each other, on paper. In January 2024, the marketplace’s parent agreed to sell 75% control of its e-commerce arm to the short-video company for roughly $840 million, with a pledge of over $1.5 billion in further investment — legally routing the video platform’s shopping features back onto Indonesian screens through the marketplace’s own storefront, now majority-owned by someone else. The parent kept a minority 24.99% stake and framed the deal as a lifeline: fresh capital, a resolved regulatory headache, and a foreign partner with deep pockets.

What followed was a slow, repeated hollowing-out of the workforce that had built the marketplace in the first place. Roughly 450 employees — about 9% of the combined headcount — were cut within months of the deal closing, in mid-2024. More cuts followed in July and August 2025, another 420 roles gone across IT, customer service, fulfilment and warehousing. A flagship in-house logistics service, modelled on a well-known Western “fulfilled by” programme and built up since 2022, was shut down entirely in August 2025, its staff laid off along with it. Then, in July 2026, more than 450 additional technology-division roles were cut in a single round. By the parent company’s own annual filings, the marketplace’s headcount fell from over 7,500 employees in 2023 to roughly 3,300 by 2024 — and outside estimates now put total combined headcount at around 10% of what it was before the foreign takeover.

Through every round, the original Indonesian parent’s public position has been almost identical: the layoffs are a routine restructuring decision made entirely by the marketplace’s own management, and because the parent no longer consolidates the marketplace’s financial results — accounting for its minority stake using the equity method instead — the cuts have no material impact on its own earnings. That framing is technically accurate and strategically convenient: it lets the founding company collect ongoing service fees from a platform it helped build, while distancing itself from every headline about the jobs being lost inside it.

The deal did what it was designed to do. The regulatory ban was resolved, the marketplace kept operating, and the parent group posted its first-ever quarterly net profit in early 2026, helped along by strong lending growth elsewhere in the business. But the marketplace that carried the founders’ original ambition — the one that made Indonesian e-commerce a homegrown story rather than an imported one — now operates as a shrinking outpost inside someone else’s global platform, its Indonesian workforce reduced round after round, with the company that built it collecting a fee on the way out.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. When a founding company gives up majority control to solve a short-term regulatory and cash problem, at what point does that trade stop being a rescue and start being a slow-motion exit from the business it built?

2. Is it fair for a parent company to say layoffs at a platform it co-founded and still profits from “aren’t material” to its own results, simply because an accounting method changed how the numbers are consolidated? The distance is real on a balance sheet — is it real anywhere else?

3. Can a marketplace built on national identity and homegrown pride survive as a minority-owned, steadily shrinking outpost of a much larger foreign platform — or does something essential about what made it valuable get lost once control passes to someone optimising for a different company’s global strategy?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

In mid-2019, a South Korean food delivery giant — the country’s largest, with a majority stake held by a German food-delivery multinational in a deal valued at roughly $4 billion — entered Vietnam by acquiring a local player and rebranding it under its home-market name and mascot: a plump, lovable cat character and a green-hatted delivery rider that quickly became recognisable across Ho Chi Minh City and beyond. It wasn’t just a food app. It layered on grocery shopping, an online store, and cosmetics sales, expanding to roughly ten Vietnamese cities and building a genuinely warm brand identity that Vietnamese customers, by most accounts, actually liked.

Liking a brand and choosing it every day turned out to be two different things. By 2022, independent market researchers estimated the platform held just 12% of Vietnam’s food delivery market, dwarfed by two much larger regional rivals controlling roughly 45% and 41% respectively. Executives quietly began scaling back operations in the third quarter of 2023. By September, staff were told operations would shrink; by November, the company confirmed the whole Vietnamese business was closing; and on 8 December 2023, the app went dark for good, citing “intense competition” and difficult global economic conditions. The parent company’s chief executive later admitted the Vietnamese unit had never once turned a profit in over four years of trying.

The most telling detail didn’t arrive until 2026, more than two years after the app itself disappeared. Corporate filings in the parent’s home market revealed the Vietnamese legal entities — including a retail arm launched to handle groceries and a technology subsidiary — were only now being formally liquidated, with the local operation’s accounts still showing negative net assets and a widening capital shortfall as of 2025. In corporate terms, the brand had been dead for years before its paperwork caught up.

What makes this exit worth studying isn’t the amount of money lost, though it was substantial. It’s the gap between brand affection and market share. This wasn’t a company nobody liked — the cat, the messaging, the tone all landed with Vietnamese consumers in a way many foreign entrants never manage. But two entrenched local-and-regional rivals had already locked up more than 85% of the market between them by the time the newer entrant tried to break in, and no amount of charming mascot work could out-discount platforms that could out-subsidise every ride and every meal. By the time the exit was announced, Vietnam’s food delivery market had grown to be worth billions of dollars a year — the newer entrant simply wasn’t going to get a meaningful slice of it.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. If a brand people genuinely liked still couldn’t win meaningful market share after four years and heavy investment, was the problem the brand at all — or a market structure where two entrenched incumbents had already made profitability nearly impossible for a third player to reach?

2. Why did it take until 2026 — more than two years after the app itself shut down — for the underlying Vietnamese legal entities to be formally wound up? What does that say about how quietly international companies can exit a market compared to how loudly they enter one?

3. In a food delivery market where the leading two platforms already control over 85% share, is there ever a viable path for a well-funded new entrant to compete on brand and product alone, or does winning now simply require matching the incumbents’ subsidy spending — a game only the deepest pockets can play?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

For roughly a decade, the chairwoman of one of Vietnam’s largest privately held real estate groups is alleged to have used thousands of shell companies and ghost borrowers to funnel money out of a joint-stock commercial bank she secretly controlled, despite Vietnamese banking law capping any single shareholder’s stake well below the roughly 90% ownership prosecutors say she actually held. Loans were approved for entities that existed mostly on paper, backing property developments and business ventures tied back to her own conglomerate.

The scale, once investigators added it up, was almost incomprehensible: around $12.5 billion in direct embezzlement, and total damage to the bank estimated at $27 billion — a figure equivalent to roughly 6% of the country’s entire GDP in the year the case went to trial, and larger than the amount at the centre of the collapse of a major Western cryptocurrency exchange the same year. Around 42,000 ordinary depositors and bondholders were identified as victims, many of whom had put their life savings into what they believed were safe bank products, only to find themselves unable to withdraw funds or receive interest once the scheme unravelled and the bank was placed under special control.

Her arrest in October 2022 triggered something rare in the country: public protests outside bank branches in two major cities, an unusual sight in a one-party state where open demonstrations are tightly restricted. The case moved through the courts over the following two years, culminating in an April 2024 verdict: death, for embezzlement, plus twenty years each for bribery and banking-law violations. Her husband, a Hong Kong businessman also swept up in the case, had his sentence reduced on appeal from nine years to seven. Dozens of co-defendants — bankers, regulators, and a former central-bank official who admitted taking one of the largest bribes ever recorded in the country — were sentenced alongside her.

She didn’t stop at one trial. Months later, she was back in court on a second set of charges: fraudulently raising roughly $1.2 billion from tens of thousands of bond investors through a web of companies, on top of allegations of laundering $18 billion and moving $4.5 billion illegally across borders. In November 2024, her appeal against the death sentence was rejected outright, with the court finding no basis to reduce a punishment attached to losses it described as having “extremely serious consequences.” Under the country’s law, that death sentence can still be commuted — but only if she repays roughly three-quarters of what was taken, an amount her defence team says is tied up in frozen assets and properties that are difficult to liquidate quickly.

What makes this case land so hard isn’t just the dollar figure, staggering as it is. It’s the mechanism: a private conglomerate effectively captured a licensed bank from the inside, turned it into a personal financing arm, and kept the scheme running for a decade before anyone with regulatory authority caught it — while tens of thousands of ordinary savers had no way of knowing the institution holding their money had already been hollowed out.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. How does a single shareholder secretly control roughly 90% of a licensed bank — nearly six times the legal ownership cap — for a decade without banking regulators, external auditors, or credit-rating processes catching it? A control breach this large surviving this long is a systemic failure, not an isolated one.

2. Should a maximum penalty like a death sentence be conditional on financial restitution — effectively letting the severity of the punishment be negotiated after the fact based on how much money can be recovered? What does that say about what the sentence is actually meant to achieve?

3. When 42,000 ordinary depositors lose access to their savings because a bank was secretly captured by one shareholder, who bears responsibility for making them whole — the state, the bank’s remaining assets, or a recovery process that could take years to resolve?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

Founded in Singapore in 2015, this fashion e-commerce and supply-chain platform grew fast enough to attract more than $300 million from some of the region’s most respected investors, including a state investment fund and a top-tier venture capital firm. By 2019, it was approaching a $1 billion valuation, and its young co-founder and CEO had become a poster child for Southeast Asian tech — one of the first women from the region’s startup scene to reach that kind of paper wealth.

The story turned in March 2022, when the board suspended the CEO pending an investigation into financial irregularities flagged after the company tried to raise new funding. A forensic accounting firm was brought in. Fifty-one days later, in May 2022, the board fired her “for cause,” citing the results of that investigation — a decision she immediately and publicly disputed, calling it a coordinated campaign against her and describing herself as devastated and afraid.

What came out over the following months was messier than a standard startup blow-up. The company’s lenders, spooked by the turmoil, recalled their entire outstanding loan, forcing the board to bring in a financial adviser just to assess its options. By January 2023, the company had entered formal liquidation. Its technology assets were eventually sold off to a Swiss buyer for a fraction of what investors had put in. The ousted CEO, for her part, filed her own police complaint in India against a co-founder and a former chief operating officer, alleging fraud, intimidation, and harassment — a countersuit that turned the collapse into a very public, very bitter dispute over who had actually wronged whom.

Most corporate collapses fade from the news within a year. This one hasn’t. The former CEO relocated, rebuilt a new identity as an investment firm founder focused on frontier technology sectors, and largely moved on from the public eye — until late 2025, when a fresh criminal complaint was filed against her and the original company entity, reopening the financial-irregularities question in a criminal rather than corporate context, more than three and a half years after her firing.

What makes this case worth studying isn’t just the size of the collapse — plenty of startups burn through investor capital and disappear quietly. It’s how completely the reputational and legal fallout has refused to resolve. Three and a half years on, there is still no clean, agreed-upon account of what actually happened inside the company — only competing versions from a founder who says she was scapegoated and a company, since liquidated, that said she was the cause of its downfall. In the vacuum, the story just keeps generating new headlines.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. When a fast-scaling startup collapses amid fraud allegations, whose account should the market default to trusting — the board that commissioned the investigation, or the founder who was never shown the full findings before being fired? Both incentives point toward self-interest.

2. Why did investors with the scale and sophistication of a state investment fund and a top-tier venture firm miss the financial irregularities for years, only for them to surface once a funding round forced closer scrutiny? Due diligence that only tightens under funding pressure isn’t due diligence — it’s a fire drill.

3. Can a founder’s reputation ever fully recover from a public firing “for cause,” even years later and even if the legal outcome is eventually unresolved or favourable to them? Or does the accusation itself become the permanent record, regardless of what a court ultimately decides?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

In November 2021, one of Singapore’s largest banks suffered one of the worst digital outages in its history — a two-day disruption to mobile and online banking caused by an access-control server issue. Three months later, the city-state’s financial regulator responded by forcing the bank to set aside roughly S$930 million in additional regulatory capital, a rare and pointed form of public punishment for a bank that had, only months earlier, been named the world’s best digital bank by a leading finance publication.

That should have been the low point. It wasn’t. In March 2023, the bank’s digital services went down again — a ten-hour outage that forced branches to extend their hours to cope with the overflow of customers who couldn’t transact online. Just five weeks later, in May 2023, it happened a third time, this time also knocking out ATMs. The regulator’s response was blunt and unusually public: it called the repeated disruptions “unacceptable,” raised the bank’s additional capital requirement to a total of roughly S$1.6 billion, and — highly unusually — placed a six-month freeze on the bank’s ability to acquire new businesses or make non-essential changes to its IT systems, a corporate timeout that ran from November 2023 to April 2024.

The bank apologised each time. Its chief executive absorbed a 30% pay cut, worth several million Singapore dollars, and the wider management committee took a collective 21% reduction, framed as accountability for the outages. The bank committed a special S$80 million budget to fixing the underlying technology and mapped out a resilience roadmap that it said would take up to two years to fully implement.

Then, two days after the regulator’s freeze was lifted in April 2024, the app went down again — this time for less than two hours, but the timing was almost impossible to script better if you were trying to make a point about whether the fixes were actually working. And the pattern didn’t stop there: in March 2025, an overnight outage locked customers out of mobile banking, online banking and ATMs for hours; two months later, in June 2025, a second 2025 outage hit mobile banking again. By one industry estimate, the bank has now suffered at least nine major digital disruptions since 2021 — including one single incident in October 2023 that alone blocked an estimated 2.5 million payment and ATM transactions.

What makes this saga notable isn’t that a bank had an outage — every digital bank eventually will. It’s the gap between the accountability theatre and the actual outcome. Executive pay cuts, apology statements, an S$80 million technology budget, a formal regulatory timeout, and a public repair roadmap all happened — and the outages kept happening anyway, on a timeline that made a mockery of the bank’s own “resilience roadmap.” Even as the disruptions continued, the bank’s chief executive’s total pay rebounded to roughly S$17.6 million in 2024, a 14% increase from two years earlier, on the back of record bank profits — a detail that has not gone unnoticed by customers stuck outside a broken ATM at 2am.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. When a company pairs genuine accountability measures — pay cuts, regulatory bans, big remediation budgets — with a problem that keeps recurring anyway, what does that say about whether the root cause was ever correctly diagnosed in the first place?

2. Should executive compensation really be allowed to rebound to record highs while the exact problem that triggered the pay cuts is still unresolved two years later? What does that signal about where accountability really sits?

3. At what point does “world’s best digital bank” stop being a badge of technological leadership and start being a target on your back — a promise that makes every future outage a bigger story than it would have been for anyone else?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

At its peak in 2021, this US-based consumer genetics company was worth more than $6 billion. It had gone public through a blank-check merger, built a database of tens of millions of customers’ genetic profiles, and positioned itself as the company that would turn spit-in-a-tube curiosity into a real healthcare business. Four years later, it filed for bankruptcy, its founder stepped down as CEO, and its stock — once trading above $300 a share — was worth pennies.

The unravelling started with a breach, not a balance sheet. In the second half of 2023, attackers used credential stuffing — reusing passwords leaked from other websites — to break into a slice of customer accounts. Because the platform let users see genetic relatives, that initial access fanned out into nearly 7 million people’s data, including specially curated lists targeting customers of specific ethnic backgrounds. The company spent weeks downplaying the scope before admitting, in December 2023, the true scale of what had been taken: names, birth years, relationship labels, and in many cases raw ancestry results.

What followed was not a quick settlement and a return to business as usual. A $30 million class-action settlement was reached in September 2024 — and it barely mattered, because six months later the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy anyway, dragging the settlement into a court-supervised claims process that is still being resolved more than a year later. In between, the entire board resigned over strategic disagreements with the founder-CEO, the company laid off roughly 40% of its staff, shut down its drug-discovery unit, and burned through three chief financial officers in its final year as an independent company.

The founder never really let go. After stepping down as CEO the same day the bankruptcy was announced, she spent months publicly arguing she should be allowed to buy the company back, eventually partnering with a private-equity firm on a bid that valued the whole business at just $75 million — a rounding error next to its old $6 billion peak. A rival nonprofit research entity ultimately won the bankruptcy auction in mid-2025 for around $300 million, and the company’s original legal identity was formally renamed, erasing the consumer brand from its own corporate paperwork even as the product name lives on under new ownership.

For customers, the most uncomfortable part of the whole saga has nothing to do with the stock price. It’s the fact that genetic data — unlike a password or a credit card number — cannot be reset. Regulators in two other countries spent over a year investigating the breach and, even after the bankruptcy sale closed, were still writing to the American bankruptcy court to insist that customer genetic data be handled according to privacy law, not treated as just another asset on a balance sheet to be auctioned off.

The breach didn’t kill the company by itself. What it exposed was a business that had scaled a mountain of irreplaceable, deeply personal data faster than it had built a sustainable way to make money from anything else. Once trust in the data’s safety cracked, there was no second product line strong enough to hold the company up.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. When a company’s core asset is data that can never be changed or reissued once it’s stolen — genetic data, biometric data — does “we’ll pay a settlement” ever really make customers whole? Money can compensate for a breach; it can’t undo one.

2. Why did a company with a $6 billion valuation and tens of millions of customers never build a second revenue engine sturdy enough to survive a crisis in its first one? Betting a business on a single, trust-dependent product line is a strategic choice, not bad luck.

3. Should the founder who was in charge when a company’s most sensitive customer data was breached be allowed to buy that same company — and that same data — back at a fire-sale price once it collapses? Where should that line sit?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

BY MIHF | 31 AUGUST 2026

Five days into 2024, a narrow-body passenger jet climbed out of Portland, Oregon, carrying 177 people. Ten minutes later, at roughly 16,000 feet, a rear-cabin door plug — a fuselage panel used to seal an unused emergency exit — tore off mid-air. Oxygen masks dropped. Phones and headrests were sucked toward the gaping hole. The pilots turned the plane around and landed safely. Nobody died. But the incident cracked open something the company had spent half a decade trying to convince the world was already fixed.

This was not a new story. The planemaker had already lived through the worst five years of its century-long existence: two fatal crashes of an earlier version of the same jet family in 2018 and 2019, which killed 346 people combined, grounded the fleet worldwide for nearly two years, and cost the company its reputation as the gold standard of aviation safety. By 2024, the company’s leadership had spent years telling regulators, airlines, and the flying public that the culture had changed — that safety now came before schedule, before cost, before shareholder pressure.

Investigators found otherwise. A preliminary probe discovered the door plug had been removed at the factory for rework and then reinstalled without the four bolts required to hold it in place. Nobody could say for certain who did it, because the company had no reliable paper trail of who performed the work. When the safety regulator’s final report landed in mid-2025, it did not describe a one-off mistake. It described inadequate training, inadequate documentation, and a factory floor that had come to rely on a single, unrecorded human action to keep a passenger door attached to a moving aircraft. The regulator’s own oversight of the manufacturer came in for criticism too.

The fallout compounded through 2024 in ways that had nothing to do with metal and bolts. The regulator capped how many of these jets the company could build each month until it could prove its quality-control process actually worked — a production ceiling that squeezed the company’s cash flow just as it was trying to recover. Airlines that had ordered dozens of the grounded model had to scramble: one carrier asked pilots to take unpaid leave despite strong travel demand; another, which flew nothing but this manufacturer’s planes, froze hiring while it reassessed capacity. The company delayed the launch of its next flagship jet by two years and cut 17,000 jobs — a tenth of its global workforce — as the financial strain deepened. A worker strike added more disruption on top.

