Richard Florida Writes That Canada Is Losing The Global Innovation Race – Globe and Mail

Canadian Venture Investment Is In Decline

Canada’s investment in R & D Has Been Anemic For Decades Compared to OECD Nations

U.S. Tech Giants Are Exploiting Canada’s Talent Base At The Expense of Canadian Startups

My long-time business partner and I, one of us in Canada and the other in Silicon Valley, last year launched a business targeted at bringing immigrant entrepreneurs to Canada, Vendange Partners. http://www.vendangepartners.com.  We spent months analyzing and investigating the Canadian entrepreneurial ecosystem, particularly Vancouver and Toronto, Canadian immigration policy, and the Canadian venture capital industry. What we found was very concerning. Last December, I wrote a blog post here detailing our findings (read more below) that Canada was nowhere close to being the next Silicon Valley. With regard to venture capital, we found that there was a lack of adequate risk capital, which could be traced to deeply rooted conservative values in the Canadian financial industry. Immigration policy was a mixed bag, with a “startup” visa program that had become a magnet for immigration scams.  Despite these disadvantages, we decided to press ahead, and are making progress.

That said, I was very interested yesterday to read the article in the Globe & Mail by University of Toronto Professor Richard Florida, and Ian Hathaway, Research Director for the Center for  American Entrepreneurship, and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute. The article by Florida and Hathaway draws the same conclusions as my research, providing even more precise data to support their disturbing conclusions. It is not hard to find many additional articles on these issues.  Ironically, also yesterday, a LinkedIn connection shared a post by Sciences, Innovation, and Economic Development Canada with a very upbeat, positive assessment of venture capital for startups in Canada. This is the essence of the problem. Since I came to Canada years ago now, I have seen a pollyannaish state of denial about the true situation for entrepreneurship, immigration policy, and the lack of “smart” venture capital for Canadian startups. No amount of counter-evidence has changed this mistaken rosy outlook. Without a recognition of these problems, nothing will change.

 

READ MORE: Canada Woos Tech Startups But Canada Is Not Silicon Valley December 20, 2017, mayo615.com blog post

OPINION

RICHARD FLORIDA AND IAN HATHAWAY

SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

UPDATED NOVEMBER 2, 2018

Solving Canada’s startup dilemma

Source: Solving Canada’s startup dilemma – The Globe and Mail 

Canada, we increasingly hear, is becoming a global leader in high-tech innovation and entrepreneurship. Report after report has ranked Toronto, Waterloo, and Vancouver among the world’s most up-and-coming tech hubs. Toronto placed fourth in a ranking of North American tech talent this past summer, behind only the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, and Washington, and in 2017 its metro area added more tech jobs than those other three city-regions combined.

All of that is true, but the broader trends provide little reason for complacency. Indeed, our detailed analysis of more than 100,000 startup investments around the world paints a more sobering picture. Canada and its leading cities have seen a substantial rise in their venture capital investments. But both the country and its urban centres have lost ground to global competitors, even as the United States’ position in global start-ups has faltered.

Overall, Canada ranks fifth among countries in the number of venture capital deals and sixth in venture capital investment, trailing only the United States, India, China, Britain, and Germany. That said, Canada’s share of the world’s venture capital investment is tiny, just 1.5 percent. And it has actually declined over the past decade and a half.

But start-ups and entrepreneurship are a local phenomenon: They happen in urban areas. The good news is that a dozen or so of Canada’s cities make the list of the world’s 300-plus startup hubs. And the three largest of them – Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver – rank among the world’s 62 leading global startup hubs.

Toronto, Canada’s top-ranked startup hub, is the only Canadian city to crack the list of the world’s top 25 startup cities. Vancouver and Montreal are in the top 50. Kitchener-Waterloo leads all Canadian cities in venture capital investment per capita, ranking 26th globally on that measure. It and Ottawa also rank among the world’s top 100 startup hubs in terms of capital invested, and Calgary is among the top 150.

The not-so-good news is that Canada and its startup cities are losing ground to startup hubs such as New York and London; Beijing and Shanghai; Bangalore and Mumbai; Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm, and Tel Aviv.

More worrying, Canada is failing to take advantage of the United States’ weakening position, which is attributable in part to its tighter immigration policies. While the U.S. continues to generate the largest amount of startup and venture capital activity, its share of the global total has been falling steadily, from more than 95 percent in the mid-1990s to about two-thirds in 2012, and a little more than half today. But the country that has gained the most ground is China, which now attracts nearly a quarter of global venture capital investment.

