To answer this, let’s start by pointing out that the contrary point is, in fact, wrong. An entrepreneur does not “need” money. She needs physical resources, human labor, equipment, and techniques of production. This holds true regardless of whether the thing produced is a physical object or a service performed. The degree to which these resources are required varies widely. In classical economic analysis, these are referred to as “land, labor, and capital,” primarily because early work focused on agriculture as the source of all wealth creation.
There is no reason why, hypothetically, a group of people could not agree to get together and contribute the necessary resources to form a firm and produce and market a good or service. There is also no reason why they could not agree with their customers to receive payment in the form of other goods and services produced by those customers. The people who contributed their resources to the entrepreneur’s firm would have to come up with some method for dividing the goods and services received from the customers to compensate them for the resources, time, and ideas they contributed. The whole system works to create and distribute things and services of value, and all without money. This is referred to as a barter system.
In practice, barter systems are terribly inefficient. Under barter, it is difficult to (a) divide an item offered in payment among the various people who need to be compensated, and (b) manage payments over expanses of space and time. Bartering also leads to problems of valuing the items being bartered (e.g. the cow I offer in payment may be much larger or produce more milk than the one you offer). Money is used to solve these problems. It serves as a medium of exchange, a way to place a numerical value on what is being traded, and a store of value over time. In and of itself, it is not “used” to produce anything.