What makes this story different from a simple product recall is the timeline. This is not a company’s first brush with a safety scandal — it’s the second act, arriving after years of public contrition, congressional hearings, leadership changes, and promises of a “new safety culture.” The regulator’s message when it finally released its findings was blunt: this was not a one-year fix, and the required cultural shift had to be oriented around safety and quality ahead of profit — sustained, not performative.

The planemaker is still flying, still delivering jets, still the anchor of an entire national supply chain that governments are reluctant to let fail. That’s precisely what makes the pattern worth sitting with. A company can survive being told to change. The harder test is whether it actually does — and whether the second warning lands any differently than the first one did.

Here are 3 questions for you:

1. If a company has already been publicly humiliated once for cutting corners on safety, what actually changes the second time around — new leadership, new incentives, or just louder promises? The evidence here suggests promises weren’t the missing ingredient the first time.

2. Why did a company that builds machines carrying hundreds of lives at a time have no reliable record of who removed and reinstalled a critical safety part? A “single point of failure” resting on one undocumented human action is a process failure long before it’s an individual one.

3. Can a business culture built for decades around meeting delivery schedules and shareholder targets be rewired to put safety first — or does it take a crisis this large, this public, and this repeated before the incentives actually shift?

Provide the question# on your comment when you answer.

READ MORE SCORE MORE

PREVIOUS

NEXT

if you have difficulties accessing any of these documents to read, please feel free to revert to us

Here is a quick guide if you want to change the article into languages of your choice…. but you already know this

previously,

Part I — The Discussion

The Project ∞ orientation began with a simple but uncomfortable premise: the world is changing faster than people are preparing for it.

MIHF opened the session by framing the question behind Project ∞. Businesses are rising and disappearing, economies are shifting, technology is changing the nature of work, and even entry-level jobs increasingly demand experience that young people have not yet had the opportunity to acquire. The traditional question — How do we grow? — therefore becomes something more difficult: How fast do we have to run just to stay where we are?

That, MIHF explained, is the VUCA world the participants are entering. The programme is designed around that uncertainty rather than pretending that the future can be neatly predicted.

The first participant introductions immediately reinforced the international and cross-disciplinary nature of the group. Nguyễn Thạch Trúc introduced herself as living in Ho Chi Minh City and studying at Ho Chi Minh City Industry and Trade College. She explained that she wanted to learn more about business thinking and how it could eventually help her work. Her English was not yet strong, and CL encouraged her to use Vietnamese whenever she felt more comfortable. This became an important feature of the session: English remained the common language, but language was not intended to become a barrier to participation.

Bùi Quỳnh Anh then introduced herself in Vietnamese. She was a second-year student at the University of Economics and Law in Ho Chi Minh City and had discovered the programme through social media. Her motivation was clear: she wanted to understand businesses and the economy before entering the working world, strengthen the way she thinks, and improve her confidence in speaking English.

Nguyễn Ngọc Anh Thư also introduced herself and spoke about wanting valuable experience concerning economics and business operations. Her participation reflected another important aspect of the programme: learning does not happen only through formal teaching, but through exposure to people, ideas and situations beyond one’s immediate environment.

DAV79 then clarified that Project ∞ was deliberately going beyond conventional business education. The purpose was not simply to teach participants how to get a job. Instead, the programme aimed to place them inside the kinds of messy, interconnected situations they would eventually encounter in future work and society. Participants would be challenged to understand themselves, identify where they might fit, and begin designing their own future direction.

The central activity of the first stage, Hack A Business, was then introduced.

MIHF explained that participants would enter a simulated business ecosystem based around a farm-to-food model. Rather than studying a company in isolation, they would examine how multiple companies operate together and how a seemingly small decision in one company can affect other businesses, communities and the wider system. Each participant would choose a company and assume a role such as CEO, supply-chain officer or another senior decision-maker. They would then make decisions, observe their consequences and ask whether a better decision could have been made.

CL translated and expanded on the idea in Vietnamese. The objective was to move participants from looking at a single company to seeing the industry and the wider system around it. A business does not exist alone: suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, customers and other actors are connected. A small action in one part of that system can create consequences elsewhere. Participants therefore needed to develop the ability to see beyond their immediate role.

This led naturally into the five levels of the business journey.

Level One was about understanding how a business works. Participants would study the company, its processes, its problems and its position within the wider ecosystem.

Level Two would introduce external relationships, competition and interdependence. A participant might be responsible for marketing in a water company, while another participant managed bottling, logistics, warehousing or technology. Their decisions would affect one another. Profit and loss would no longer depend solely on one person’s actions.

Level Three would move inside the organisation. Participants would face internal disagreement, competing priorities and organisational politics. DAV79 emphasised that companies do not necessarily fail simply because competitors are stronger. Internal stakeholders can fail to agree, departments can pull in different directions, and people can lose sight of a common objective. The challenge would therefore become not only What is the problem? but Why does the problem exist, and what mindset is needed to overcome it?

This was where Bùi Quỳnh Anh raised the most substantial question of the session.

She said she understood the programme but felt that it seemed difficult. DAV79 immediately reframed the concern: this was not primarily a project to be won, but a game through which participants were expected to learn. He asked why she felt it was difficult.

CL then helped unpack the question in Vietnamese. Bùi Quỳnh Anh’s difficulty appeared to come partly from not having a strong economics background and therefore finding the three levels difficult to visualise. CL explained that the same principle applied beyond business. Even in law, there are different layers: broad rules, specialised areas and international dimensions. The purpose of the programme was to learn how to move between those layers and understand the connections between them.

Bùi Quỳnh Anh subsequently confirmed that she still needed clarification about what she would actually do at Levels Two and Three. DAV79 responded with a concrete example. A participant might become the marketing officer of a Malaysian water company. At Level One, that person would understand the business and its internal processes. At Level Two, other companies would enter the picture — perhaps a bottling company, logistics company or AI company — creating dependencies and competition. At Level Three, the conflict would move inside the organisation, with departments disagreeing over targets, demand and capacity.

Bùi Quỳnh Anh confirmed that she understood.

The programme would then move into Divergence and the Multiverse. Participants would eventually enter a strategic simulation in which the issues discovered during Hack A Business, Scan A Business and Field Forge would become part of a larger environment. DAV79 described a future in which participants could potentially interact with real companies and present solutions to problems that those companies actually face. The ultimate aim was to make participants visible not merely as students, but as people capable of identifying and solving problems.

Level Four was about getting into live Simulations and Level Five was about getting the world to see what you have worked out in the last 4 months. The real mindset developed.

Hazel Nguyen responded positively when asked about the journey. She said everything was clear, had no questions, and was particularly interested in the later stages because she wanted to meet people and hear their ideas. She explained that she was based in Hanoi, studying international business at the National Economics University.

Nguyễn Thạch Trúc was also asked whether she understood the programme. She said she did not have further questions and found the activity interesting, particularly because she was learning business management.

The discussion then turned to how participants would actually be assessed.

MIHF explained that five traits would be measured during Hack A Business: customer focus, business ethics, problem identification, decision-making and teamwork. Questions themselves would also be evaluated. A what question would receive one point, a how question two points, and a meaningful why question three points. But MIHF warned participants not to manufacture “why” questions simply to obtain higher scores. The purpose was to develop deeper thinking, not to game the assessment.

The final performance report would combine individual behaviour, questions, participation, project performance, feedback and recommendations. CL explained in Vietnamese that the report was intended to reveal strengths, weaknesses and areas for development based on what participants actually did throughout the programme rather than simply judging their personality or a single test result.

Z later asked a practical question about the simulation: how long would the game last? DAV79 explained that it would continue across the weeks, with the condition of each company changing as decisions were made. Z then asked what would happen if a company went bankrupt before the game ended. DAV79 explained that players would move to another company, but would lose the score associated with the failed company. The game itself would continue, with mentors rotating between organisations.

Bùi Quỳnh Anh — positive, but intimidated

When DAV79 directly asked her, “And how do you feel?”, Bùi Quỳnh Anh said:

“I think it’s a good project, but… it’s quite, maybe quite difficult for me, but so I try my best.”

So her reaction was positive but cautious. She saw value in the programme, while openly acknowledging that it felt difficult for her. DAV79 then reframed it: it was a game, not a project to “win”; the point was learning.

This is probably the strongest direct “how I feel” response from the participants.

Nguyễn Thạch Trúc — interested and curious

Later, DAV79 asked Nguyễn Thạch Trúc whether she was excited about the programme. She replied:

“I think this activity is quite interesting.”

She added that she was learning about business management, suggesting that the simulation connected directly with something she wanted to learn.

So her reaction was less about feeling overwhelmed and more about curiosity and interest.

Hazel Nguyen — clear and looking forward to it

Hazel did not give a long emotional reflection when asked, but she repeatedly indicated that she understood the programme and had no further questions. Near the end, MIHF specifically explained that participants would be asked to record their feelings on Padlet, alongside questions and thoughts.

There was also a brief transcript fragment where Hazel said “Feeling like that?”, but the surrounding audio is unclear, so I wouldn’t interpret that as a substantive emotional response.

Linda — “Sounds brutal”

The most memorable reaction from the mentors came from Linda.

After DAV79 explained that the simulation would put people under pressure and that pressure would reveal character, Linda simply said:

“Sounds brutal.”

DAV79 responded:

“Welcome to the world. The world is brutal, right?”

Linda then joked about board members being paid for their thinking, and DAV79 joked that they would be paid in “monopoly money.”

Later, Linda clarified her overall reaction:

“Yeah, it sounds interesting. Obviously, I don’t know much… too much about it, but… Once it gets going, I might be able to get my head in, or I’ll be knocking on your door often.”

Nguyễn Ngọc Anh Thư — “Valuable Experience”

I’m currently living in Busan, a city quite close to Daegu. By joining this, I hope to go on a long-term journey and grow together with everyone.

I also hope to gain valuable experience and a deeper understanding of the economy and how businesses operate. It was a privilege to come across a post by Ms. Hanley on Facebook about this programme.

I think it’s a great activity and a really valuable opportunity for me.

Cloudy — reflective and personally affected

Cloudy’s response was different because she had previously been involved with the programme for around three years. When DAV79 asked how she felt about the changes and what she anticipated, she talked about how the programme had changed her.

She described becoming stronger in her voice, changing the way she thinks, believing more in herself and becoming better able to express what she was thinking. She also talked about thinking more about what she should do in the future.

So Cloudy’s response wasn’t simply “I’m excited.” It was more:

“I’ve experienced this before, and it has changed how I think and how I see myself.”

Linda summed up the emerging feeling with a short observation: “Sounds brutal.” DAV79 replied, essentially, that this was the world participants were entering. Linda then joked about board members being paid, while DAV79 responded that they would be paid in “monopoly money” — a small moment of humour in an otherwise deliberately demanding discussion.

The message was consistent throughout: the simulation was supposed to create pressure because pressure reveals how people think, decide, negotiate and respond.

Part II — Behind the Scenes

Behind the formal orientation was another conversation entirely: the team was actively designing the machine while explaining it.

At the beginning, MIHF and DAV79 were troubleshooting microphones, screen sharing and presentation controls. DAV79 was simultaneously trying to keep the structure of the session moving while checking that the slides, translations and participant introductions were working. The technical friction was not hidden; it was part of the reality of running an international programme online.

Language was another operational issue. CL was positioned as the bridge for Vietnamese-speaking participants, while Z pointed out that Zoom captions could also help when sound or language became difficult. DAV79 explicitly encouraged participants to use Vietnamese when necessary, while maintaining English as the shared programme language. The intention was inclusion without removing the international nature of the programme.

The team also had to balance time against depth. DAV79 repeatedly asked MIHF to pause so CL could translate. At one point DAV79 even reminded CL to allow MIHF to finish explaining a slide before translating it. This revealed a recurring operational challenge: the programme was trying to serve participants with different language abilities without turning every session into a slow translation exercise.

The onboarding infrastructure was also being assembled in real time.

MIHF explained that Telegram would function as the communication layer, while Padlet would contain reflections, homework, questions and other participant contributions. Substack would be used for articles and written discussion. The Padlet itself was divided into different types of posts: green for “How do you feel?”, blue for reading materials, orange for key takeaways and red for homework or final submissions.

The programme was also deliberately designed as a living system rather than a fixed course. Participants were expected to keep contributing between live sessions, while mentors would continue posting material, asking questions and building discussions. Even people who could not attend every weekly session could remain connected through Telegram and still influence the programme through their decisions and contributions.

The behind-the-scenes team was already preparing the next stage while Hack A Business was still being introduced.

DAV79 described the next phase as a kind of “war room” in which approximately ten companies could be introduced. Mentors and existing members would take responsibility for companies, study them, post information and begin generating questions before new participants arrived. The intention was for the ecosystem to already have movement before the participants entered it.

Cloudy reflected on having been involved with the programme for around three years. She described how the experience had changed her confidence, her ability to express herself and the way she thought about the future. Her contribution was particularly significant because it provided evidence from someone who had experienced the programme rather than simply explaining it.

DAV79 then laid out the larger ambition. Members would be encouraged to find real business problems, unusual cases, SDG non-compliance and stories from different regions. Information could come from Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, New Zealand, Bali, Singapore, the Middle East and elsewhere. The objective was to make the simulation increasingly connected to the real world.

The eventual simulation would therefore not simply be a board game. It would be populated with companies, competing interests, business decisions, information, pressure and changing conditions. Mentors would act as company heads or board members, while participants would enter the system and gradually be challenged by it.

That is perhaps the most important distinction emerging from the orientation.

The programme is not merely teaching participants about a complex world.

It is attempting to build a small version of that complex world around them — then observe what they do inside it.

The orientation therefore ended with a simple operational instruction: stay active, read the materials, ask questions, comment, make decisions and remain connected. The next session would begin the actual exploration of how businesses work.

The final message from DAV79 captured the philosophy behind everything that had happened that evening: the world is VUCA, the process will be demanding, and the programme is intentionally designed to stretch participants - conflict will be inevitable.

The objective is not to make the world less messy.

It is to make the participant more capable of navigating the mess.

Next week we start a Monopoly fashioned Game - in a complicated web . Bring more friends on - lets play ! before the multiverse….. role plays … simulations… double guessing …. and a lot of luck

ARE YOU READY? ….. here is the immediate plan

if you have not registered, click to join - read on, comment and catch up

The world economy is already under immense pressure. Conflict continues to reshape markets, supply chains are being disrupted, businesses are adapting to rapid shifts, and companies are making difficult decisions simply to remain viable. Across industries, we are seeing closures, consolidation and fewer organisations able to sustain themselves through prolonged uncertainty and the young adults are just trying to fit into a changing landscape. Heimat - belongingness , becomes a critical emotion.

The world of work is changing with it. Job markets are becoming more competitive, while the roles that remain are becoming broader, faster-moving and more demanding. People are being asked to create greater value, respond to more complexity and operate across multiple responsibilities. The pace is accelerating, and staying relevant increasingly requires continuous adaptation.

Then comes sustainability — and this is where the conversation becomes even more interesting. Much of the current economic model depends on variable costs, including manpower, being adjusted according to demand. As businesses embraces AI, move towards greater automation, technology investment and infrastructure, more of those costs can become fixed. Once that happens, the pressure to keep those systems productive increases.

The logic becomes remarkably simple: if our costs become fixed, we need greater output to sustain them. Greater output requires greater demand. Greater demand requires greater consumption. Greater consumption places greater pressure on finite resources.

Remember Wall E…..guess where humanity would be headed…

That creates a powerful vicious cycle.

We produce more to sustain the system. We sell more to justify production. We consume more to support the market. And the system demands that we keep moving.

Eventually, the question is no longer simply “How do we grow?”

It becomes:

“How fast do we have to run just to remain where we are?” *VUCA has just achieved a new peak and it has no signs of slowing down.

Project ∞ is an evolving environment for exploring how VUCA through ideas, decisions and systems interact in the real world. It brings together people, perspectives, technology, business, sustainability and real situations, creating a space where participants can examine how different parts of a system influence one another. we started to ensure members are paced across a 9 month program - but seems the market demanded shorter attention span and quicker results.

Every season adds another dimension to this experience, and this season marks a significant transition in the way participants engage with it.

This season, participants will be guided during the Hack a business and Scan a Business rounds towards becoming players in the Multiverse — Level 1 and Level 2 - At Team FD we call it the LITE version. The preparation will build progressively across the season, leading into the Divergence period in November, when the games will be played. What happens during the game then becomes the foundation for the next stage of development, with the outcomes moving towards deployment by December and the real impact is felt by the entire world.

We will be addressing Social problems and Business problems. The current theme is sustainability and we will be focussing on building solutions for an aggregated ecosystems.

As always there are 5 phases and this time we are trimming the purpose of each model.

A Living System

The world rarely presents itself as a collection of separate subjects. Water connects with food, food connects with agriculture, and agriculture depends on resources, infrastructure and logistics. Businesses depend on people, markets, technology and supply networks, while decisions made in one part of a system can influence several others.

Project ∞ is built around this interconnectedness. Participants explore real situations through multiple lenses, bringing together information from different fields and perspectives to form a wider picture. This season, areas such as food security, water, supply systems, technology, business and local ownership become part of the environment, with regional perspectives from different countries contributing to the same evolving simulation.

This creates an environment where ideas meet context. A business decision sits within a supply network, a technology decision sits within a social environment, and a sustainability decision sits within an economic system. A local initiative can also carry implications far beyond its original setting. The value of Project ∞ comes from making these connections visible and giving participants the opportunity to work within them.

The Season Ahead

The first part of the season is about preparation. Participants will explore sectors, businesses and supply chains while building the knowledge required to enter the Multiverse with context. The progression moves from understanding the architecture of the experience, through exploring different possibilities, into direct participation within the simulation.

This preparation gives the players a common foundation. Once they enter the Multiverse, that foundation becomes something they can use, test and develop. Information becomes something to work with, relationships between different parts of the system become visible, and decisions begin to influence the direction of play.

The experience therefore moves from learning about systems to working inside them. Participants begin with information, but the Multiverse gives that information movement. What they know becomes connected to what they do, what others do and what happens around them.

Becoming a Player

This is the defining feature of the season. Participants are being prepared not merely to understand a system, but to operate within one. The shift changes the relationship between the participant and the learning environment because their knowledge now has a role to perform.

A player may take the role of a CEO, supply-chain officer, marketing executive or another position within an organisation. Each role provides a different perspective on the same environment, with its own priorities, information and decisions. The CEO sees one part of the picture, the supply-chain officer sees another, marketing brings another perspective, finance introduces another layer and technology opens another set of possibilities.

All of these perspectives exist simultaneously. That is what makes the Multiverse interesting. There is no single viewpoint from which the entire system can be understood, so players have to build their picture from the information available to them, connect it with what others are seeing and make decisions within the wider environment.