Exactly why Canada is lagging is unclear. A growing number of Canadian commentators suggest that the influx of large U.S. and Asian tech firms into Canada is sucking up tech talent that would have otherwise gone to local start-ups. But companies like Microsoft and Google are such powerful talent magnets that they are more likely to increase the overall supply. After all, San Francisco, New York, and London are homes to some of the biggest tech companies in the world, and they are also leading startup hubs.

Perhaps the brunt of Donald Trump’s anti-immigration policies has yet to be fully felt. Maybe it is because New York and the San Francisco Bay Area are close enough to lure Canadian entrepreneurs away, or maybe we are just not as entrepreneurial as we like to think.

Whatever the cause, Canada and its leading tech hubs must do more to grow their ecosystems, which already enjoy such clear advantages in talent, especially in the field of artificial intelligence, and their openness to immigration. Given the role that innovation and start-ups play in propelling economic growth and raising living standards, our economic future depends on it.

Richard Florida is University Professor at the University of Toronto’s School of Cities and the Rotman School of Management. Ian Hathaway is Research Director of the Center for American Entrepreneurship and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. They are authors of the Rise of the Global Startup City, released earlier this month.

READ MORE: Rise of The Global Startup City

Connect… Then Lead: HBS Professor John Kotter

One of my most popular posts from July 8, 2013

Harvard Business School Professor John P. Kotter

Years ago I was invited to join a newly forming Intel marketing group comprised primarily of Ivy League MBA‘s, with a few of us Intel veterans thrown into the mix to create some cross-fertilization in the group. This was the famous period of Harvard MBA’s belief that they were all marketing gods, and needed only to be ruthless: greed was good. One of my Harvard educated Intel colleagues related a story of HBS students playing an allegedly “friendly” game of football on the green next to the Charles River. One player suffered a compound fracture of his leg.  While waiting for an ambulance, a member of the other team came up and demanded to know when the game would resume.  Everything was about competition and one-upmanship. To this day I remember fondly (believe it or not) that this was also the mantra of our Intel group.  Who got the girl on Friday night: who got stuck with the bar tab. There was a big scoreboard in the sky tabulating the imaginary results.  Perhaps against the odds, our group survived and succeeded famously.  Many of us are still very close personal friends. One is the godfather of my son.

Ray Rund, one of my Intel colleagues, and Harvard MBA told me another story of HBS students eager to take John Kotter‘s leadership class, at the time called “Power & Influence.”  They all thought that Kotter’s course would teach them how to become the meanest “sons-of-bitches in the valley.”  Ray amusingly remembered that Kotter’s course taught them the exact opposite: managers must first learn to be humble, connect and gain the respect of their subordinates, before attempting to lead, or they would be doomed.  The book version of Kotter’s course is now 30 years old, but is still as relevant as ever. It is filled with case studies of “hard asses”  who failed miserably.

I have often explained Kotter’s point to others by using the example of an old WWII film clip of Lord Louis Mountbatten, leading the beleaguered British commandos in Burma against overwhelming Japanese forces.  Mountbatten was standing on a pedestal in some godforsaken Burmese village, with his troops standing at attention in rank. The first thing Mountbatten did was to beckon his troops to break rank and come up near him.  The old film clip speaks volumes about Mountbatten’s intuitive understanding of leadership.

Specialists in organizational behavior probably like to debate these points, pointing out the Peter Drucker “high task, low relationship” approach to change management. Basically, like the George S. Patton “school of management” in the film, kick ass and take names until the organization submitted to his will.  As the film shows, this approach has its drawbacks.

Ironically, I had learned Kotter’s lesson in leadership in my first assignment at Intel, managing 250 people running a semiconductor manufacturing operation.  On my first day, my manager introduced me to my people, half-jokingly saying to them, “Let’s see how long it takes you to break your new supervisor!”  Clearly, I needed to get with their program.  Just for the record, my manager, Dean Persona and I became fast friends. My employees had the knowledge of how to get the job done, and I did not. It is a valuable lesson I have never forgotten. I managed to get the respect of my people by respecting them. When an extra effort was required, I could ask for that extra effort, and it was given willingly.  Others failed miserably in their jobs while I rapidly rose to bigger and better things.

When I noticed this HBR blog post on leadership, titled “Connect…Then Lead,” I thought of Kotter, who is still teaching at Harvard.  I also see another potential case study of failure developing now.  For all of the good intentions of this manager, he is failing to understand Kotter’s lesson about leadership. This manager professes openness. This manager made a point to take a very modest office and leave his door open. But despite these superficial moves,  in reality, the substance of his management style is that of an austere, autocratic manager who isolates himself behind a wall of handlers who manage access to him, even reading all of his emails, which is offensive to many.  It takes weeks to schedule a simple meeting with this manager if you can successfully maneuver the gauntlet of handlers. Then the meeting will typically start late, only to be ended by another handler interrupting the meeting, tapping on their watch, to extract the manager early from the meeting, because he is so “busy” he must move on. He demands that his schedule is cleared for his own priorities.

The rudeness and distant behavior of this manager is obviously having a serious impact on the manager’s effectiveness with his people, but the manager seems more interested in his own matters. It has been noted by some that it is not uncommon for autocrats to view themselves as being open and welcoming toward their people when in reality the manager’s true behavior exhibits an extreme distance, lack of sensitivity, and the subordinates are intimidated by his overbearing personal style. This is all laid out in Kotter’s books and in the following HBR Blog article.  History seems to repeat itself.

Andrew Carnegie, a scion of the Gilded Age of Monopolists at the turn of the 20th Century, is noted for this quote about the importance of his employees…

“Take away my factories, my plants, take away my railroads, my ships, my transportation; take away my money, strip me of all these, but leave me my men and in two or three years, I will have them all again.”  Despite Carnegie’s megalomaniacal tendencies, he nevertheless seemed to understand the importance of having a strong bond with his people.

Connect, Then Lead

Reblogged from the HRB Blog

by Amy J.C. Cuddy, Matthew Kohut, and John Neffinge

Read More: Connect, Then Lead, HBR Blog

 Is it better to be loved or feared?

Niccolò Machiavelli pondered that timeless conundrum 500 years ago and hedged his bets. “It may be answered that one should wish to be both,” he acknowledged, “but because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved.”

Now behavioral science is weighing in with research showing that Machiavelli had it partly right: When we judge others—especially our leaders—we look first at two characteristics: how lovable they are (their warmth, communion, or trustworthiness) and how fearsome they are (their strength, agency, or competence). Although there is some disagreement about the proper labels for the traits, researchers agree that they are the two primary dimensions of social judgment.

Why are these traits so important? Because they answer two critical questions: “What are this person’s intentions toward me?” and “Is he or she capable of acting on those intentions?” Together, these assessments underlie our emotional and behavioral reactions to other people, groups, and even brands and companies. Research by one of us, Amy Cuddy, and colleagues Susan Fiske, of Princeton, and Peter Glick, of Lawrence University, shows that people judged to be competent but lacking in warmth often elicit envy in others, an emotion involving both respect and resentment that cuts both ways. When we respect someone, we want to cooperate or affiliate ourselves with him or her, but resentment can make that person vulnerable to harsh reprisal (think of disgraced Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski, whose extravagance made him an unsympathetic public figure). On the other hand, people judged as warm but incompetent tend to elicit pity, which also involves a mix of emotions: Compassion moves us to help those we pity, but our lack of respect leads us ultimately to neglect them (think of workers who become marginalized as they near retirement or of an employee with outmoded skills in a rapidly evolving industry).

To be sure, we notice plenty of other traits in people, but they’re nowhere near as influential as warmth and strength. Indeed, insights from the field of psychology show that these two dimensions account for more than 90% of the variance in our positive or negative impressions we form of the people around us.

So which is better, being lovable or being strong? Most leaders today tend to emphasize their strength, competence, and credentials in the workplace, but that is exactly the wrong approach. Leaders who project strength before establishing trust run the risk of eliciting fear, and along with it a host of dysfunctional behaviors. Fear can undermine cognitive potential, creativity, and problem solving, and cause employees to get stuck and even disengage. It’s a “hot” emotion, with long-lasting effects. It burns into our memory in a way that cooler emotions don’t. Research by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman drives this point home: In a study of 51,836 leaders, only 27 of them were rated in the bottom quartile in terms of likability and in the top quartile in terms of overall leadership effectiveness—in other words, the chances that a manager who is strongly disliked will be considered a good leader are only about one in 2,000.