The experience becomes a study of systems, people and decisions at the same time. Every player has a role, every role sits within an organisation, every organisation sits within a wider system, and every system exists within a particular context. The player experiences those layers as part of one environment rather than as separate concepts.

Multiverse Level 1 and Level 2

The Multiverse contains multiple layers of complexity, and this season focuses on Levels 1 and 2 as the participants enter its wider architecture. At these levels, the emphasis is on understanding how a business operates within its ecosystem and how different functions connect across that environment.

Supply chains become particularly important because they reveal the movement of materials, information, money and decisions across organisations. They also show how closely different actors depend upon one another. What appears to be one company’s decision can therefore become part of a much larger sequence of events.

The simulation approaches this as a supply web rather than a simple linear chain. Multiple events, relationships and interactions can exist across the wider system, creating a richer environment for players to navigate. The result begins to reflect the complexity found in real organisations and communities, where several relationships are operating at the same time.

A company does not operate alone. Neither does a city, a community or a supply network. Every organisation exists within relationships, and the Multiverse makes those relationships visible. Players begin to experience how one decision can create movement elsewhere and how the wider environment can, in turn, shape their own choices.

Divergence

In November, the preparation comes together during Divergence. This is the period when participants enter the Multiverse and play Levels 1 and 2, taking their roles, working with their teams and engaging with an environment that continues to evolve as the simulation progresses.

Different countries can bring different perspectives, while different teams can make different choices. Those choices can lead the system in different directions, creating multiple possible pathways through the same environment. The experience therefore gives participants room to see how context, information and decisions combine to shape outcomes.

The simulation can reflect changing business conditions across areas such as supply, demand, resources and operations. Players encounter information, respond to developments and make decisions that become part of the continuing story. The rhythm is created through this movement: one player sees something, another responds, the system moves, new information appears and the next decision follows.

This creates the rhythm of the Multiverse. The environment is continuously developing, and the player is part of that development. Every decision contributes to what becomes possible next.

Beyond the Game

The most significant feature of the season comes after Divergence. The work produced through the experience is intended to move towards deployment by December, giving the Multiverse a direct connection to what follows.

The game therefore becomes part of a larger development cycle. Participants enter with knowledge and ideas, the simulation provides a space to explore those ideas within a functioning system, and the experience generates new insights. Those insights can then shape what is developed beyond the simulation.

Deployment gives the resulting work a new context. An idea explored in one environment can be adapted to another, a regional perspective can inform another region, and an approach can evolve as it encounters new circumstances. The project becomes something that can continue moving rather than something that ends when the game concludes.

This is consistent with the wider direction of Project ∞, where projects can eventually operate across multiple cities and contexts as cohorts become ready. A project developed in one place can become relevant somewhere else, while the experience of another place can reshape the original idea. That is where the ∞ becomes meaningful: there is always another context in which an idea can be explored, tested and developed.

A Different Kind of Season

The biggest change this season is not the introduction of a game. It is the position the participant occupies within the experience. They move into the Multiverse as players, which means their preparation now has a direct purpose inside the environment they are entering.

Their research informs their decisions. Their understanding of systems informs their role. Their interactions with others become part of the experience, and their decisions become connected to the wider environment. Knowledge gains movement because it is being used within a context that responds.

The focus therefore expands from understanding how organisations, communities and systems operate to experiencing what it means to operate within them. A player has a role, the role sits within an organisation, the organisation sits within a wider system, and the system sits within a particular context that continues to evolve.

This creates a richer relationship between knowledge and action. Participants are not simply looking at the system from outside; they are contributing to what happens inside it. Their perspective becomes one part of a much larger picture.

The Role of the Team

The team guiding this season has an important responsibility: preparing participants for the Multiverse. This involves building the right knowledge base, introducing relevant sectors, opening conversations, creating opportunities for exploration and gradually bringing players closer to the simulation.

The team will also shape the experience itself. The Multiverse requires preparation on both sides: players need to understand the environment, while the environment needs to be ready for the players. The quality of the experience depends on how well those two sides come together.

The wider crew is therefore an important part of the season. Project ∞ is designed to grow internationally, with cohorts across different cities contributing to a shared ecosystem. Each cohort brings its own experiences, contexts and perspectives, adding new dimensions to the collective environment.

The result is not simply a group of people playing the same game. It is a network bringing different experiences into one environment, allowing perspectives from different places to meet, interact and influence what emerges.

From November to December

The timeline is deliberately compact. The months leading into November are about preparation, exploration and development, giving participants the knowledge and context required to enter the Multiverse with purpose.

November is Divergence. This is where the Multiverse comes alive and the players enter Levels 1 and 2. They take their places within the system, work with their teams and experience how decisions, information and relationships shape the environment.

December is deployment. The experience moves from the simulated environment towards its next stage, carrying forward the insights, ideas and possibilities that emerged through the Multiverse.

That progression gives the season a clear purpose. The game is not the destination; it is the environment through which the next stage of the work emerges.

The Next Expression of Project ∞

Project ∞ has always been about creating movement between ideas and the world around them. This season gives that philosophy a new expression by placing participants inside a system where their knowledge, decisions and interactions become part of the experience.

Participants will study systems, explore sectors, understand businesses, build context and prepare for the Multiverse. Then they will enter, take their places and play. What emerges from that experience will move towards deployment, creating the next stage of the journey.

But beware -this system will test failure - not the ones where we are told explicitly - but through silent rejection. The program is not meant for all - but it is designed to help those who are hungry and help others who are on the tipping point - to not give up.

That is Project ∞. So let us finish ths game. Are we ready? the world awaits.

The last season, we attempted a subtle version of this through another add on - the Moods of the Day .

Divergence Series

Chapter 21. Moods, Maps & Messy Worlds

Moods of the Day: The Challenge Relay…

Read more

3 months ago · 3 likes · 1 comment · Fundamental Decisions

We will complete the Moods of the Day this time around, in October in Malaysia. And this season, participants do not simply enter the Project ∞ programme — they step into an experience where they become players ….

… they enter the Multiverse …..

Scan or Click to read and register……

From previous war rooms,

There’s a moment in every orientation call where someone new asks the question everyone eventually asks: why doesn’t everybody finish?

It came up again on a recent call, when a temporary coordinator sat in pushed back on the numbers. She opened with the sharpest challenge in the whole call. The five-phase completion question wasn't small talk — it was effectively "your funnel is leaky, so how do you claim impact?" That's a legitimate strategic critique, not a naive one, and she asked it directly instead of dancing around it.. Not many make it through all five phases. So — she asked — how can a program with a completion problem claim to create real impact?

The answer she got back wasn’t the one she expected.

The product nobody wants

“We are selling the most difficult product on the planet,” the facilitator said. “Everybody wants change, but nobody wants to change.”

That line does more to explain Project Infinity than any brochure could. The program isn’t built to be liked. It isn’t built to be finished by everyone who starts it. It’s built to find out — quickly, and without apology — who actually wants to do the work, and who just wants the outcome handed to them.

Ask people if they want to grow, and everyone says yes. Ask them what they’d give up to get there, and the room goes quiet. That gap is the entire premise of the program. Project Infinity doesn’t try to close it for people. It puts them in front of it and watches what they do next.

Reality bites — on schedule

Nearly everyone who joins starts the same way: confident, energized, certain it’ll be easy. That’s not naivety, it’s just what happens before you’ve been tested. Most people haven’t yet discovered what they don’t know.

Then reality bites. The work is harder than it looked. The gap between “I can do this” and actually doing it opens up, and that’s exactly where most people quit — not because the program failed them, but because the mirror it holds up is an uncomfortable one. A smaller number climb past that point. Fewer still discover that even their best version of themselves is more modest than the self-image they walked in with. That’s not a flaw in the design. That’s the design.

The people who stay aren’t the ones who avoid that discomfort. They’re the ones who sit with it and keep going anyway.

Not a rescue program

One thing gets said plainly on nearly every orientation call: this program does not exist to save anyone.

“It is not going to help them in any way unless they work on it.” The structure gives people a place to stand — a playground, a support base, some focus. What they build there is entirely on them. Nobody is chased for attendance. Nobody is guilted into finishing. If someone stops showing up, that’s information, not a crisis.

This isn’t indifference. It’s a filter. A program that tries to carry everyone across the finish line ends up shaped by its weakest participants. Project Infinity is shaped, instead, by the ones who decide — on their own — that the discomfort is worth it.

What you actually get

Strip away the philosophy and the deliverables are concrete:

• A sharper mindset — real feedback on how you think, not just what you produce

• A playground to test it — case discussions, live debate, real business problems, not textbook exercises

• A mindset report — a structured readout some participants have used toward jobs, scholarships, or their next move (nobody tracks a guaranteed success rate, because there isn’t one, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest)

• A path into bigger projects — coordination, research, market outreach, or building something of your own inside the ecosystem

• A shot at ownership — the program pushes participants who complete it toward turning their insight into something they can actually pitch, sell, or run

That last point is where past cohorts have stalled. Good analysis has come out of the program before — a demand-forecasting project, solid on its own terms — that never became anything more than an exercise, because nobody carried it into a product someone could pay for. That’s the gap this season is built to close: not just insight, but insight converted into something with a market.

The ambassador track

Complete the program and there’s a next step, if you want it: ambassador.

The role has no complicated entry criteria — no interview, no test. Just commitment, honored consistently, and a willingness to keep engaging. What it asks for in practice is straightforward:

1. Read and comment on the material, seriously

2. Bring others in — get people reading, get people asking questions

3. Take sessions yourself — build others while sharpening your own thinking

4. Extend the ecosystem — design something new that adds to what already exists

Underneath all four is the same idea, said a different way each time: improve yourself, help improve others, and where you can, build something that outlasts your own participation. Ambassadors aren’t given a script to run. They’re given a direction and trusted to find their own way there — which is, not coincidentally, the exact same test the program itself is built around.

The filter is the point

Project Infinity isn’t optimized for retention, satisfaction scores, or a clean completion rate. It’s optimized to find people whose destination already matches the one the program is walking toward — and to be honest, early and often, with everyone else.

That’s a harder pitch than “join us and grow.” It’s also, according to the people running it, the only version of the pitch that means anything once someone is three weeks in and the reality has already bitten.

If you’ve made it this far and you’re still curious rather than talked out of it — that’s usually the first sign it’s for you.

Leave a comment

Some Q&A

Q: You’ve been running this for many years. A lot of people join, but not many complete all five phases. Doesn’t that mean the impact is limited?

No — because completion was never the goal. We’re not here to babysit people or push them across a finish line. This is a competition, and we don’t want everybody to finish it. We want to find out who’s going to.

Q: So what’s the reason people don’t finish?

Most people start out confident. They haven’t been tested yet, so they don’t know what they don’t know. Then the work turns out to be harder than it looked, and reality bites. That’s where most people quit — not because the program failed, but because the gap between who they thought they were and who they actually are just opened up in front of them. A few climb past that point. Fewer still realize even their best self is smaller than they imagined. That’s not a bug. That’s what the program is built to surface.

Q: Isn’t that harsh?

Only if you assume the point is to help everyone. It isn’t. This isn’t a product to help everybody — honestly, it doesn’t directly help anybody. It gives people a place, a playground, some support. But none of that does anything unless they work on it themselves. People carrying dead weight through the program just makes the whole program dead weight. We’d rather be honest about that early than pretend later.

Q: What about the people who do stay — what do they actually get?

Five things, roughly in order:

1. A sharper mindset — real feedback on how you think, not just what you produce.

2. A playground to test it — live case discussions and debate, not textbook problems.

3. A mindset report — some participants have used it toward jobs or scholarships. We don’t track how many, because we can’t promise it’ll work for you, and we’re not going to pretend we can.

4. A path into bigger projects — coordination, research, market outreach, building something new.

5. A shot at ownership — turning what you’ve learned into something you can actually pitch or sell, not just a nice presentation that goes nowhere.

Q: What separates someone you’d want on this from someone you wouldn’t?

Picture hiring for a service business. Would you rather hire someone who executes your plan flawlessly, or someone who has their own destination in mind and pushes your plan somewhere better? Most people say the second. That’s exactly who we’re looking for — but only if their destination lines up with ours. If it doesn’t, that’s fine. No hard feelings. Come back when you’re ready, or don’t.

Q: Is commitment a requirement to join?

Not even that. If you don’t commit, you don’t get scored — that’s the only consequence. But if you want to see it through, commitment isn’t optional, and it can’t just mean showing up and expecting other people to do the work for you.

Q: What happens after someone completes the program — is there a next step?

Ambassador. No interview, no formal criteria beyond honoring your commitments and staying engaged. The role breaks down into four things:

• Read the material and comment on it seriously.

• Bring other people in — get them reading, get them asking questions.

• Take sessions yourself, which builds others and sharpens you at the same time.

• Build something new that extends the ecosystem, if you want to go that far.

Underneath all four: improve yourself, help improve others, and where you can, leave something behind that outlasts your own involvement.

Q: Past cohorts have produced solid analysis — case studies, forecasting projects — that never turned into anything more than an exercise. What’s different this time?

That’s the exact gap this season is meant to close. Good analysis isn’t the finish line. The push now is to take that insight and convert it into something with an actual market — a product someone else would take, or buy, or fund. Insight without a market around it is just an assignment.

Q: Any final requirement to join?

Just one: you have to be a student. Anywhere in the world.

Chapter 1: The wannabe entrepreneur

The conversation was never supposed to become a lesson about value.

It began with a simple question from a young woman named Maya.

Maya had recently started experimenting with entrepreneurship. Together with a close friend, she had begun organizing workshops, reflection sessions, yoga gatherings, and community events. Nothing large. Nothing revolutionary. Just small steps into a world she hoped to build for herself one day.

At the same time, Maya was uncertain.

Like many young professionals, she stood between two worlds.

One world promised freedom, creativity, ownership, and entrepreneurship.

The other promised stability, structure, salary, and certainty.

She wanted both.

And that was where the tension began.

During the discussion, Maya explained that she was confused. She was interested in the community she had joined and excited about the projects taking place around her. Yet she struggled to understand where she fit. She wanted more direction. More clarity. More certainty.

The mentors listened patiently.

Then Zara spoke.

“Tell us what you want.”

The question sounded simple.

It wasn’t.

Because Maya herself did not know.

A few minutes later, another mentor leaned forward.

“You say you want to be an entrepreneur.”

Maya nodded.

“But at the same time, you’re looking for someone to employ you and tell you what to do.”

The room became quiet.

The observation was uncomfortable because it was true.

Entrepreneurs do not receive instruction manuals.

Entrepreneurs walk into uncertainty.

They make decisions with incomplete information.

They take risks before they have guarantees.

Employees, on the other hand, operate inside a structure. They are given responsibilities, expectations, reporting lines, and measurable outcomes.

Neither path is better.

But they are different.

The discussion that followed would challenge nearly every assumption Maya had about work, opportunity, and success.

Chapter 2: Ehem - What Is My Value?

The conversation quickly shifted away from jobs.

Instead, it focused on value.

One mentor asked Maya a question.

“If someone hires you tomorrow, why should they hire you?”

Maya thought for a moment.

“I’m good at administration.”

It was a reasonable answer.

Many people would have stopped there.

The mentor did not.

“That’s a skill,” he replied.

“But why should I pay you?”

The question caught Maya by surprise.

Most people are prepared to discuss their qualifications.

They can describe their education.

They can list their experiences.

They can explain their responsibilities.

Far fewer people can explain their value.

The mentor continued.

“If you ask for a salary, why are you worth that salary?”

The discussion expanded beyond Maya.

The mentor recalled conversations with university students who had entered the job market with strong salary expectations.

When asked why they deserved those salaries, their answers were surprisingly similar.

“My seniors earn that amount.”

“That’s the market rate.”

“My living expenses require that amount.”

None of those answers explained why an employer should pay them.

They explained why the employee wanted money.

They did not explain what value the employee created.

The distinction was important.

Businesses do not pay people because they need money.

Businesses pay people because they create value.

The room slowly began to understand the difference.

The discussion then became more practical.

What could Maya actually contribute?

Could she attract customers?

Could she build partnerships?

Could she recruit participants?

Could she solve problems?

Could she create opportunities?

Could she increase revenue?

The mentors repeatedly returned to the same idea.

The future would belong to people who could answer one question clearly:

“What value do you create?”

Not what title you hold.

Not what degree you possess.

Not what salary you desire.

What value you create.

Chapter 3: The Price of the Stones

At this point, Zara shared a story.

A father gave his son two stones.

“Take these stones and find out what they are worth.”

The son obeyed.

First, he went to a roadside vendor.

The vendor offered him two dollars.

The son returned disappointed.

The father told him to keep going.

Next, he visited a market.

This time, somebody offered twenty dollars.

Interesting.

Then he visited a jewelry store.

The offer increased to two hundred dollars.

Finally, he carried the stones to a university archaeology department.

An expert examined them carefully.

“We’ll pay two thousand dollars.”

The son returned home astonished.

The father asked a simple question.

“What changed?”

The son looked at the stones.

Nothing.

The stones were exactly the same.

The father smiled.

Exactly.

The stones never changed.

The context changed.

The understanding changed.

The perception changed.

The value changed.

The story resonated deeply with everyone in the room.

Many people spend years believing they are worth very little because they are standing in the wrong marketplace.

Others discover that the same skills, experiences, and knowledge become exponentially more valuable when placed in the right environment.

The lesson was not about marketing.

It was about recognizing potential.

Too many people focus on asking what they can get.

Too few ask how they can increase their value.

The discussion returned to Maya.

Perhaps the problem was not whether she should become an entrepreneur or an employee.

Perhaps the real challenge was discovering where her value could create the greatest impact.

Chapter 4: The Changing Nature of Companies

The conversation then moved into an area that surprised many people.

The mentors argued that the nature of work itself is changing.

Historically, organizations were built around departments.

Administration.

Human Resources.

Customer Service.

Operations.

Finance.

Marketing.

Some departments generated revenue directly.

Others existed to support the organization.

Today, those boundaries are becoming blurred.

Zara shared the example of a customer service employee named Nova.

Years ago, Nova’s job would have been simple.

Answer customer questions.

Handle complaints.

Provide support.

Today, the expectations are different.

The business is facing competition.

Margins are shrinking.

Customers have more choices.

Management wants growth.

Suddenly, customer service is no longer just customer service.

Nova is now expected to improve retention.

Increase referrals.

Encourage repeat purchases.

Build stronger customer relationships.

Contribute to revenue.

Her title remains the same.

Her value proposition has changed.

The same transformation is happening everywhere.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly automating administrative work.

Scheduling.

Reporting.

Documentation.

Meeting summaries.

Data processing.

Tasks that once required hours now take minutes.

As a result, companies are increasingly asking a different question.

Not:

“What task are you performing?”

But:

“What outcome are you creating?”

This shift is profound.

A marketing employee is no longer judged by the number of brochures produced.