A growing body of research suggests that the way to influence—and to lead—is to begin with warmth. Warmth is the conduit of influence: It facilitates trust and the communication and absorption of ideas. Even a few small nonverbal signals—a nod, a smile, an open gesture—can show people that you’re pleased to be in their company and attentive to their concerns. Prioritizing warmth helps you connect immediately with those around you, demonstrating that you hear them, understand them, and can be trusted by them.

When Strength Comes FirstMost of us work hard to demonstrate our competence. We want to see ourselves as strong—and want others to see us the same way. We focus on warding off challenges to our strength and providing abundant evidence of competence. We feel compelled to demonstrate that we’re up to the job, by striving to present the most innovative ideas in meetings, being the first to tackle a challenge, and working the longest hours. We’re sure of our own intentions and thus don’t feel the need to prove that we’re trustworthy—despite the fact that evidence of trustworthiness is the first thing we look for in others.

Amy J.C. Cuddy is an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. Matthew Kohut and John Neffinger are the authors of Compelling People: The Hidden Qualities That Make Us Influential (Hudson Street Press, August 2013) and principals at KNP Communications.

Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture

by David Mayes on Jul 19, 2013

Industry analysis is not a well-understood discipline. It sits between macroeconomic analysis and market analysis and uses tools from both. It is most commonly associated with the financial services industry which produces guides for their investors. But there are also large global consultancy firms that specialize in industry analysis.   It is an important tool for governments, regional development agencies. Companies use industry analysts to assist in their strategic planning. Those who can anticipate the changes in an industry are more likely to be successful.  This brief presentation provides an overview of what industry analysis is, examples of industry analysis in action, and why it is so important.