They are judged by leads and conversions.

A customer service employee is no longer judged only by politeness.

They are judged by retention and loyalty.

Even administrative roles are increasingly expected to contribute to efficiency, revenue, or strategic advantage.

Cost centres are being questioned.

Profit centres are being expanded.

The future is increasingly rewarding people who can connect their work directly to measurable outcomes.

Revenue.

Growth.

Retention.

Innovation.

Problem-solving.

Value creation.

For Maya, this realization was significant.

Her answer of “I can do administration” was no longer enough.

She needed to answer a more difficult question.

“How does that administration create value?”

Chapter 5: Maya’s Move

As the discussion approached its conclusion, something interesting happened.

The conversation stopped being philosophical. Her Father who pushed her into this was also watching - he wanted to ensure that the future was secure - succession planning in many ways.

It became practical.

The mentors pointed out that opportunities already existed.

Not theoretical opportunities.

Real ones.

There were international participants interested in upcoming programmes.

There were former participants who could be contacted again.

There were parents who had previously shown interest.

There were backpacker communities that might be interested in joining cultural experiences.

There were partnerships waiting to be explored.

There were networks waiting to be activated.

The problem was not a lack of opportunity.

The problem was a lack of action.

The mentors challenged Maya directly.

If she wanted to understand value, she needed to create some.

If she wanted income, she needed to generate outcomes.

If she wanted experience, she needed to move.

One mentor outlined several immediate actions.

Contact previous leads.

Reach out to potential participants.

Speak with communities.

Explore partnerships.

Build a pipeline.

Create opportunities.

Generate revenue.

Maya listened carefully.

Then something changed.

Earlier in the conversation, she had been asking for clarity.

Now she was talking about action.

She agreed to contact potential participants.

She agreed to approach existing leads.

She agreed to explore international outreach.

She agreed to investigate new communities.

She agreed to build a plan around measurable outcomes rather than vague intentions.

The mentors asked her to create a simple table.

Activities.

Targets.

Expected participants.

Expected revenue.

Expected costs.

Deliverables.

Not dreams.

Not wishes.

Not possibilities.

Deliverables.

The distinction mattered.

Because value is not discovered through endless discussion.

Value is discovered through execution.

By the end of the meeting, Maya still did not know exactly where life would take her.

She still did not have certainty.

She still did not know whether she would eventually become an entrepreneur, an employee, or something in between.

But she had gained something far more important.

A new way of thinking.

She had begun the conversation asking:

“What opportunity is available for me?”

She ended the conversation asking:

“What value can I create?”

And that single shift may prove to be the most important lesson of all.

The future rarely belongs to those who wait for instructions.

It belongs to those who learn to create value before they are asked.

Because titles can change.

Jobs can disappear.

Technology can replace tasks.

Markets can shift.

But people who consistently create value will always find opportunity.

And that was the real lesson behind Maya’s move.

Lets view Maya’s next steps….

The final day of Hack A Business Season 1 brought together participants, facilitators, mentors, and reviewers from Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia, including members from Surabaya, for what was intended to be a showcase of learning after several weeks of exploration into business, systems thinking, and the VUCA environment. Hosted by MIHF under Project ∞, the session was not simply a presentation competition. It was a test of whether participants could identify real-world problems, analyse them critically, and propose meaningful solutions.

As members dialed in, MIHF welcomed the group and reflected on how far the programme had come since orientation. Over the previous sessions, participants had explored the foundations of business ecosystems, participated in war-room discussions, examined real organisational challenges, and learned how Volatility, Unknown ( but known in the standard world as uncertainty), Complexity, Ambiguity shape modern organisations. The final assignment required each participant to select either a company or a social initiative, analyse it using the framework, and recommend technology-enabled solutions.

While the presentations differed greatly in topic, a common pattern would soon emerge: participants were increasingly comfortable identifying problems, but many still struggled to explore the deeper causes behind them.

A Regional Audience Comes Together

The session reflected the increasingly international nature of Project ∞. Participants and reviewers joined from multiple countries and cities, bringing different experiences and perspectives to the discussion.

Leading the session was MIHF, who facilitated the flow of presentations and evaluations. DAV79 served as the principal reviewer, frequently challenging participants to go beyond surface-level thinking. Dr Mustika joined from Indonesia to provide additional feedback, while Z contributed observations that repeatedly pushed the discussion toward greater conceptual accuracy.

The atmosphere throughout the session was supportive but demanding. Participants were encouraged to present confidently, but they were also expected to defend their assumptions and explain their reasoning.

Bao Ngan Examines Samsung’s Challenges

The first presentation was delivered by Bao Ngan, who selected Samsung Electronics as her case study.

Bao began by outlining Samsung’s enormous global footprint. As a leader in semiconductors, consumer electronics, manufacturing, and logistics, Samsung operates one of the most complex ecosystems in the world. Such scale creates significant opportunities, but it also exposes the company to substantial risk.

Bao organised her analysis around three major VUCA challenges.

The first challenge was volatility. She highlighted fluctuations in memory chip pricing and raw material costs, explaining how sudden changes in market conditions could significantly impact profitability. Her proposed solution involved AI-driven forecasting systems capable of predicting supply chain trends and optimising purchasing decisions.

The second challenge focused on uncertainty. Competition from Apple and Chinese manufacturers such as Huawei continues to place pressure on Samsung’s market position. Bao suggested that deep-learning systems and market intelligence platforms could help Samsung anticipate shifts in customer demand and competitor behaviour.

The third challenge centred on complexity. Samsung’s extensive ecosystem of devices and software creates integration risks that can affect user experience. Battery drain, software glitches, and connectivity issues were identified as examples. Bao proposed AI-powered testing environments that could simulate software updates before deployment and reduce failures.

The presentation demonstrated a clear understanding of large-scale operational challenges, but it also triggered an important question from DAV79.

“What is the biggest problem faced by Samsung or any other electronic mobile manufacturers?”

hmmmmmm…….After reflecting for a bit, Bao pointed to user experience issues such as battery performance and connectivity. The exchange highlighted a recurring theme throughout the evening: distinguishing between symptoms and root causes.

Thu Hang Nguyen Takes on Netflix

The second presentation shifted attention to the entertainment industry as Thu Hang Nguyen analysed Netflix.

Thu described Netflix’s evolution from a DVD rental service into one of the largest technology-driven entertainment platforms in the world. Operating in more than 190 countries and serving hundreds of millions of users, Netflix faces constant pressure to maintain growth while managing increasingly complex global operations.

Her analysis focused on three areas.

The first was subscriber volatility. Thu referenced periods where changes in subscriber numbers resulted in dramatic market reactions. To address this, she proposed an AI-powered pricing and retention engine capable of monitoring customer behaviour and predicting churn before it occurred.

The second challenge was uncertainty surrounding content investment. Netflix spends billions of dollars annually creating original content, yet predicting success remains extremely difficult. Thu suggested a blockchain-based rights management system that could automate licensing, improve royalty management, and simplify ownership tracking across markets.

The third challenge involved complexity and ambiguity. Netflix operates across hundreds of regulatory environments, languages, and cultural contexts. Thu proposed an AI content intelligence system capable of analysing local trends, recommending content strategies, and ensuring regulatory compliance before production begins.

While the presentation was detailed and well-structured, it prompted one of the evening’s most significant conversations.

Z raised an observation that several presenters had used “Uncertainty” instead of “Unknown” when discussing VUCA.

“This is already the second presentation,” Z noted. “I hope there will be a distinctive difference between uncertainty and unknown understood by the participants.”

The comment sparked discussion among the facilitators. MIHF acknowledged that the distinction had been covered during training and suggested that participants may have relied too heavily on commonly available interpretations rather than the programme’s specific framework.

The moment became a reminder that understanding concepts deeply is often more important than producing impressive slides.

Climate Adaptation Becomes the Focus

The third presenter, Trinh Le Phuong Quynh, moved away from corporate analysis and instead focused on a social issue affecting millions of people across Asia.

Her project examined climate adaptation in Asian cities through what she called the Climate Asian Project.

Quynh outlined the increasing frequency of flooding, heatwaves, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events across Southeast Asia. She argued that climate change is no longer a future threat but a present-day reality affecting transportation, housing, public health, and economic development.

Applying the VUCA framework, she described climate volatility through changing weather patterns, uncertainty through unpredictable disasters, complexity through interconnected sectors, and ambiguity through the absence of universal solutions.

Several examples illustrated her argument. Ho Chi Minh City continues to face severe flooding during the rainy season. Jakarta is experiencing both rising sea levels and land subsidence. Across Southeast Asia, prolonged heatwaves are placing increasing pressure on communities and infrastructure.

Quynh proposed several responses, including nature-based solutions such as urban parks and wetlands, climate-resilient housing, early warning systems, and stronger community participation.

Unlike the previous business-focused presentations, her project emphasised long-term resilience rather than financial performance. Nevertheless, the presentation reinforced a key lesson from Project ∞: many of the world’s biggest challenges are interconnected systems problems rather than isolated events.

Dang Vu’s Food Rescue Project

The final presentation came from Dang Vu, who introduced a Food Rescue Project aimed at reducing food waste while supporting vulnerable communities.

Dang observed that restaurants and supermarkets regularly discard usable food while many people continue to experience food insecurity. His project sought to connect those two realities.

The proposed model was straightforward.

Businesses would report surplus food.

Volunteers would collect it.

The food would then be distributed to shelters and people in need.

Dang analysed the project through volatility, uncertainty, and complexity. Mobile applications would connect stakeholders, AI systems would predict periods of surplus food generation, and cloud-based systems would centralise information and coordination.

However, Dang openly admitted that he had not yet developed a clear explanation for ambiguity.

This led DAV79 to revisit a question raised earlier in the programme.

While reducing waste clearly addressed costs, how would the initiative become scalable?

How would it generate revenue?

How would it sustain itself long-term?

Dang requested clarification on the question, noting that these concepts continue to be challenging for many participants. The discussion highlighted the distinction between designing a meaningful social initiative and building a sustainable operational model. It was emphasized that if the goal is to avoid corruption and prevent inefficiencies from creeping into the system, every aspect of the design and implementation must be guided by clear purpose, accountability, and intentional decision-making.

The Review Session Changes the Tone

Following the presentations, MIHF opened the floor to reflections from reviewers and participants.

Z provided one of the strongest observations of the evening.

While praising the quality of the presentations, Z argued that many solutions lacked depth. Participants were often quick to propose technology-driven answers but had not fully explored the underlying causes of the problems they were attempting to solve.

The comment resonated with several reviewers.

Dr Mustika also commended the effort invested by participants but encouraged them to think more critically about economic value and decision-making. She challenged participants to justify why a particular solution had been selected and whether it was truly the most effective option available.

Her feedback pushed the discussion beyond identifying problems and toward evaluating trade-offs.

A solution is not valuable simply because it is technologically advanced.

A solution becomes valuable when it addresses the right problem in the most effective way.

Final Reflections from DAV79

The final reflection came from DAV79.

His assessment was encouraging but direct.

The participants had clearly learned a great deal during the programme. They were more comfortable discussing business challenges, more confident presenting ideas, and more familiar with structured analytical frameworks.

However, there was still significant room for growth.

Several participants had overlooked ambiguity entirely. Others had relied heavily on AI-generated responses without fully understanding the concepts behind them. Many identified symptoms rather than root causes.

DAV79 reminded the group that mastering VUCA is not simply an academic exercise.

Understanding volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, and the unknown is increasingly valuable in modern organisations because businesses rarely operate in predictable environments.

The evening closed not with declarations of success, but with a challenge.

Think deeper. Question assumptions. Understand the root cause before proposing the solution.

Participant Reflections: Ownership, Blind Spots, and Deeper Thinking

As the session drew to a close, several participants shared reflections that revealed how their thinking had evolved throughout the programme.

Z focused on ownership and the responsibility of members to contribute to the programme’s future growth. Reflecting on the wider impact of Hack A Business, Z noted that its success should not rest solely on the organisers.

“I believe this program can benefit many more students around the world. Its growth is not only the responsibility of the organizers, but also of those of us who have been part of it. Sharing thoughtful feedback is one way we demonstrate ownership and help improve the experience for future participants.”

Z also acknowledged the work happening behind the scenes and thanked MIHF for facilitating the session and maintaining momentum throughout the evening.

“Thank you, MIHF, for keeping the session on track. It’s one of those contributions that people often don’t notice, but the session would feel very different without it.”

Bao Ngan reflected on the personal impact of the programme and the value of receiving direct feedback from experienced mentors. Having presented her analysis of Samsung earlier in the session, she shared that the discussions helped her identify blind spots in her own thinking.

“I am deeply engaged in this course and have immense respect for all the shared knowledge and experiences. DAV79’s perspective, in particular, left a huge impression on me and helped me realize several of my own blind spots.”

She described the session as both eye-opening and self-reflective, highlighting the role that constructive challenge played in her learning journey.

Thu Hang Nguyen offered one of the most candid reflections of the evening. After presenting her analysis of Netflix, she admitted that much of her initial research process had focused on gathering information and relying on AI-generated support.

“Honestly, I was quite vague when I first started researching and gathering information. I also relied a lot on AI, which I have to admit.”

However, the feedback received during the programme caused her to rethink that approach.

“After this session, I realized that I need to dive deeper into the business itself instead of just collecting information from secondary sources.”

Thu Hang also noted that one of the most valuable outcomes of the programme was exposure to different ways of thinking.

“This session gave me many new perspectives on business and helped me see things from different angles. The people here were incredibly supportive throughout the journey, and I truly appreciate this opportunity and everything I have learned from it.”

Coming Up Next

Hands on Program … individual costs are applicable

Join us as participants or as ambassadors

Season 2 - Sponsored by Team FD

Leave us a message with your email ID if you don’t have access to the video presentations.

Chapter 1: The Candidate DAV79 Would Hire

The session opened unusually.

Instead of introducing slides or reviewing the previous lesson, DAV79 immediately challenged the participants.

“Mina, do you remember the story about my friend from Ho Chi Minh City?”

Mina nodded. Recalling the session from D1

“Yes.”

“Good. Then tell me. What does she do for a living?”

The room fell silent.

The story was familiar. A woman flew from Ho Chi Minh City to Singapore every week. She traveled business class. She did not stay in hotels. She returned almost immediately.

Something about the story felt strange.

Mina took the first shot.

“Maybe she sells bread?”

The answer immediately triggered laughter.

“Bread?” DAV79 replied. “You think somebody spends twelve hundred dollars on a business class ticket to sell bread?”

Mina laughed.

“It just came into my mind.”

“At least you tried.”

The conversation moved around the room.

Bao admitted she had no idea.

Quynh suggested somebody might hire the woman to purchase products and deliver them.

Hang wondered if she could be a flight attendant.

Each answer revealed something different.

Not about the woman.

About the participants.

Finally, DAV79 turned to Đăng.

“What do you think?”

Đăng thought for a moment.

“Maybe she buys products in Singapore and sells them in Vietnam.”

DAV79 immediately pointed toward the camera.

“Now we’re getting somewhere.”

The energy changed.

Unlike the earlier answers, Đăng’s response came from observation - experience and a street smart attitude.

He explained that he knew people who traveled overseas to purchase products and resell them at home.

He wasn’t guessing. He was connecting patterns.

“If I had to hire somebody today,” DAV79 said, “Đăng would be closest.”

The room laughed.

“Not hired yet,” DAV79 added. “Almost.”

The discussion eventually revealed the answer.

The woman was transporting live baby lobsters through a regional supply chain.

The profit margins were enormous.

The logistics were complex.

The risks were significant - more like a fly by night operations.

But DAV79’s point had nothing to do with seafood.

His point was that somebody had identified a gap in the market.

Somebody understood demand.

Somebody understood supply.

Somebody understood value. They connected it.

“I don’t hire people because they know theory,” he said.

“I hire people because they can see opportunities other people miss and they are able to execute that.”

For the rest of the session, that idea remained at the center of every discussion.

Chapter 2: The World No Longer Moves in Straight Lines

After DAV79 handed over the session, MIHF welcomed everyone to Day Three of Hack a Business.

The topic was solutions.

But before discussing solutions, he wanted to discuss reality.

He projected an image of a river.

“Life moves like this.”

The river twisted and curved through the landscape.

“It never moves in a straight line.”

The analogy was simple.

Most people imagine life as a predictable sequence.

Study.

Graduate.

Get a job.

Build a career.

Retire.

The modern world no longer works that way.

MIHF described a world transformed by technology, globalization, and artificial intelligence.

Entire industries could change within months.

Companies could disappear almost overnight.

Products could become obsolete before reaching maturity.

“That’s why we need to understand VUCA.”

Volatility.

Unknown.

Complexity.

Ambiguity.

The framework originated from military planning but had become increasingly relevant to business.

Volatility described rapid change.

Unknown described the inability to predict outcomes.

Complexity described interconnected systems.

Ambiguity described situations where no single answer was clearly correct.

The framework immediately sparked questions.

And, once again, the first challenge came from Đăng.

Chapter 3: Unknown, Uncertainty, and Why Businesses Get Lost

“Can I ask something?”

MIHF nodded.

Đăng had already looked up VUCA before the session.

“When I checked AI, it says the U means uncertainty. Why are we using unknown?”

The question immediately caught DAV79’s attention.

“Excellent question.”

Rather than treating it as a vocabulary issue, DAV79 used it to deepen the discussion.

“Unknown” is our adaptation of the traditional VUCA concept of uncertainty.

Uncertainty assumes that we know the factors involved, but we are unsure of the outcome. Unknown goes a step further. It describes situations where we don’t even know what factors exist. There are no visible patterns, no historical references, and sometimes not even the right questions to ask.

This is not simply uncertainty. This is near-zero visibility.

In many ways, it is the most difficult component of VUCA because we are dealing with things we cannot yet see, measure, or anticipate. We don’t know what we don’t know.

The unknown is created by an almost infinite number of possibilities emerging from an increasingly connected and rapidly changing world. New technologies, behaviors, markets, and events can appear without warning and reshape entire industries overnight.

Offline - DAV79 was discussing with a parnter. We will have a VUCA workshop in Hanoi last week of Jun if members would like to join in. You would need to register for that. I will send you the details towards the end of the week. For qualified students, we will not charge - but you have to cover your own expenses.”

let us know if you are interested to join in…….

“But we want you to think beyond terminology.”

He explained that management frameworks often become buzzwords.

People memorize them.

People repeat them.

People put them into PowerPoint presentations.

Yet few people actually use them.

“VUCA is not theory.”

He emphasized the point repeatedly.

Each element represented a real business challenge.

Volatility meant markets changing faster than organizations.

Unknown meant making decisions without complete information.

Complexity meant every decision affecting multiple systems. But perhaps DAV79 can elaborate on the workshop plan in the next week. This was going to be immersive.

Ambiguity meant facing situations where several answers appeared correct.

MIHF expanded on the concept using AI.

A company might see AI as an opportunity.

Another company might see the same technology as a threat.

Neither interpretation was entirely right or wrong.

The challenge was learning to act despite uncertainty.

“Success is not about having all the answers,” MIHF explained.

“It’s about learning faster than change happens.”

For many participants, this became one of the most important insights of the day.

for every element of VUCa identified a problem that companies faced and therefore a solution was available for that … but you can only see it if you dive deeper.

To set that deep dive, shoot your questions on VUCA or ….

psss. place your question numbers you are attempting to address when you leave the comment.

Chapter 4: SDG – When Profit Is Not Enough

The discussion naturally returned to the lobster business.

The numbers were attractive.

The profits were impressive.

But another question emerged.

Was it actually a good business?

Đăng was the first to challenge the idea.

“What if the business depends on one person?”

“What if demand changes?”

“What if regulations change?”

The discussion shifted from profitability to sustainability.

This introduced the Sustainable Development Goals.

The conversation became broader.

A business could generate profit.

A business could grow quickly.

A business could satisfy customers.

Yet still create problems elsewhere.

The participants began examining businesses through a different lens.

Who benefits?

Who is affected?

What happens when the business scales?

What risks are being created?

What responsibilities exist?

MIHF summarized it clearly.

“A business should solve problems.”

“Not create larger ones.”

The SDG framework encouraged participants to think beyond money and toward long-term impact. Use this template to build your thoughts.

The strongest businesses, they realized, were often the ones that balanced profit, people, and sustainability.

Use that on your final presentation for Jun 9.

Chapter 5: The War Room and the Corporate Challenge

The final part of the session focused on action.

Participants were placed into discussion groups.

Their mission sounded simple.

Choose a company.

Identify two major problems.

Classify those problems using the VUCA framework.

Find the root causes.

Develop technology-driven solutions.

Yet as the breakout rooms began, the participants quickly discovered that business problems were rarely as straightforward as they first appeared.

Before the groups separated, an interesting moment unfolded.

MIHF informed Dr JH that he was welcome to leave the breakout rooms and return when the discussions concluded.

Dr JH chose to stay.

He spoke very little.

Mostly, he listened.

He observed.

He watched how participants approached the challenge.

It was a subtle reminder that understanding often begins before speaking. In business, observation can be just as important as action.

Inside the breakout rooms, a pattern quickly emerged.

Most participants were good at identifying symptoms.

Very few were identifying causes.

Again and again, MIHF challenged the groups.

“Why?”

The teams would answer.

Then he would ask again.

“Why?”

Every answer seemed to uncover another layer.

Customer complaints became communication issues.

Operational delays became information flow issues.

Performance problems became leadership issues.

The visible problem was rarely the real problem.

To make the exercise practical, MIHF assigned real companies.

One group selected AirAsia.

The other selected Kodak.

AirAsia: Navigating Volatility and Complexity

The AirAsia team consisted of Đăng Vũ, Mina Hong, and Trinh Le Phuong Quynh.

Đăng immediately focused on one of the airline’s biggest challenges.

“Fuel prices can suddenly increase because of wars, conflicts, or global events,” he explained. “We don’t know when these things will happen.”

Mina nodded.

“So that falls under Volatility?”

“Exactly,” Đăng replied.

The group explored the issue further.

Fuel represented one of AirAsia’s largest operating expenses. Yet as a low-cost carrier, the airline could not simply increase ticket prices every time costs increased.

Quynh expanded on the idea.

“If ticket prices increase too much, customers may choose another airline,” she said. “So AirAsia has very little control over the situation.”

The group agreed that rising fuel costs represented a classic example of Volatility. External events could rapidly change business conditions without warning.

The discussion then moved to a second challenge.

AirAsia operated across multiple countries, each with its own regulations, financial obligations, airport fees, and legal requirements.

Đăng pointed out that one of AirAsia’s subsidiary companies had experienced debt and legal issues involving local airport fees.

“A problem in one country can affect the entire network,” he explained.

The group classified this under Complexity.

Multiple countries.

Multiple regulations.

Multiple stakeholders.

Everything was connected.

Once the problems were identified, attention shifted toward solutions.

Mina proposed using AI-powered optimization systems to improve flight planning and reduce fuel consumption.

“If we can optimize routes and operations, we can reduce costs even when fuel prices increase,” she explained.

Quynh suggested technology that could monitor fuel usage in real time and provide better operational insights.

The group also discussed sustainable aviation fuel technologies that could reduce long-term dependence on traditional fuel sources.

By the end of the exercise, the team had transformed abstract VUCA concepts into practical business decisions.

Volatility was no longer just a definition.

It was fuel prices.

Complexity was no longer just a theory.

It was managing an airline across multiple countries.

Kodak: The Company That Saw the Future but Missed It

Meanwhile, the second group focused on Kodak.

The discussion was led by Vira Devi, Thu Hang Nguyen, and Bao Ngan.

“What happened to Kodak?” MIHF had asked earlier.

Everyone knew the brand.

Kodak had once dominated the photography industry.

For decades, photography and Kodak were almost inseparable.

Yet when digital photography arrived, Kodak struggled.

Hang identified the first major problem.

“Kodak failed to adapt to digital photography.”

She explained that the photography industry changed faster than Kodak’s decision-making process could respond.

The group classified this under Volatility.

The market shifted rapidly.

Consumer behavior changed.

Technology advanced.

Kodak reacted too slowly.

Vira introduced a second issue.

The company had underestimated how quickly customers would move from film photography to digital photography.

Ironically, Kodak had developed one of the earliest digital cameras in 1975.

Yet management continued prioritizing traditional film products.

“They believed digital photography would only support film,” Vira explained. “They didn’t believe it would replace film.”

Bao expanded on the point.

“The problem wasn’t only technology. Kodak misunderstood customer behavior.”

Consumers increasingly preferred digital sharing, smartphones, and online platforms.

Kodak continued making decisions based on assumptions that had worked in the past.

The group classified this under Uncertainty.

The future was changing.

The signals were visible.

But Kodak failed to anticipate the scale of that change.

As a solution, Vira proposed a data-driven customer intelligence system.

Instead of relying on historical success, Kodak could continuously monitor consumer behavior, emerging trends, purchasing patterns, and social media conversations.

“If they had understood what customers wanted earlier, they might have adapted before competitors overtook them,” she explained.

When the breakout rooms ended, each group returned to present its findings.

The presentations were not perfect.

Participants searched for words.

They corrected themselves.

Sometimes they paused to think.

But something more important had happened.

They were no longer discussing VUCA as a classroom concept.

They were applying it to real businesses, real problems, and real decisions.

As MIHF listened, he smiled.

The lesson had landed.

The goal was never to memorize frameworks.

The goal was to use them.

As the session ended, DAV79 returned one final time.

The following week, participants would present their findings.

But there was a catch.

Corporate professionals would be attending.

The students would not know who they were.

The guests would observe quietly.

Then they would ask questions.

Difficult questions.

Real questions.

The same questions asked in interviews, boardrooms, and business meetings.

“You need to be ready.”

DAV79 looked around the virtual room.

“AI can explain theory.”

“AI can create slides.”

“AI can write reports.”

“But AI cannot replace your ability to think.”

The challenge was clear.

Find a problem.

Understand the cause.

Apply VUCA.

Consider sustainability.

Build a solution.

And be prepared to defend it.

Because in business, opportunities rarely announce themselves.

They hide inside problems waiting for somebody curious enough to find them.

Lets Navigate VUCA.

missing the how do you feel? click the image below to load up your ppt on the QBOARD as well and let us know how you felt…..

Whatever your FIRST guess is — drop it in the comments with:

#ChapterNumber + Clue Number + YourAnswer

So we can see exactly where your mind went first.

Now here’s the twist.

We’ll start releasing clues behind each image.

But this is no longer just one question.

There are now TWO:

1. What exactly is this?

2. Could this be scaled in today’s world — and if yes, HOW?

Some answers may surprise you.

Chapter 1. harvesting - sticky substance - red ink ?

Still don’t get it?
Good. That means the mystery is working.

Take your best guess in the comments — or continue to the next chapter.

Leave a comment

Chapter 2 : scrap - crush - boil

No luck yet - take a guess or continue.

Leave a comment

Chapter 3 : squeeze - filter - sieve

Chapter 4 : melt - stir - pour

and voila the product finally appeared.

In the mountains of ancient China, long before laboratories and factories existed, colour was harvested from nature with patience, observation, and ritual.

It began quietly on the surface of cactus leaves.

Tiny white insects gathered there in clusters so small they were almost invisible from a distance. To most people, they looked like dust, mold, or disease. But to trained eyes, they were treasure.

Women and craftsmen carefully collected them by hand using small brushes and bamboo tools, protecting the delicate bodies from damage. The harvest was slow. Thousands upon thousands were needed for even a small amount of pigment.

The insects were dried under the sun until their bodies hardened into grey fragments. Then came the transformation.

The dried material was crushed into fine powder using stone mortars. Water was heated over open flame. Slowly, the powder released something hidden inside — a deep crimson liquid unlike ordinary red.

The colour shifted with every ingredient added.

A few drops of citrus brightened it. Minerals deepened it. Oils softened it. Wax gave it structure. What began as tiny insects on cactus leaves slowly became something worn by nobles, performers, poets, and eventually entire courts.

In imperial China, rich red cosmetics symbolized vitality, beauty, status, and fortune. The rarest shades were reserved for the elite. Some pigments travelled across kingdoms through trade routes, guarded like precious spices or silk.

But what made the colour extraordinary was not only its beauty.

It was the journey.

A process built from patience instead of speed. Observation instead of machinery. Transformation instead of extraction.

What appeared insignificant in nature became something people desired enough to place on royal tables.

And perhaps that was the deeper lesson hidden inside the lipstick itself:

Value is often created long before people recognize it.

Current rough value:
$150–$295 per kg for cosmetic/food-grade carmine or cochineal products, depending on purity and supplier. Some natural-dye retail listings are around $285–$295/kg.

Historically, its value was much higher because it was rare, labour-intensive, and difficult to replace. Cochineal became one of colonial Mexico’s most valuable exports after silver and was important enough to be traded on European commodity exchanges.

Market Insights

• The global lipstick market alone is estimated around USD 10–15+ billion annually.

• The broader natural cosmetics market is around USD 24 billion in 2025.

• Carmine/cochineal itself — the insect-derived red pigment used in lipsticks, blushes, and cosmetics — is a much smaller ingredient market, estimated around USD 40–63 million today globally.

Supply Chains :

A microscopic insect from a cactus farm in Peru can eventually become luxury lipstick sold in Shanghai, Seoul, Paris, or New York. China did manufacture - but not at the scale done in Chile or Peru

People may equate our purpose to agile thinking or lateral thinking. We simply call it common sense sharpened through observation — studying ancient systems not to romanticize the past, but to understand timeless human patterns. The goal is not to copy the past, but to extract principles from it and build better systems for today.

Ancient civilizations solved problems with the tools they had; our responsibility is to understand why those systems worked, what human needs they fulfilled, and then create newer, smarter, and more scalable ways forward without losing the meaning behind them.

On Day 1, the group established a simple foundation: business exists at the intersection of demand and supply. Either demand already exists and is fulfilled, or supply is created and demand is shaped around it.

Previously on Day 1

Day 2 moved into a more complex reality—the problems within business. However, rather than a structured session, the day began with an unexpected constraint. Many members informed that they would not be joining. In the end, only Iris and Vira were present, while DAV79, Dr JH, and MIHF chose to proceed regardless.

This decision itself reflected a core business principle: continuity despite imperfect conditions.

It became an unfiltered test of mindset—who stays committed when conditions are less than ideal, and more importantly, who is actually hireable.

A few members had the awareness to inform the group in advance even though it was the very last minute. That reflects a baseline of responsibility. But even then, it signals wavering commitment…..and more of a formality than a passion to pursue.

More telling were those who did not respond at all. That is not just absence—it reflects a deeper gap in accountability.

In a business context, both matter. One shows partial ownership. The other shows none. This is interesting - more questions were layered on this behaviour.

So if you were a business , who would you want to hire? Did anyone of you know the true reason why business look for members who have a degree or a diploma ?

Nonethelss, the absent members were expected to catch up independently, as the session was still building toward a fixed milestone—the presentation on June 9. Thats the only way they could make up. Read - comment with questions and thoughts - submit the homeowork.

At the start, MIHF framed the session around one central idea: “Why do we fall?”

He used the quote from Batman:

We fall so that we can learn to pick ourselves up again.

From there, he made three points:

• Problems are inevitable — every business will face them (losses, clients leaving, demand-supply imbalance, etc.)

• You cannot eliminate problems — trying to prevent all failure is unrealistic

• The real skill is recovery — how a business responds, adapts, and rises again

So the focus wasn’t on avoiding problems, but on developing the mindset to deal with them.

In short:
Falling is normal. Staying down is the real problem.

The session unfolded through discussion rather than lecture.

1. Vira’s Experience – Surface Problem vs Real Problem

Vira shared a workplace situation involving her boss. At first glance, she framed the issue as a communication problem—her boss did not attend a client meeting, later blamed her for the outcome, and dismissed her attempts to explain.

Through guided questioning, DAV79 pushed deeper.

The issue was reframed:

• Not communication

• Not even purely leadership

But a breakdown in expectations and accountability

Her boss approved pricing decisions, yet shifted responsibility when outcomes failed. This revealed a structural gap:

• unclear ownership

• misaligned expectations

• lack of process integrity

What appeared as a “difficult boss” was actually a system failure - not a communication.

MIHF called on Iris to reflect on what she had taken away from the previous session. Her response was immediate—she had not attended and therefore did not know. The explanation was straightforward, but it exposed a deeper gap.

DAV79 did not let it pass. He reframed it bluntly: absence might explain the situation, but it does not excuse the lack of preparation. In his view, showing up without having read the material is no different from entering a boardroom unprepared. It reflects a breakdown in accountability, especially in an environment where performance is being observed and evaluated.

Instead of moving on, he imposed a constraint—five minutes to read and contribute. No delay, no deferral.

When Iris returned, her response was simple but aligned with the core idea. She articulated that business revolves around demand—either fulfilling existing demand or creating it through creativity and influence. She extended this by referencing early systems of exchange, where abundance led to trade, reinforcing her understanding that business ultimately exists to respond to or shape what people want.

2. DAV79 – “Fool Me Once”

DAV79 introduced the idea from Fool Me Once—not as a moral lesson, but as a pattern in systems.

When gaps emerge between demand and supply, “cracks” form.

Two types of actors appear:

• those who exploit the cracks (fraud, shortcuts, manipulation)

• those who fail to adapt (slow, rigid, outdated systems)

Both create problems.

The key idea:
problems are not random—they emerge from misalignment and movement

When demand shifts and supply fails to keep up (or overshoots), instability is created. That instability becomes opportunity—for both value creation and exploitation.

3. MIHF – Problem vs Symptom

MIHF reinforced a critical distinction:

What people call “problems” are often just symptoms.

Examples:

• “communication issues” → symptom

• “bad leadership” → symptom

• “client dissatisfaction” → symptom

The real problem lies deeper:

• expectation gaps

• broken processes

• unclear decision authority

• misaligned incentives

This reframing changes how problems are approached:
You don’t fix symptoms—you diagnose systems.

4. Assignment – From Discussion to Application

The session closed with a shift from theory to action.

Members were tasked to:

• choose a company or a social problem

• develop a problem / opportunity statement

This forces a transition:

• from observing problems

• to defining them clearly

• to eventually solving them

Underlying Theme of the Session

Even with only two participants, the session demonstrated the core lesson itself:

Problems are inevitable.
What matters is how you respond.

The absence of members became a live example:

• low participation → operational constraint

• decision to proceed → adaptive response

In business terms, the session did not “fail.”
It adjusted.

NEXT WEEK

VUCA and its elements were introduced as the lens to understand modern business environments—volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.

All members are expected to read the assigned articles and contribute actively. Participation is not passive. Everyone must come prepared with questions. No questions means no engagement, and no engagement means no score.

Bring in problems you have seen in companies or social environments around you.

DAV79’s earlier reference remains unresolved—the case of his friend constantly traveling between Saigon and Singapore every three days. The question still stands: what is happening there?

A parallel was observed in universities, where some students request to be marked present despite being absent from class, citing attendance at other events. Several educators rejected this outright. Attendance is not transferable. If you miss, you make up.

The principle is consistent: responsibility cannot be substituted.

MORE READS

I. The Big Divide

The Boys is a superhero satire television that mirrors modern education by exposing institutional rot: institutions prioritize glossy branding over actual learning, elite hierarchies starve ordinary students of resources, powerful academics exploit vulnerable juniors, and institutions hush up major scandals to protect their profits and reputations instead of protecting their students.

The Intergenerational Gap continues to create even newer “opportunities”.

Chapter 1 — The Call

John didn’t usually call this early.

Zoe saw his name flash on her phone and smiled before picking up. This had to be about the offer.

“Hey,” he said, already energized. “I saw it. This is big. You should take it.”

A global program - a masters degrees on a joint collaboration between Two universities . Two countries. A name people respected.

On the surface, it was everything people chase—status, exposure, the promise of a better trajectory.

John had even done some quick research. The institution checked out. The branding was strong. The narrative was clean.

“For a moment,” he said, “I thought—this is it. This is a solid move.”

Zoe didn’t interrupt. She let him finish.

Because she already knew something he didn’t.

Chapter 2 — The Numbers Beneath the Numbers

“I spoke to a few people,” Zoe said quietly.

Not recruiters. Not marketing teams. People inside.

People who had already made the decision she was now being asked to make.

“The tuition is just the beginning,” she continued.

What followed wasn’t dramatic. It was worse—precise.

Living costs.
Accommodation.
Transport.
Administrative layers no one talks about.

The number doubled. Quietly.

Then came the part that unsettled her the most.

“No one could tell me what happens after,” she said.

Some had returned without jobs.
Some were working just to stay afloat.
Some had debt large enough to shape their next decade.

And then there was the clock.

“If you don’t find a job fast enough,” she said, “you don’t just lose income—you lose your right to stay.”

John didn’t respond immediately this time.

The offer hadn’t changed.

But its weight had.

Chapter 3 — What Was Actually Happening

“It’s not just this program,” John said slowly.

And that was the moment the conversation shifted.

Because once they stepped back, the pattern became obvious.

This wasn’t a bad program.

It was a system that didn’t need to be accountable.

Institutions were paid upfront.
Students carried the uncertainty.

The more they spoke, the clearer it became that the real product wasn’t education.

It was aspiration.

The idea of “going abroad.”
The signal of prestige.
The belief that geography could shortcut effort.

Zoe had seen it in the conversations she’d had.

People didn’t just want to learn.
They wanted a way out. A way forward. A way up.

And the system knew that.