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ

Industry Analysis: the bigger picture.  Presentation Transcript

• 1. Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture July 2013 ©David Mayes 1
• 2. Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture David Mayes, Lecturer ©David Mayes 2
• 3. Introduction 1. Lecturer Introduction 2. What is Industry Analysis? 3. Why Industry Analysis? 4. Suggested Reading Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture ©David Mayes 3
• 4. Lecturer Introduction ©David Mayes 4 Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture
• 5. Industry Analysis Lecturer Introduction David Mayes: LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mayo615 Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/u/0/118299264663896711410/about Email: david.mayes@ubc.ca mayo0615@gmail.com UBC Office: EME 4157 (250) 807-9331 Hours: Thurs. 12PM – 2PM or by appt. Cellular: (250) 864-9552 Twitter: @mayo615 Experience: Executive management, access to venture capital, international business development, sales & marketing, entrepreneurial mentorship, technology assessment, strategic planning, renewable energytechnology. Intel Corporation, 01 Computers Group (UK) Ltd., Mobile Data International, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, Ascend Communications, P-Cube, Global Internet Group LLP, New Zealand Trade & Enterprise. ©David Mayes 5
• 6. Introduction 1. Instructor Introduction 2. What is Industry Analysis? 3. Why Industry Analysis? 4. Suggested Reading ©David Mayes 6 Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture
• 7. What is Industry Analysis? ©David Mayes 7 Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture
• 8. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? A Proposed Definition of Industry Analysis: Industry analysis looks at long-term trends and forces that affect an overall industry. It is a strategic analysis tool used by governments, economic development agencies, financial services & investment firms, management consultancy firms, and businesses. Current estimates and future industry projections may include consideration of a broad range of global and local factors: economic, supply and demand, individual competitors, other external future forecasts, and government policy affecting the industry. Industry analysis is commonly performed within the framework of macro- economic analysis as well as market analysis theories and tools. ©David Mayes 8
• 9. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? Industry Analysis As A Discipline: • Best known in the financial services industry • Industry performance & forecast guides for investors • High profile industry analysis consultancy firms • IDC, Gartner, Forrester, dozens of others in vertical markets • Used as a strategic planning tool by companies • “How to” guides/textbooks very limited, but masses of primary statistics and reports • Seen as between macro-economics and market research ©David Mayes 9
• 10. Macro Economy: Global, Regional, National An Industry: Global, Regional, National A Market: Can Be Industry Sub- segment(s) Competitor(s) Us Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? Hierarchy of Economic Analysis OUR FOCUS ©David Mayes 10
• 11. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? IDC Forecasts Worldwide Semiconductor Revenues Will Reach $305 Billion in 2012 IDC Forecasts Worldwide Semiconductor Revenues Will Reach $305 Billion in 2012 Business Wire FRAMINGHAM, Mass. — December 15, 2011 “Despite the continuing global macroeconomic problems, semiconductor inventory overbuild early this year, and current DRAM oversupply, semiconductor revenues will register positive year-over-year (YoY) growth of 3.4% and 3.1% with $296billion and $305 billion for 2011 and 2012, respectively, according to the year-end 2011 update of IDC’s Semiconductor Application Forecaster (SAF).”The 2011 year-end update reaffirms the views IDC expressed in its qualitative SAF update published in November 2011….” Yada yada yada… Full Report Price: $1,000, other reports up to $10,000 Industry Analysis Example ©David Mayes 11
• 12. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31SpS3 6ynDs&hd=1 Semiconductor Industry Analysis: Intel Cuts 2012 Outlook on Hard Drive Shortage (Flood in Thailand) ©David Mayes 12
• 13. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- I50V4PO1y4&feature=g- wl&context=G25b6f51AWAAAAAAAAAA Information Technology Industry Analysis: Samsung Economic Research Institute ©David Mayes 13
• 14. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? http://www.economist.com/node/21541746 The Economist on Video Gaming: World of Warcraft vs. New Market Entrants ©David Mayes 14
• 15. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xblts0_in dustry-analyst-jesse-divnich-on- v_videogames Video Gaming Analyst Jesse Divnich on the Video Games Industry ©David Mayes 15
• 16. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? Answer: Huge consumption of microprocessors for game consoles “Over the past two decades the video-games business has gone from a cottage industry selling to a few niche customers to a fully grown branch of the entertainment industry. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC): • Global video-game market worth around $56 billion last year. • More than twice the size of the recorded-music industry • Three-fifths the size of the film industry, Including DVD sales Video games will be the fastest-growing form of media over the next few years, with sales rising to $82 billion by 2015.” — The Economist. December 10th, 2011 How Does The Video Games Market Relate to the Semiconductor Industry? ©David Mayes 16
• 17. Industry Analysis What is Industry Analysis? Leading Industries in Canada (GDP): • Aerospace (5th largest in the World) • Agri-food (4th largest exporter) • Automotive (3rd largest exporter in World) Leading Industries in British Columbia (GDP): • Construction • Manufacturing (?) • Mining & Gas Extraction Leading Industries in the Thompson Okanagan (GDP): • Construction • Manufacturing • Services (retail, tourism, etc.) Key Industries in Canada ©David Mayes 17
• 18. Questions? What is Industry Analysis? ©David Mayes 18
• 19. Industry Analysis 1. Instructor Introduction 2. What is Industry Analysis? 3. Why Industry Analysis? 4. Suggested Reading ©David Mayes 19 Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture
• 20. Industry Analysis Why Industry Analysis? ANSWER: Large scale economic shifts caused by demographic, geographic, political, technological and social changes can create new opportunities or can lead to the demise of a company. Competitors that can anticipate these large-scale economic shifts are more likely to survive. Why Industry Analysis? ©David Mayes 20
• 21. Industry Analysis Why Industry Analysis? • Government Policy • Taxation, incentives, international export market development • Focused Economic Development Programs • Which industries should be promoted? • Example: New Zealand Trade & Enterprise* • Institutional/Individual Investment Management • Tracking Industry Trends and Growth • Management Consultancy Firms • Strategic Business Decisions on Markets • Individual businesses Why Industry Analysis? ©David Mayes 21
• 22. Industry Analysis Why Industry Analysis? • Federal, Provincial Ministries & Economic Development Agencies • Canadian Ministries of Industry and International Trade • BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum • Central Okanagan Regional Development • Financial Services and Investment Firms • BMO, CIBC, RBC, TD Canada Trust, credit unions • Stock brokerages • Financial news networks • Management Consultancy Firms • Accenture, BCG, HP, IBM, PWC, Forrester, Gartner, IDC • Businesses • Executive management, strategic planning units • Corporate positioning, SWOT, long range planning Who Conducts and Uses Industry Analysis? ©David Mayes 22
• 23. Industry Analysis Why Industry Analysis? Example: New Zealand Trade & Enterprise Marketing an Entire Nation as an Industry http://www.nzte.govt.nz/Pages/default.aspx http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh-0knDpn5g ©David Mayes 23
• 24. Industry Analysis Why Industry Analysis? Example: International Data Corporation (IDC) http://www.idc.com/prodserv/maps/consumer.jsp ©David Mayes 24
• 25. Industry Analysis Why Industry Analysis? Example: Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission http://investkelowna.com/ ©David Mayes 25
• 26. Questions? Why Industry Analysis? ©David Mayes 26
• 27. Industry Analysis 1. Instructor Introduction 2. What is Industry Analysis? 3. Why Industry Analysis? 4. Suggested Reading ©David Mayes 27 Industry Analysis: The Bigger Picture
• 28. Industry Analysis Suggested Reading: Suggested Reading: HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Strategy, Harvard Business Press, 2011 (HBR article anthology). Blue Ocean vs. Five Forces, Burke, A.E. (HBR journal article, online) http://toby.library.ubc.ca/subjects/subjpage2.cfm?id=660 How to Conduct An Industry Analysis, Small Business and Technology Development Center, http://www.sbtdc.org/pdf/industry_analysis.pdf ©David Mayes 28
• 29. ©David Mayes 29