“That’s the part that bothers me,” John said.
“It’s not illegal. It’s just… perfectly structured to benefit one side.”

Zoe nodded, even though he couldn’t see her.

“And the worst part?” she added.
“Even when people know the risks, they still go.”

Because the narrative is stronger than the math.

Chapter 4 — What Do We Do About It?

They sat with that question longer than expected.

Not as critics. But as people inside the system, trying to understand what would actually make it better.

“It’s not about shutting institutions down,” Zoe said.
“It’s about fixing how they earn.”

John leaned in. “Go on.”

1. Pay for Outcomes at the end of the program

“What if,” Zoe said, “education only gets paid when it works?”

Not upfront.

Not based on enrollment.

But as a percentage of what students actually go on to earn.

That would change everything.

Programs would have to prove value.
Students wouldn’t carry all the risk.
Institutions would finally have skin in the game.

This is atleast a 10 Trillion USD game - not many are going to like the disruption . But the Woke will lead the way as they see the big divide.

2. Stop Selling Geography and Passports as a Shortcut

“And the second thing,” She continued, “we need to separate education from migration.”

The silence on the other end told her John understood.

Too many decisions weren’t about learning.
They were about location.

And that blurred line was where most of the damage happened.

“If education is valuable,” Zoe said, “it should stand on its own. Not on where it takes you.”

3. The Lord of Certificates

Zoe had a linking question: are universities selling certificates, and do those certificates truly guarantee value? This is where the grey line begins, and where many universities are quietly navigating around the issue.

Certificates without skills are already a problem. But even when skills exist, there is often a deeper gap — the mindset needed for the future of work.

As companies begin asking simpler but more important questions — Who would you hire? — hiring is increasingly shifting away from just what you can do toward what you want to do. Your mindset, adaptability, curiosity, and direction are becoming just as valuable as technical capability.

Institutions often sell a destination. The challenge is that this can create conflict with fully living the journey itself. Students become focused on reaching the credential rather than developing the character, resilience, and internal compass that the journey was meant to shape.

That, however, is a much wider conversation for another day.

4. The Role of Companies — Beyond Extraction

Zoe added something she hadn’t fully articulated yet.

“This isn’t just on universities,” She said.

Companies had quietly become part of the loop. They have been “mis-applying” the “CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility” concept

They benefited from:

• A steady pipeline of desperate, over-leveraged graduates

• Talent willing to accept lower wages just to stabilize their situation

“That’s not development,” he said. “That’s extraction.”

If organizations were serious about responsibility, then Corporate Social Responsibility couldn’t just be branding.

It had to evolve.

Not as a tool to:

• Reduce costs

• Access cheaper talent

But as a commitment to:

• Build individuals to their full potential

• Invest in real capability, not just immediate output

• Create pathways, not just positions

The Quiet Decision

The call ended without a dramatic conclusion.

No outrage. No declarations.

Just clarity.

Zoe didn’t reject the offer because it lacked prestige.

She rejected it because she understood the structure behind it.

And once you understand the structure, the decision becomes simpler.

II. The Larger Story

Somewhere beyond Zoe and John, this is happening at scale.

Not loudly. Not visibly.

But consistently. At this rate the universities were going to shut down in 10 years - if they were lucky enough.

In another part of the world, DAV79 framed Project ∞ as a practical counter to the current system. While universities are constrained by legacy structures, funding models, and institutional inertia, Project ∞ can operate outside those boundaries. It is designed as a live experiment—focused on outcomes, real capability, and direct value creation rather than credentials. The idea is simple: instead of debating the flaws of education, build a working alternative that proves a different model can outperform it. By stepping outside the system, Project ∞ aims to demonstrate what education could look like if incentives were truly aligned with results.

III. DAY 1 - The Weirdest Business

The Room Opens

“Alright… good evening everyone.”

MIHF’s voice was steady, controlled. The kind that doesn’t demand attention—but gets it anyway.

“Welcome to Day One.”

He looked across the room. Different faces. Different energy.

“We’re not here to learn business,” he said. “We’re here to understand what makes a business… a business.”

A few exchanged glances. That sentence didn’t land immediately.

“Before we begin,” he added, “how’s everyone doing?”

“Tired.”
“Busy.”
“Exams…”
“Internship…”

Real life, leaking into the room.

MIHF nodded. “Good. That’s exactly where we start.”

He paused.

“I’m going to hand this over.”

The Disruption

DAV79 didn’t begin with instructions.

“Today,” he said, “everyone here is a student. Including me.”

That shifted something.

“No experts. No hierarchy. Just thinking.”

He leaned forward slightly.

“Let me ask you something.”

A pause.

“What is the weirdest business you’ve ever seen?”

Let me tell you some stories :

The First Story

“There’s a guy,” DAV79 began, “a tracker. Lives in the wild. And when he starts his journey, he tells people—”

He stopped, smiling.

“—I don’t know where we’re going.”

A few laughs.

“But then he says something interesting,” he continued.

Silence.

“That’s intuition,” DAV79 said. “Not guesswork. Not luck. Experience.”

He scanned the room.

“The world you’re entering… doesn’t follow your plan. It breaks it.”

A few faces stiffened. This was no longer light conversation.

“You plan too rigidly?” he continued. “You get hit. Hard.”

He leaned back.

“That’s why this journey is messy. That’s why Project ∞ has to be messy and our uniqueness is not that it is takes you to real world scenarios - but that WE CAN - we are bold enough to do it and free from the constraints”

The Second Story

“Let’s make it more interesting,” he said.

“There’s a smuggler. Every day, he crosses the border with a donkey. The donkey carries straw.”

Heads tilted. Where is this going?

“Every single day, guards stop him. Check everything.”

Nothing.

Day after day. Year after year.

Nothing.

Then one day, a retired guard asks him—”

He slowed down.

“‘Tell me… what were you smuggling?’”

A pause.

DAV79 looked around.

“Anyone?”

A voice came in: “The donkey?”

He smiled.

“Exactly.”

A ripple of realization moved through the room.

“You were all looking at the straw,” he said. “Nobody looked at the obvious.”

After the smuggler story, DAV79 did not stop at the donkey.

He pushed the room further.

“Let me give you another example,” he said.

“I have a friend from HCMC.”

The room listened.

“She flies business class from HCMC to Singapore every few days.”

That sounded expensive.

But then DAV79 added the strange part.

“She doesn’t have money to stay in a hotel. She sleeps at the airport in a chair. and next day morning she flies to cambodia and then takes a bus from Cambodoia to HCMC ”

Now the room had to think.

Why would someone afford frequent business-class flights, but not a hotel?

That was the point.

On the surface, it looked illogical.

But DAV79 was showing them that business often hides behind contradiction. If something looks strange, don’t dismiss it. Ask:

What is this business?
What is the demand?
Where is the crack?
What is being moved?
Where is the money made?

That example became the bridge from story into business thinking.

The War Room

“Alright,” MIHF said, glancing across the screen. “We’re breaking out.”

No countdown. No drama. Just a click—and the room fractured into smaller spaces.

Same question everywhere.

What is the weirdest business you can think of?

Room 2 - “Wrapping Apology”

For a moment, no one spoke.

Then Bao Ngan leaned forward, almost cautiously.

“I have one,” she said.

The others turned.

“There’s a business… where you hire someone to apologize for you.”

A pause.

Gung Risky frowned. “Wait—what do you mean?”

“You make a mistake,” Bao continued. “At work, or with family. Instead of apologizing yourself… you pay someone to do it. They act it out. Professionally.”

The silence stretched longer this time.

Not because it didn’t make sense.

Because it made too much sense.

Risky let out a small breath. “That’s… actually useful.”

No one laughed.

Room 3 - “The Future of Dating”

Mina Hong didn’t wait.

“Let’s structure this,” she said, already taking control.

“Explain the idea. Then explain why it works.”

She turned slightly. “Go.”

Putu stepped in.

“Smell dating.”

That was enough to break the rhythm.

“What?” someone said.

Trinh Le Phuong Quynh picked it up smoothly.

“No photos. No profiles,” she said. “You send your worn shirt. Someone smells it. If they like your scent… you match.”

A mix of disbelief and curiosity.

Đăng Vũ leaned in, thinking through it.

“It sounds strange,” he said slowly, “but it’s more real.”

Putu continued, almost convincing himself as he spoke.

“You can fake photos. You can edit profiles.”

“But smell… you can’t fake that.”

The room went quiet again.

Not rejection. Recognition.

That was a cool session from Putu from Bali.

Room 1 - “The circular economy trap”

Bách Nguyễn described a major car company that was not only selling electric vehicles, but building an ecosystem around them. The strange part was not the car itself. It was the way the business could price the car, pull people into the electric ecosystem, and then continue earning through the charging and energy layer.

The car is one entry point.
The electricity is another.
The infrastructure is another.

The customer thinks they are buying a vehicle.

But the business may be building a system where every future movement—charging, usage, service, energy—keeps feeding the same machine. “Left pocket - to Right pocket” - the money never leaves the system.

That was the deeper weirdness. Not speed. Control.

The Return

The rooms collapsed back into one.

Faces reappeared. Same people.

Different thinking.

MIHF leaned forward. “Alright. Let’s hear it.”

Bao spoke first.

“The apology business,” she said.

DAV79 tilted his head slightly.

“So… we can rent a sorry face?”

Light laughter rippled across the group.

But he didn’t smile.

Mina followed.

“Smell dating.”

This time, DAV79 didn’t react at all.

He just listened.

Bách spoke next, explaining rapid industry shifts.

Tania added her line again.

“It’s not weird,” she said. “It’s perspective.”

DAV79:

“Business is not clean,” he said.

“It doesn’t come from perfect ideas. It comes from cracks.”

He paused.

“Gaps in behavior. Gaps in emotion. Gaps in how people actually live and remain sustainable” At the end of the day it was all about the behaviour

The Demand

MIHF’s core message about business was actually simple—but easy to miss:

He framed business as a system of demand and supply that must be actively managed, not assumed.

What he emphasized

1. Demand is not natural — it is created
He explained that people don’t always know what they need.

Businesses must:

• Understand hidden needs

• Use creativity to guide people toward wanting something

He used the example of AI tools competing by shaping perception, not just stating features.

2. Supply without demand is failure — and vice versa
He made it very clear:

• High demand + low supply → lost revenue, unhappy customers

• High supply + low demand → excess stock, financial loss

Both sides are dangerous. Both represented different set of issues.

3. Business is about balancing the two
His key line of thinking:

If you have supply → create demand
If you have demand → create supply

That balance is the core job of a business owner.

4. Business is not isolated — it is a chain
Through the exercise, he showed:

• Every role is connected

• One problem spreads across the system

• You cannot think in silos

MIHF stepped in.

Slowly.

Deliberately.

“Let me show you something.”

He pointed—not physically, but with intent.

“Every idea you just shared exists for one reason.”

He let it sit.

“Demand.”

The word landed harder than expected.

“You think it’s weird,” he continued, “because you’re not the customer.”

No one moved.

Then he turned back to Bao’s idea.

“This one…” he said, quieter now.

“This one is different.”

The room leaned in.

“Because it breaks something fundamental.”

A pause.

“An apology is supposed to be real.”

He looked around the room.

“But here… it’s outsourced.”

Something shifted.

Not intellectually.

Emotionally.

From the side, another layer formed—JH’s perspective, carried through DAV79.

“What makes it strange,” he said, “is not the business.”

“It’s what it reveals.”

He slowed down.

“People struggle with confrontation. With emotion.”

“And instead of dealing with it…”

“They pay someone else to carry it.”

No one laughed this time.

The Realization - Chicken and Egg.

Tania spoke again, softer now.

“So it’s not weird.”

DAV79 nodded.

“No. It’s just demand. sometimes inflated and sometimes what we have even if we dont know what we want” The question is what comes first.

The Chain

MIHF gave a very clear, practical instruction:

He made them step into the supply chain and think from inside each role.

Specifically, he told them to:

• Choose a role in the chain (raw material → supplier → factory → distribution → retail)

• Identify one real challenge in that role

• Think operationally, not theoretically

• Understand how their problem affects the entire chain

MIHF didn’t shift tone. He sharpened it.

“This,” he said, “is how a business actually runs.”

Not ideas. Not “weird businesses.”

A chain.

“From raw material… all the way to retail.”

He looked at Mina.

“You choose first.”

“I’ll take factory,” Mina Hong said.

“Good,” MIHF nodded. “Call someone.”

“Thu Hang.”

There was a pause. No response.

MIHF moved quickly.

“Okay, let’s keep moving.”

He scanned the room.

“Bao?”

“I choose customer,” Bao Ngan said.

MIHF shook his head immediately.

“No. You don’t get to be the customer.”

A small shift in the room.

“You are part of the system,” he said. “Try again.”

“Retail,” Bao corrected.

“Good.”

“Bách?”

“I’ll take supplier.”

“Risky?”

“I… distribution?”

“Correct,” MIHF said. “That’s the last one.”

Now the structure was set.

Raw material → Supplier → Factory → Distribution → Retail

A simple chain.

Or so it seemed.

The Breakpoints

MIHF didn’t explain.

He asked.

“Raw material,” he said, turning.

“What is your biggest challenge?”

Silence.

He redirected.

“Đăng Vũ.”

Vũ hesitated. Searching.

Then:

“I think… weather.”

MIHF nodded immediately.

“Good.”

No correction. No lecture.

“Your entire output depends on things you cannot control.”

Then he added another layer.

“Thu Hang says… long-term buyers.”

Factories switching suppliers for cheaper prices.

MIHF nodded again.

“Instability.”

He moved forward.

“Supplier,” he said. “Bách?”

Bách Nguyễn leaned in.

“Cost,” he said.

“If costs are too high… everything becomes difficult.”

Not clean. Not perfect.

But real.

MIHF didn’t refine it.

He pushed it forward.

“Factory. Mina.”

Mina Hong was clear.

“Quality versus price,” she said.

“And storage. Production. Cost control.”

Now it was sharper.

More structured.

MIHF connected it instantly.

“So now,” he said, “cost pressure flows into production.”

No one spoke.

But everyone saw it.

He turned.

“Distribution. Risky.”

“I think… delivery. Punctuality.”

“Why?” MIHF asked.

“If it’s late… it affects the deal.”

MIHF nodded.

“So now delay becomes loss.”

Finally—

“Retail. Bao.”

Bao Ngan didn’t hesitate this time.

“Inventory,” she said.

“And supply chain balance.”

“Too much… or too little… both are problems.”

MIHF stopped.

Looked across the room.

And then said it.

The Realization

“What you just saw…”

He paused.

“…is a system.”

“A change here,” he pointed vaguely upstream,
“affects everything… all the way down.”

“You go to a store,” he continued,
“you buy a shoe…”

“You think that’s simple.”

“But you never think—”

• where the material came from

• why the cost changed

• why one place is cheaper than another

“You don’t see the chain.”

The Cut — DAV79

DAV79 stepped in, calm but sharper.

“Most of you are looking at the wrong problem.”

The room stilled.

“Retail is not about inventory,” he said.

“It’s about sales.”

“If no one walks in…”

“It doesn’t matter what you stock.”

He turned slightly.

“Distribution is not about delivery.”

“It’s about volume.”

“They make money buying low… selling high… in bulk.”

“Factory?”

He shook his head.

“They don’t care about beauty.”

“They care about cost.”

“Production. Pressure. Output.”

He didn’t slow down.

“Supplier?”

“Cost matters… but not where you think.”

Then he paused.

“What you are missing,” he said,
“is how the whole system actually behaves.”

The Flip

He gave one example.

Simple. But disorienting.

“I can buy a shoe cheaper in Singapore…”

“…than where it was made.”

A few heads lifted.

“Why?”

“Volume.”

“Flow.”

“System advantage.”

“Not logic.”

The Close

The room didn’t react loudly.

But something had shifted.

MIHF had shown the structure.

DAV79 had broken the assumptions.

And somewhere in between—

the participants stopped seeing roles…

and started seeing interdependence.

A business is not one decision.
It is a chain of pressures… constantly reacting to each other.

this was the simplest chain - the real world - even in its most stable form was a million times complex the this.

DAV79 had a few questions to ask ....

Who can tell about what DAV79’s Friend from HCMC was upto?

Leave a comment

MIHFs at closing

1. Anchored the learning
He reinforced that what they saw was a full business system, not isolated roles:

• Every decision impacts the entire chain

• Customers only see the end, not the process

• Understanding the chain is fundamental to understanding business

2. Shifted from session → action
He immediately moved them into execution:

• Post reflections (“How do you feel”)

• Join platform (Padlet, Telegram)

• Engage with written content

This was not optional—it was tracked and measured.

3. Introduced accountability
He made it explicit:

• Everyone had to participate

• Participation = contribution

• Comments = signals of thinking

• Mindsets are being evaluated

No one sits out.

4. Set direction for next session
He framed what’s coming:

• Real company problems

• Not surface-level → going into causes and effects

• We will get into why does this happened - it is the TELL ME WHY SERIES.

MIHF closed by converting insight into system awareness, mandatory participation, and next-step accountability—not just ending the session.

DAV79 had already stated at the beginning:

Everyone here is here to learn.

So when the question came about providing feedback, the answer was straightforward - mentors , participants, Collaborators.

Everyone participates - and comments
Everyone contributes.
No one sits outside the process.

While that was the conservative approach at Project ∞, If you are in the room, you are expected to engage —through reflection, questions, and input. How do we expect others to follow if we dont do it ourself?

The same rule applies to everyone, without exception. This was the true essence of community development and value based systems.

NEXT WEEK

MORE READS

Mindset First (The Edu-Whiz)

S1.C48 — WHY DO ASIANS LIE?

The session did not begin with a formal start…

Read more

4 months ago · Fundamental Decisions

Mindset First (The Edu-Whiz)

S1.C45 — TRUST - a journey of awareness and response

Read more

4 months ago · 1 like · 2 comments · Fundamental Decisions

Opening and Introductions

The session opened with two facilitators already on the call: DAV79, who handles behavioral research, and MIHF, the lead facilitator for both Project ∞ and Hack A Business, joining from Singapore. Around 8:05 AM, MIHF welcomed everyone officially.

“Okay everybody, welcome to Hack A Business Season 1 of 2026. This is the first call that we have today, and this is the orientation session.”

DAV79 then introduced himself: “I am DAV79, and basically what I do is behavioral research.” He described his background working with companies across Singapore and the broader region, helping organizations understand decision-making and human behavior.

The session expected about 11 participants. As members came online, MIHF facilitated quick introductions and posed an icebreaker question — if you had to pick one role from three pictures shown on screen — Doctor, Engineer, or Gambler — which would you choose and why?

Vira (Bali, recently graduated, helping build her family business): chose Engineer — “As an engineer, we can fix the broken things.”

Đăng / Joseph (Ho Chi Minh City, running an English Centre, studying psychology): chose Doctor — “The doctor to help the people with their problems in their life… to heal some problem.”

Mina (Master’s student at Curtin University, Australia): chose Doctor — “I can see the problem and I can bring out the best solution for the patient… that’s my personality.”

Iris (20-year-old student at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ho Chi Minh City, studying International Relations): chose Doctor — “Doctor is someone who can give us a new life.”

Helen (Freshman at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City): also chose Doctor.

Bach (Sophomore, Vietnam): chose Engineer — “I want to do everything with a process.”

Bao (Junior studying Data-Driven Marketing at University of Da Nang, currently interning in Ho Chi Minh City): chose Engineer — “Engineers solve problems using technique and data.”

Tania (business owner, later identified as someone who introduced Tracy to the program): was also present but deferred her introduction, saying “Let’s take the time for our students.”

Quynh had connection difficulties and was unable to speak during the intro round.

The Core Message: Infinite Mindset in a Messy World

After introductions, MIHF handed over to DAV79 for the conceptual framing of the program.

DAV79 opened with a recent experience: “A few days ago, we were on a call with about 51 students from a Poly in Singapore. Many of them don’t find a job they like.” He painted a picture of the gap between what students expect from the workplace and what companies actually need.

“When employers hire people, they do not give an SOP. Standard operating procedures. There is no guidebook. It’s a messy, dirty place — unconventional. It’s a whole web of lies, political disorders, issues.” He noted that they were seeing 20–30 people wanting to quit companies almost daily after joining.

The key shift DAV79 described: “Employers want people who are street smart — who can not only find a problem but essentially solve the problem no matter what it takes.” He connected this to the program’s central philosophy — the Infinite Mindset, drawn from thinker Simon Sinek’s framework.

“Our biggest issue is living in a world that is infinite, with a finite mindset. This is where our trouble starts.” He talked about entering a “destructured zone” — no world order, no straight lines, increasing VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) across every industry. “Welcome to Messy World. Welcome to 2026, where VUCA will not just be theory. VUCA will be something we are going to practice every single day. but at Team FD U stands for UNKNOWN™ not uncertain”

MIHF followed with his own story: as an engineering student, he got a marketing job. When he asked his boss why he hired an engineer instead of a business graduate, the boss said: “I like the engineering mindset.” MIHF’s takeaway: “Companies don’t value skill sets as much as the mindsets they carry. Any skill can be trained. Mindsets are more rigid, harder to shape.”

The Doctor-Engineer-Gambler Framework Unpacked

MIHF revealed that the opening icebreaker was actually a “makeshift personality test.” He broke down what each choice said about a person’s natural mindset:

Doctor (Fixed Mode): Disciplined, stops damage first. “They find the root cause, put all their effort into fixing that problem before moving on.” Key traits: super honest, doesn’t protect their story, urgent but calm, no ego.

Engineer (Build Mode): Forward-thinking, process-oriented. “Engineers see ahead — we think about a problem that may not even be there yet.” Key traits: comfortable with invisible environments, strategic with resources (able to say no), values the journey over the outcome.

Gambler (Calculated Risk Mode): Asymmetric thinker who doesn’t look for certainty but for opportunities where the upside outweighs being wrong. “This is a professional gambler, not a reckless one.” Key traits: detachment from outcomes, finds comfort in contrarian positions, goes against the conventional “play it safe” narrative — much like entrepreneurs.

MIHF was clear: “I’m not saying this mindset is the best mindset. There are risks to each. But each plays a critical role in what kind of person you want to become.”

Program Structure and Assessment

MIHF walked through how Hack A Business works:

War Room Sessions: Unlike previous versions of the program that were mostly theory-based, Season 1 (2026) runs in War Room format — teams tackle real-life business situations, debate, and challenge each other’s thinking. DAV79 added: “It’ll be challenging the theory. For example, why did Donki (a Japanese store in Singapore) shut down? People say manpower costs — but that’s just periphery. We’re going to go deeper.”

The Report: Every participant receives a performance report at the end of Hack A Business — not a certificate. DAV79 was direct: “We cannot certify common sense.” The report includes a performance chart, a radar chart across five skill areas, a project log with grading, feedback on strengths and areas for growth, and a log of questions asked.

Questions are scored using a three-tier system: What questions (lowest tier), How questions (mid tier), and Why questions (highest tier). MIHF warned: “Sometimes you will disguise your why questions as what questions. Our systems are much smarter than that.”

Attendance: If a session is missed, participants must inform the team in advance. They can then read the corresponding Substack article and post a response. The one session that cannot be missed under any circumstances is the final presentation session — where participants present to companies and the team.

Padlet is the main tracking tool, color-coded into four areas: Blue (Read Me / articles), Green (How Do You Feel), Orange (Key Takeaways), and Red (Homework submissions).

Q&A — Participant Questions

Đăng / Joseph asked about missing sessions and how to catch up. MIHF confirmed the Substack article system and emphasized that the presentation session is non-negotiable.

Bach (a returning participant from a previous cohort) asked what was different this time. MIHF explained the shift to War Room style. DAV79 added: “We’re not just talking theory. We’re conflicting existing hypotheses.”

Mina asked two sharp questions. First: is this project experimental or designed for sustained implementation? DAV79 turned it back with a challenge: “What is your value? If I were to hire you, why should I hire you — and what is that value in dollars and cents?” He then answered: “We are not looking at funding. In fact, we’ve been pitching to the UN that there should no longer be funding for organizations. The more the funding, the lazier the system.” He predicted: “In five years, to survive, you will need to do 10 jobs, not one.”

Mina’s second question: are participants expected to contribute long-term? MIHF outlined the full pathway: Hack A Business → Scanner Business → Field Forge → Divergent Series → Center Stage (concluding in December). DAV79 added: “Imagine you’ve completed Project ∞ Center Stage — then you’re no longer just students. You enter directly into the ecosystem.”

JH submitted a written question: “If customers themselves don’t fully understand what they need yet, how can businesses avoid building solutions for yesterday’s problem?” DAV79’s response: “Customers do not even want the solution. They want a narrative. Consultants walk into the room every day with this problem. Let them come back, let them say what they want — and we provide perspectives.”

Helen asked how students with no business background can build confidence. MIHF answered personally: “I’m a very engineering person — I don’t like marketing. But I had a realization that I need to know this. Only I could push myself to become that version. You can’t swim unless you go into the water.”

Closing Remarks

The final segment brought in two guests for closing reflections.

Tania (business owner): “I’m honored to be here and listen to students... When we give young people a scenario, they may have a great CV — but experience is something else. In business, things happen that you cannot control. Business owners care about effectiveness, how you adapt, how you lead a team.”

Tracy (university lecturer and business owner, introduced to the program by Tania): “I think we are doing a wonderful job helping young people step one foot into the industry. I’m actually running a business right now, but it’s not very strong — that is why I’m here.”

MIHF closed: “Next week is Day One of Hack A Business. We’re going to talk about company demographics and go into a War Room style session. We will send all the links into the Telegram chat. See you next week.”

Next Week - May 12 we start with questions on business. So shoot responses to soem of the mini cases and your questions here on the substack. The Early bird catches the prey.

2 things to do….

A. #Mini cases : week 1 Rapid reflections - only for academic purposes.

WARNING : QUESTIONS WOULD BE PROVOCATIVE

1. Don Don Donki & Isetan — Why They Shuttered

Both were Japanese retail giants operating in Singapore. Isetan had been in Singapore since 1972 and was seen as a premium department store. Don Don Donki (operated by Pan Pacific International Holdings) was the international arm of the wildly popular Japanese discount chain. On the surface, analysts pointed to rising manpower costs, high rents, and post-COVID foot traffic shifts. But the deeper story is more interesting — department store retail as a format is structurally dying. Consumers no longer browse; they buy with intent. The experience economy replaced the browse economy, and neither brand adapted fast enough. Isetan clung to its layout and merchandise mix from a different era. Donki, despite being quirky and experiential in Japan, couldn’t fully replicate that magic in Singapore’s mall ecosystem where rents ate into the chaos-retail model.

Questions to fire:

1. Don Don Donki and Isetan both shut down in Singapore. The news said it was manpower costs. Do you agree — or is there something deeper going on?

2. If you were the CEO of Isetan in 2020, what’s the one decision you would have made differently?

3. At what point does a brand stop being relevant — and who is responsible for that?

2. The Biggest Issue at Businesses Today

It’s not talent shortage. It’s not technology. The single biggest issue is the gap between decision speed and environmental complexity. Companies are built on hierarchies and SOPs designed for a predictable world — but the world stopped being predictable. Leaders are making slow decisions in a fast environment, using old data, protecting old narratives, and hiring for credentials instead of adaptability. Add to that: Gen Z workforce entering with high expectations and low tolerance for ambiguity, and you get an organization that is constantly firefighting instead of building.

Questions to fire:

1. You’re a manager. Your team keeps quitting after 3 months. What’s the real problem — is it the people or the system?

2. A company has a great product but keeps losing money. Where do you look first?

3. If businesses know their processes are broken, why don’t they just fix them?

3. Getting Scolded for Coming in Late

This is one of the most common early workplace shocks — especially for people fresh out of university where attendance had soft consequences. In a workplace, being late signals something beyond the clock. It signals your relationship with commitment. Employers don’t just see lateness as a time issue — they read it as a preview of how you’ll handle deadlines, client calls, and pressure. Getting scolded is not the real problem. The real problem is what you do after. Do you explain, defend, apologize once and disappear — or do you actually change? Most people defend. The few who genuinely adapt become trusted.

Questions to fire:

1. Your boss scolds you in front of the team for coming in late. What do you do — right in that moment?

2. Is it ever okay to push back on your employer? If yes, how — and when?

3. What’s the difference between an excuse and a reason — and does your boss actually care which one it is?

4. Not Being Given Clear Direction

This is the number one complaint of new hires — and the number one frustration of employers who wonder why their staff can’t think independently. The truth is: clear direction is a luxury, not a standard. Most real work environments are ambiguous by design or by chaos. The question isn’t “why isn’t my manager guiding me” — it’s “what do I do when no one tells me what to do?” The employees who thrive are the ones who can synthesize incomplete information, make a call, act, and then course-correct. The ones who stall waiting for clarity become bottlenecks.

Questions to fire:

1. You’ve been at your job two weeks. Your manager hasn’t given you a single clear task. What do you do?

2. Is it your employer’s job to develop you — or your own?

3. What’s the difference between someone who needs direction and someone who creates it?

5. Scarlet Supermarket — Why Only Chinese?

Scarlet operates on a deliberate ethnic retail strategy. By writing exclusively in Chinese, they are not making a mistake or being negligent — they are making a calculated business decision. Their core customer base is the Chinese-speaking community, likely first or second generation immigrants who feel more comfortable, trusted, and at home in a Chinese-language environment. The language is not just communication — it’s cultural signalling. Walking into Scarlet feels like home to their target demographic, and that emotional familiarity drives loyalty far more than price alone.

The “great prices” part is also not accidental. Low prices plus cultural familiarity creates an almost unbreakable loyalty loop within that community. They are not trying to compete with NTUC or Cold Storage for the general market — they are owning a niche completely rather than fighting for a slice of the mass market.

The risk, of course, is that they self-limit their growth ceiling. If they ever want to scale beyond the Chinese-speaking demographic they have essentially built a wall around themselves. But many businesses make this trade-off consciously — deep penetration of one segment over shallow reach across many. Or have they?

This connects directly back to the Infinite Mindset framework — is Scarlet playing a finite game (dominating one community) or an infinite game (building something that outlasts its original demographic as that community shrinks or assimilates)?

Questions to fire:

1. Scarlet has great prices but everything is in Chinese only. Is that a smart strategy or a limitation?

2. Who exactly is Scarlet’s real competitor — and does Scarlet even see them as a threat?

3. If Scarlet wanted to grow beyond its current customer base, what is the one thing they must change first — and what do they risk losing by doing it?

6. Hanoi Shops — Why Different Prices for the Same Thing?

There are actually three layers happening here simultaneously.

Layer 1 — The Supplier & Batch Problem

Hanoi’s retail supply chain is deeply fragmented. Unlike Singapore or KL where large distributors standardize pricing across retail points, Hanoi shops source from multiple tiers of middlemen. A bottle of fish sauce on Hang Bong street may have passed through three hands before hitting the shelf — each adding a small margin. Meanwhile the shop two doors down sourced from a different batch, a different wholesaler, sometimes even a different province. Prices reflect when they bought, from whom, and how much they stored. A shop that bought 200 units in January at pre-inflation prices will sell cheaper than one who restocked in March. This is not price gouging — it’s supply chain lag made visible.

Layer 2 — The Card Commission Trap

Vietnam’s card payment infrastructure is still maturing. Many small retailers pay 1.5% to 2.5% MDR (Merchant Discount Rate) to their payment processor — and rather than absorb it, they pass it directly to the customer. So the same item has effectively two prices: cash price and card price. The “barrier removal” at a certain transaction value is a threshold deal with their payment provider — once you hit a minimum (often 500,000 VND or 1,000,000 VND), the processor’s per-transaction fee becomes negligible relative to the value, so the merchant stops charging the surcharge. Below that threshold, the fee hurts enough that they push it onto you.

Layer 3 — The Information Asymmetry Play

Here’s the deeper game: different prices work because customers don’t compare. In a wet market or small street shop, the assumption is that you are a local (who knows the fair price) or a visitor (who doesn’t). Pricing floats based on perceived knowledge of the buyer. This is not unique to Hanoi — but Hanoi’s dense, hyperlocal neighbourhood structure makes it more visible than most cities.

The War Room angle: this is actually a systems thinking problem. The price disparity is not random — it is the output of a system with fragmented logistics, immature payment rails, and information asymmetry baked in. Understanding why something happens the way it does in a market is the exact muscle Hack A Business is trying to build.

Questions to fire:

1. Two shops on the same street sell the same cooking oil at different prices. Walk me through every possible reason why — go deeper than “different suppliers.”

2. A shop charges you extra for paying by card. Is that fair — or is it a business failing disguised as a policy?

3. If you were opening a small shop in Hanoi today, would you standardize your prices or keep them flexible — and why?

4. At what point does price inconsistency become a trust problem for a brand?

B. #Perspectives and Questions

Read and comment - then Shoot a questions here before the next session.

Imagine you selected : You’re a manager. Your team keeps quitting after 3 months. What’s the real problem — is it the people or the system? When you do respond. you can provide your answer as such

Question # , My answer: (your position — one sentence) My reasoning: (why — two to three sentences) My question: (the one thing you still can’t figure out)

Participant Reflections – Orientation Session - How do you feel?

Iris
“Today, I learned more about the true meaning of business. The leaders and supporters worked incredibly hard to guide us and contributed greatly to today’s lesson. I’m looking forward to the next session.”

📍 Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

Trà My
“I feel fantastic.”

📍 Australia

Bách
“I feel very impressed and truly enjoyed this new session.”
📍 Vietnam

Quynh
“I found today’s session very interesting. At times it felt a little slow, but that’s understandable since it was our first orientation and we have not yet gone deeply into business-related topics. Even without a strong business background, I’m still looking forward to the next session.”

📍 Vietnam

Đoàn
“After the orientation, I feel curious and more motivated. Although today did not go deeply into the actual Hack a Business sessions yet, it gave me a strong first impression of the program and the kind of mindset we may need. I’m especially interested in seeing how the program connects business thinking with problem solving. To the infinite mind.”

📍 Vietnam

Bảo
“I really enjoyed the orientation session and found it very engaging. Hearing different perspectives and expectations made me look forward to learning more and growing through this experience.”

📍 Vietnam

Vira D
“Feel Great”

📍 Bali

JH
“It was fun”

📍 Malaysia, KL

ATTENTION

• Revert if you notice anything inappropriate or taken out of context.

• Please also remain mindful of privacy and PDPA considerations raised by Team FD.

• Ensure that your own privacy is protected, and avoid intruding into others’ spaces unless you have been explicitly assigned or authorized by the team to do so. If you are unsure - revert.

MORE READS

Mindset First (The Edu-Whiz)

S1.C48 — WHY DO ASIANS LIE?

The session did not begin with a formal start…

Read more

4 months ago · Fundamental Decisions

Mindset First (The Edu-Whiz)

S1.C45 — TRUST - a journey of awareness and response

Read more

4 months ago · 1 like · 2 comments · Fundamental Decisions

From a Project prelude session on organisational challenges, featuring practitioners and learners from across Southeast Asia, Singapore, and beyond.

The call opened with a small logistical hiccup — a few members dialling in late, a microphone on mute, someone’s connection dropping mid-sentence. But even before the discussion formally began, the mild chaos of a cross-border Zoom session linking Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Bali, and Germany had already illustrated the very theme the group had gathered to explore: the persistent, human difficulty of getting people to work together.

“We’ve been doing this work for almost a decade and a half,” said DAV79, the session’s convener dialling in from Malaysia, as he welcomed the group to what he described as a prelude to Project ∞ — a flagship free program built on a simple but radical belief: “Education must be free.” The goal was not a lecture but a live experiment. Gather people of different ages, industries, and cultures. Open the floor. Let the problems speak for themselves.

They did not disappoint.

The Parking Lot We All Share

MIHF, the host dialling in from Singapore and a leader on the marketing side of his organisation, opened the substantive discussion with an image that became the session’s anchor — a parking lot full of cars. Some identical vans arranged neatly in a row. Others scattered in apparent chaos. A few parked precisely, engines off, at rest.

“These cars represent who we are,” MIHF said. “We all start from different places, and we are all trying to go towards different places. Some of us, our engine may have failed. Some of us can’t find a spot. Some of us have already reached the place and we’re just retired. But no matter where we are — there is always a constant in our life. There are challenges.”

He continued: “Every challenge is unique. You can’t apply the same formula and solve all problems. Challenges happen to everybody — they’re inevitable. They only change form.”

This framing — challenges as universal constants that shift shape rather than disappear — set the tone for what followed: an hour of honest, sometimes raw, testimony from a room spanning generations, industries, and geographies.

The People in the Room

Before the discussion opened up, the group introduced themselves — a snapshot of the breadth of people drawn to Project ∞.

Helen (Thu Hang), a freshman at the University of Economics in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, joined because she loves business but has no opportunity to study it within her formal degree. “I don’t have the chance to study it at my university,” she said, “so I found this course and I want to join.”

Lily, a 20-year-old student at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Ho Chi Minh City, joined quietly and was among the younger listeners in the room throughout the session.

Quinn (Trinh Le Phuong), a student majoring in Southeast Asian Studies in Vietnam, joined via an unstable connection but was present for most of the discussion.

Trang, also from Vietnam, had persistent connection difficulties but stayed with the session and offered a brief, pointed reflection when asked.

Hong, from Vietnam, participated as a quiet observer and listener throughout.

Vira, calling in from Bali while still outdoors, is a young Gen Z currently helping build her family’s business. Her perspective on AI and her generation proved to be one of the session’s most grounded contributions.

Putu, a junior high school teacher from Singaraja in North Bali, also runs a small guest house — carrying the challenges of both education and small business in a single working life.

Eric, Director of Supply Chain at a major multinational logistics company based in Singapore, arrived straight from hosting directors from around the world. He was invited by DAV79 specifically to bring real industry weight to the conversation.

Sanjay, a supply chain professional for 40 years who has worked across twelve Fortune 500 companies globally, now runs his own consulting practice in Singapore and does a significant amount of mentoring and coaching. He joined a few minutes late but quickly became one of the session’s most analytical voices.

T, who has spent 30 years across leadership and team management roles across Asia and calls Singapore home, brought the longest view in the room — and some of its most provocative challenges to both young and old alike.

From the Classroom in Bali

Putu’s testimony was the first to cut to the bone.

On teaching: “The biggest problem at school is the students’ lack of interest in learning.” Two causes drove it, in his view — government policies that do not adequately support teachers, and the misuse of AI. During a recent final examination, students were caught using AI to answer questions despite being warned that detection systems were in place.

“They are really brave to cheat,” he said, frustration mixed with something like resignation. “But the real problem is mindset. Their mindset right now is only to get the big mark. They do not understand what the future will be.”

On his guest house, the nature of the challenge shifted entirely but its structure was the same. Tourism in Bali had changed character. “The quality of tourists is getting down. Most of them now are backpackers looking for a very cheap place with very good conditions.” Competition had become a race to the bottom — so many options, all undercutting each other on price, none able to differentiate meaningfully. And beneath it all: a growing waste and cleanliness problem that nobody had yet coordinated a solution for.

Two domains. One underlying failure: systems that reward short-term behaviour at the expense of long-term value.

From the Logistics Floor

Eric arrived with a story from that very day. A salesperson had escalated an inquiry from a client — a request for storage space across the APAC region — with almost no usable information attached to it. No location. No use-case. No supply chain flow details.

When MIHF called on him, Eric laughed first: “I thought my role here was to help people solve problems, not explain my own.” DAV79 gently pushed back. “You can start with that, and then we see how we can solve it together.”

What followed was a precise, illuminating account. “The customer said, ‘I need X number of space in APAC,’ but without indicating where, what the purpose of storage is, or how the supply chain flow is going to be.” The inquiry reached Eric with, in his words, “fairly fake information.” The root issue, he argued, was not the client — it was the salesperson who escalated without doing the foundational work first. “New and young staff do not have that sense of commitment in their current work.”

Forty Years of Supply Chain Thinking

Sanjay entered the conversation with the calm authority of someone who has seen every version of the same problem across decades and continents. He identified the structural cause beneath Eric’s story immediately: misaligned KPIs.

“It’s not the organisational KPI. It’s my KPI and your KPI.” Departments optimise for themselves. Individual metrics do not add up to collective performance. “Easy to say, difficult to do — but that is the only way to move forward.”

His prescription: shift from logical thinking to critical thinking. “We will have to ask questions — like the Japanese five-why technique. Then you get your answers.”

In his closing remarks, Sanjay returned to the human dimension. Lack of motivation, he observed, was the thread connecting almost every organisational dysfunction he had encountered. “People may have the education. But they may not want to learn in a sustainable manner.” He made a sharp distinction about technology’s role: “People feel technology is an option. Whereas technology is not an option — it is a medium to solve problems. It doesn’t work like buying a vanilla ice cream from a market and bringing it home.”

His conclusion was integrative and hopeful: “If we marry the gray-haired experience with young, capable graduates who have the willingness to know and to do — and we harness them together — we can do wonders.”

A Restaurant in Malacca

DAV79 offered the session’s most vivid story — not from a boardroom, but from a restaurant the previous night.

He had called ahead. The restaurant confirmed they were open until 1 AM. He arrived at 10:20 PM. A waiter immediately told him the kitchen was closed.

“I was a little bit disappointed,” he said. He was about to call Grab for a delivery when the supervisor appeared, took stock of the situation, and responded with immediate incredulity: “Says who?” The kitchen was confirmed open, the order was placed, and the pizza arrived.

But what struck DAV79 was not the happy resolution. It was what he observed while eating: “I could see one guy carrying the weight of the entire unit, while all the other members — mostly Gen Z — failed to connect with each other. They failed to connect with a purpose.” At the next table, a CEO was describing an almost identical problem in his company: “My team doesn’t work together. I have to repeatedly tell them what to do. They have no initiative. It’s not my job. I don’t get paid enough for it.”

Back at his own organisation, DAV79 admitted the same tension: “We are struggling to put everybody together, because we are multiple minds with different personalities and sometimes conflicting objectives.”

His final diagnosis: “We are heavily suboptimised. We’re not using a quarter of the technology capability we have. We’re depending on it, but we’re not actually using it. And I believe the problem is not AI. The problem is mindset. The gap is widening.”

T’s Challenge — to Both Generations

T brought one of the session’s most provocative turns. In his recent work on Singapore’s food supply chain, he had been grappling with a problem that sounds simple and turns out to be enormous: Singapore grows nothing. Every tomato, every fish, every grain of rice has to be imported, stored, and managed through complex logistics — and yet most of its residents still believe the fresh tomato from the wet market is better than a frozen one.

“Actually, the technology has now become so strong that frozen is often better,” T said. “Any of you who have time to dive into this topic should spend some time in it.” Fish caught at sea is now frozen on the ship itself — far fresher and safer than anything processed at a port days later. But the mindset of consumers hadn’t caught up with the technology. That gap, T argued, was not just a supply chain problem. It was an education problem.

He offered a pointed challenge to the young data analysts he works with: solve the replenishment prediction problem, then make yourself redundant within six months. “How would you feel?” he asked the group. His point was not cruelty but clarity — the future requires people who can build systems smarter than themselves.

And then, unusually, he turned the challenge back on his own generation: “Would the older generation also want to change their mindset? That would be my question.”

The Four Quadrants

DAV79 then laid out the human capital model that had emerged from years of shared reflection with T — a four-quadrant framework built on two axes: capability and willingness.

Can do, want to do. The rarest and most valuable. Self-propelled, purposeful, effective. Every organisation hunts for them and then, frequently, overloads them until they burn out or leave.

Can do, don’t want to do. Capable people who have lost their sense of purpose. “It’s not just an attitude problem,” DAV79 said. “It’s a lack of purpose, a lack of motivation, a lack of interest — like what Putu described in his students.” Often disillusioned rather than lazy.

Cannot do, want to do. Eager, hardworking, loyal. Valuable if developed through systems, mentorship, and clear process. But increasingly at risk as automation replaces the repetitive, process-heavy roles where they typically operate.

Cannot do, don’t want to do. The hardest quadrant to address honestly. Not always bad employees — often casualties of organisational evolution. The retired-in-place. The obsolete. The misfit in the wrong environment. The industry evolves faster than their identity can adapt, and the energy to imagine a different future simply runs out.

“The industry wants people who can do and want to do,” DAV79 said. “But that’s not where the majority of people are today.”

What the Younger Members Said

Near the end of the session, MIHF turned to the younger members who had been listening — and this was a critical moment. For those who had registered for Project ∞, this was not a passive exercise. MIHF made clear that engaging, reflecting, and asking questions was part of the expectation from the very first session.

Quinn was the first called on. She admitted she had no professional background in business or economics — “I’m a student majoring in Southeast Asian Studies” — but said she had been genuinely engaged. When asked what resonated most, she pointed directly to T’s discussion on Singapore’s food supply chain. The fragility of a city-state that feeds millions through pure logistics, with no land of its own to grow from, had made an impression. When MIHF pressed her further — “What is one challenge you took away from the discussion?” — she was honest: “At this time, I have no idea.” MIHF accepted that graciously. Sitting with a question you cannot yet answer is itself a form of learning.

Trang was battling a poor connection throughout and could only partially follow the discussion. But what she caught was enough to land something real. “As a young generation, we need to raise our awareness. We need to care more about the problems of our world.” Simple words — but said with conviction, not performance.

Vira gave the most fully formed reflection of the younger group. As a Gen Z who helps run a family business in Bali, she was not speaking theoretically. “We are introduced to AI directly, without any preparation. That is also why some of the young generation tend to depend on AI. If we are aware of the technology, we can control it. But if we are new to it, then that is one of the challenges happening with the young generation right now.” Awareness, she argued, was the dividing line between being used by a tool and using it.

Hong and Lily were also present throughout the session, listening carefully. Mina, who had been expected to join, could not be reached when MIHF called on her — a reminder that not every seat in a virtual room is occupied in the way it appears.

Before You Leave: Critical Notes from MIHF

As the session drew to a close, MIHF issued a set of closing notes that he described as critical — not optional, not procedural, but genuinely important for every member who had joined.

On articles and recordings: Every session within Project ∞ is recorded. Everything that happens in the Zoom call — including this discussion — will be turned into articles, published in story mode, for members to read, revisit, and share. “You can find articles like this, talking about what happens during the session,” MIHF said. This article is one of them. Before the next session, MIHF also announced he would be sending members an article called Future Mindsets — a piece launched by Team FD on the infinite mindset framework that underpins the program. Members were encouraged to read it, share it, and post comments on LinkedIn.

On questions — a non-negotiable expectation: For those who have registered for Project ∞, showing up is only the beginning. MIHF was explicit: members are expected to engage, to reflect, and — critically — to ask questions. The session is a learning ground. Passive presence is not enough. The questions you bring to each session, the challenges you articulate, the observations you are willing to voice — these are what make the program work. If you are registered and you are not asking questions, you are not fully here.

On PDPA and data protection: Project ∞ maintains strict compliance with the Personal Data Protection Act. This is non-negotiable. The names, identities, contact details, and personal information of every member who joins are protected. “We do not share contact information with each other. We do not contact people outside of the program.” This is not a networking event. It never was. Any attempt to use the program as a platform for outreach, solicitation, or personal contact-building outside its boundaries is a violation of these rules — and of the trust that makes the program possible in the first place.

The recordings, the articles, the discussion — all of this exists to document ideas, not to expose individuals. Members who participate do so under those terms.

On what comes next: Project ∞’s first phase — Hack A Business — begins the following week. The orientation session is on 12 May at 8 PM Singapore time. MIHF’s message was direct: “I encourage everybody in this call to join. Everything you need to know will happen next week.” Details and links had already been shared in the group chat.

With that, MIHF signed off: “This was a simple prelude into a discussion on challenges and future mindsets. We will see you next week.”

The room answered with a chorus of thank-yous across time zones — Vira from Bali, Eric from Singapore, Sanjay and T, Quinn and Trang from Vietnam, DAV79 from Malaysia.

The parking lot remains full. The challenges keep changing shape.

Putu cannot fight AI, but he can prepare young minds to use it with intention. Eric cannot undo the fact that his salesperson missed the basics, but he can build systems that make the basics non-negotiable. Sanjay has spent 40 years discovering that the problem is almost never the technology — it is the people who can do but don’t want to, and the structures that never stop to ask why. T is asking the young to make themselves redundant not as a threat, but as the highest possible invitation: become so good at solving a problem that the problem no longer needs you.

And Helen — freshman, University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City — came because she wanted to learn about business and her university had no room for it.

The question every organisation, and every education system, must eventually answer is whether the structures exist to meet people like her there.

Project ∞ — Hack A Business orientation: 12 May, 8 PM Singapore time. All registered members are expected to attend, to engage, and to come with questions.

All sessions are recorded. All recordings become articles. Your participation is your contribution to the learning of everyone in the room.

PDPA rules apply at all times. This is a learning ground — not a networking event. Please respect the privacy and data of every member.

At its core, Project ∞ is not just an educational program—it’s a movement built on the idea of cultivating an infinite mindset. Unlike a finite or growth mindset that focuses on specific goals or achievements, the infinite mindset encourages continuous learning, curiosity, and flexibility in the face of uncertainty and moves forward one step at a time.

Redefining Education for a Messy World

“Most young people give up because we’ve stolen the journey,” said DAV79, one of the key facilitators, as he opened the session. His point spoke to a larger truth: education often prepares students for predictable systems, not for the fluid realities of modern work and life. Project ∞, therefore, seeks to rebuild that journey—training participants to think beyond conventional boundaries and prepare for the messy, unstructured world ahead.

The program brings together educators, industry professionals, and student ambassadors. Among the key speakers was MIHF, a young engineer and business student from Singapore Polytechnic who has been leading the project for over a year. He outlined how Project ∞ equips participants with the mental tools to thrive amid disruption.

“This is not a course,” MIHF emphasized. “It’s a doorway for you to embrace the unknown.”

The Five Phases of Project ∞

Project ∞ unfolds in five interconnected phases, each designed to push participants deeper into real-world thinking and problem-solving:

1. Hack a Business – The opening phase teaches participants to dissect how a business functions, exploring its ecosystem, resilience, and decision-making. Using case studies of real companies, students learn to analyze causes of success and failure through “War Room” sessions—highly interactive group simulations where participants tackle business challenges.

2. Scan a Business – The next level broadens the perspective, focusing on industries. Participants explore competition, market behavior, and strategic adaptation at a macro scale, asking why some companies rise while others fall.

3. Field Forge – This phase mirrors real workplace dynamics, pushing participants to manage conflicts, team pressures, and decision fatigue within simulated job settings.

4. Divergence Series – A rigorous mindset bootcamp intended to test resilience and decision-making under pressure. Conducted through immersive bootcamps in places like Bali and Hanoi, it focuses on self-reconstruction, critical reflection, and ethical judgment.

5. Center Stage – The program culminates with presentation and pitch simulations where participants must apply everything learned—collaborating with real business owners and corporate mentors to defend their ideas and demonstrate professional readiness.

clickable image : To read more and register

Collaboration with the Medical Field

One of the notable moments in the discussion came from Dr. Mustika of Indonesia, who introduced a thought-provoking medical perspective. She expressed enthusiasm for involving 15 medical students in the first cohort but also voiced concerns about sustaining engagement: “Gen Z can be consistent only when they know what exactly they want,” she noted.

Her questions opened a deeper dialogue about ethics and purpose in professional practice—especially in medicine, where the line between care and commerce can blur.

DAV79 responded by clarifying that “business” in this context serves merely as a lens—a training mechanism to examine systems thinking, ethical choices, and social value creation. For medical students, the exercises would revolve around social impact projects: managing hospital pressures, improving community health awareness, or addressing medical fatigue.

“Doctors today work inside brands,” DAV79 explained. “Hospitals are businesses. Understanding those structures helps doctors challenge them ethically and shape systems that truly serve the community.”

The team envisioned medical-oriented versions of the Hack a Business activities—tackling topics like responsible healthcare delivery, technological innovation in patient management, and the dilemmas of balancing profit with purpose.

The Ethical Mindset: Beyond Business

Through these exchanges, Project ∞ revealed its true compass: not entrepreneurship or corporate success per se, but ethical systems thinking.

As Dr. Mustika observed, “Business is not always bad. It depends on how we keep our mindset. We shouldn’t take advantage of people’s needs but use our capabilities to add value to the community.”

Her reflection highlighted a recurring theme across disciplines—whether in medicine, engineering, or education—the need for ethical adaptability in a shifting economic landscape.

DAV79 reinforced this, sharing an example of medical industries overproducing pharmaceuticals due to commercial incentives. The aim, he reminded, is not to demonize business but to encourage professionals to question and improve the systems they inhabit. “Unethical business is what destroys value,” he said. “We want our participants to see that distinction clearly—and be brave enough to act on it.”

From Concept to Action: Building the Network

In practical terms, Project ∞ brings together participants via Zoom, Telegram, and Substack, creating digital spaces for collaboration and discussion. The official launch of the May cohort will begin with an orientation on May 12, preceded by a preparatory check-in on May 5.

The Substack portal serves as both a knowledge hub and reflection journal. Participants post their insights, comment on articles, and engage with case studies. MIHF showcased how article comments and reflections become integral to each participant’s personal report—evaluating their curiosity, questioning, and growth through the program.

“We value questions more than answers,” he said, displaying sample evaluation reports that measure progress through curiosity metrics rather than traditional grades.

The data-driven yet reflective method aims to turn learning into a living feedback loop—a practical embodiment of the “infinite mindset.”

The Global Citizen Connection

Project ∞ operates in tandem with the Global Citizen program, another initiative focusing on cross-cultural leadership and sustainability. The two projects share mentors, student ambassadors, and digital resources.

Indonesian representatives like Vira Devi from Bali and Dr. Mustika from Surabaya coordinate regional participation, while Vietnamese partners engage universities for joint sessions held every Tuesday night. The shared timing across time zones—8 p.m. Singapore / 7 p.m. Surabaya—reflects the program’s international design.

Vira’s role involves bridging between Project ∞ and the Global Citizen club, ensuring smooth communication among youth leaders while maintaining space for her ongoing projects. As DAV79 advised, “You take the passive role for now—just watch the system, feel it, and pass the message. Next year, when the corporate bootcamps begin, you’ll be ready to lead.”

Empowering Tomorrow’s Professionals

The session closed with agreement across the team. MIHF said “Project ∞ is more than an upskilling course—it’s a platform for transformation.” By using business as a metaphor, technology as a tool, and ethical reasoning as its foundation, it challenges participants to evolve their thinking across disciplines.

For doctors, it means understanding healthcare as a living ecosystem rather than a static profession - and putting their mindset to test. For engineers and scientists, it’s about designing systems that account for unpredictability. For students, it’s learning to thrive without a script.

MIHF summarized it best: “We live in an infinite world with a finite mindset - this creates a gap and it is alarmingly increasing. Our job is to narrow that gap—to help people see beyond their defined trajectories.”

Looking Forward

As the meeting drew to a close, there was a palpable sense of energy and expectancy. From Substack discussions to upcoming bootcamps in Hanoi and Bali, collaboration continues to expand. Each participant, whether a facilitator, educator, or student, plays a vital role in shaping how Project ∞ unfolds.

In combining cross-disciplinary learning, mental agility, and ethical awareness, the initiative promises to redefine how young professionals see themselves—not merely as workers entering the system, but as thinkers capable of reshaping it.

Project ∞ ultimately offers not just knowledge, but a way of seeing: a mindset that thrives where the world is messy, uncertain, and beautifully infinite.

DO NOTE: PADLET ACCESS WILL BE GIVEN DURING HACK A BUSINESS ORIENTATION CALL

clickable image : To read more and explore

Next Program Office Session — May 5, 8:00 PM (Singapore Time)
Focus: Review of Strategic Challenges in Business

• What real problem are we solving, and for whom exactly?

• What assumptions must hold true for this model to work?

• What could kill this business in 6 months?

MORE READS

Mindset First (The Edu-Whiz)

S1.C48 — WHY DO ASIANS LIE?

The session did not begin with a formal start…

Read more

4 months ago · Fundamental Decisions