Big Data, Cloud, Smart Mobile And Even AR Morph Into One Mind Boggling Thing

IEEE Talk: Integrated Big Data, The Cloud, & Smart Mobile: Actually One Big Thing

by David Mayes

This IEEE Talk discusses the three biggest trends in online technology and proposes that in fact, they represent one huge integrated trend that is already having a major impact on the way we live, work and think. The 2012 Obama Campaign’s Dashboard mobile application, integrating Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile is perhaps the most significant example of this trend, combining all three technologies into one big thing. A major shakeout and industry consolidation seems inevitable. Additional developments as diverse as augmented reality, the Internet of Things, Smart Grid, near field communication, mobile payment processing, and location-based services are also considered as linked to this overall trend.

IEEE Talk: Integrated Big Data, The Cloud, & Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? from David Mayes

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ

IEEE Talk: Integrated Big Data, The Cloud, & Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? Presentation Transcript

• 1. Big Data, The Cloud, & Smart Mobile: Integrated Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 1
• 2. IEEE: UBC Okanagan Wednesday, February 6th, 2013 ©David Mayes 2
• 3. Speaker Introduction IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 3
• 4. David Mayes: LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mayo615 Personal Blog: http://mayo615.com UBC Office: EME 4151 (250) 807-9821 / Hours by appt. Email: david.mayes@ubc.ca mayo0615@gmail.com Mobile: (250) 864-9552 Twitter: @mayo615 Experience: Executive management, access to venture capital, International business development, sales & marketing, entrepreneurial mentorship, technology assessment, strategic planning, renewable energy technology. Intel Corporation (US/Europe/Japan), 01 Computers Group (UK) Ltd, Mobile Data International (Canada/Intl.), Silicon Graphics (US), Sun Microsystems (US), Ascend Communications (US/Intl.), P-Cube (US/Israel/Intl.), Global Internet Group LLP (US/Intl.), New Zealand Trade & Enterprise. IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 4
• 5. Agenda • Some Historical Context • The Emergence of SoMoClo • The Emergence of Big Data • The Emergence of Smart Mobile • The Convergence of ToDaClo • What Do You Think? IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 5
• 6. Some Historical Context IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 6
• 7. Canada’s McLuhan: The First Hint “The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village.” Marshall McLuhan, “Gutenberg Galaxy”, 1962, Canadian author, educator, & philosopher (1911 – 1980) IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? Video: The “McLuhan” Scene from Annie Hall © David Mayes 7
• 8. Stuart Brand, Jobs & Woz: The Whole Earth Catalog IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 8
• 9. Grove, Noyce and Moore IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? “We had no idea at all that we had turned the first stone on something that was going to be an $80 billion business.” -Gordon Moore ©David Mayes 9
• 10. Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Vin Cerf IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 10
• 11. Agenda • Some Historical Context • The Emergence of SoMoClo • The Emergence of Big Data • The Emergence of Smart Mobile • The Convergence of ToDaClo • What Do You Think? IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not?
• 12. The Emergence of SoMoClo IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? Social + Mobile + Cloud ©David Mayes 12
• 13. Emergence of Social Media IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 13
• 14. 2012 Social Media Market Landscape IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 14
• 15. Emergence of “Cloud Computing” IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 15
• 16. Emergence of End-user Cloud Apps IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 16
• 17. 2012 Cloud Enterprise Players IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 17
• 18. The Key Issue: Data Privacy Reliability, and Security Despite reassurances, there is no permanent solution, no silver bullet. The only solution is to unplug IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 18
• 19. Recent Cyber Security News: • Google Chairman, Eric Schmidt’s new book on China: • “the world’s most active and enthusiastic filterer of information” as well as “the most sophisticated and prolific” hacker of foreign companies. In a world that is becoming increasingly digital, the willingness of China’s government and state companies to use cyber crime gives the country an economic and political edge. • NY Times, WSJ hacking last week traced to China • Twitter theft of 250K users personal information last week • Sony PlayStation Anonymous hacks (twice in 2 weeks) IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 19
• 20. Agenda • Some Historical Context • The Emergence of SoMoClo • The Emergence of Big Data • The Emergence of Smart Mobile • The Convergence of ToDaClo • What Do You Think? IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not?
• 21. The Emergence of “Big Data” IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 21
• 22. Emergence of “Big Data” • Major advances in scale and sophistication of government intelligence gathering and analysis • Cost no object • NSA PRISM global telecom surveillance programPost 9/11 World IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 22
• 23. An Interesting Scientific Analogy Chaos, with reference to chaos theory, refers to an apparent lack of order in a system that nevertheless obeys particular laws or rules; this understanding of chaos is synonymous with dynamical instability, a condition discovered by the physicist Henri Poincare in the early 20th century that refers to an inherent lack of predictability in some physical systems. IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 23
• 24. Key Drivers of the Emergence of Big Data • Moore’s Law – compute cost and power • Design rules, multi-core, 3D design • Massive cost decline in data storage • Emergence of solid state memristor • Google Spanner 1st global real-time database • DARPA “Python” programming language • Data Center data storage accumulation • 2.7 zettabytes currently and growing rapidly • A zettabyte equals 1021 bytes (1000 exabytes) IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 24
• 25. The Big Data Landscape Today IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 25
• 26. The Key Issue: Privacy “Get over it! You have no privacy!” Scott McNealy, former CEO of Sun Microsystems IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 26
• 27. Agenda • Some Historical Context • The Emergence of SoMoClo • The Emergence of Big Data • The Emergence of Smart Mobile • The Convergence of ToDaClo • What Do You Think? IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not?
• 28. The Emergence of Smart Mobile IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 28
• 29. Emergence of Smart Mobile IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 29
• 30. Key Drivers of Smart Mobile • Moore’s Law – compute cost and power • Design rules, multi-core, 3D design • Focus on reducing heat: gate leakage • Intel Atom “all day battery life” is a beginning • Massive cost decline in data storage • Mobile bandwidth:4G/LTE “no cost difference” • “White space” metro Wi-Fi potential maybe • New available spectrum between digital TV channels: increased transmit power • PC market death: Dell Computer & HP IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 30
• 31. Mobile-based Services • GPS, Cloud, personal and database info on mobile • Geotagging from current location tied to your objective: • Find merchandise, restaurant, bar, etc. • Find and tag people • Find people with similar interests nearby • The rise of the mobile gaming market • Already well-established in Hong Kong, Seoul • North America far behind Asian telecom markets • Facebook has just announced LBS plans • The downside: battery drain issue still critical • “People want their phones to do too much” • 4G LTE, Wifi, Bluetooth, GPS, Streaming, Mobile Gaming IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 31
• 32. Location-based Services Landscape IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 32
• 33. Agenda • Some Historical Context • The Emergence of SoMoClo • The Emergence of Big Data • The Emergence of Smart Mobile • The Convergence of ToDaClo • What Do You Think? IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not?
• 34. The Convergence of “ToDaClo” Touch + Data + Cloud IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 34
• 35. David Mayes ‹#›
• 36. Agenda • Some Historical Context • The Emergence of SoMoClo • The Emergence of Big Data • The Emergence of Smart Mobile • The Convergence of ToDaClo • What Do You Think? IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not?
• 37. Discussion: Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile, Big Deal or Not? IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 37
• 38. My Key Takeaway Points • Even from the 50,000 foot level, a shakeout and consolidation seem inevitable • A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money • There will be “snake oil” sold that does not work • Nevertheless these three new markets are actually one unified market, and likely: The Next Big Thing IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 38
• 39. What Do You Think? • No. ToDaClo is mostly media hype, and not a “Big Deal.” • I’m skeptical. ToDaClo will probably be a “Big Deal,” but I haven’t seen much yet • Maybe. I do not know yet whether ToDaClo will be a Big Deal • Yes. ToDaClo is a Big Deal and it is already changing our lives IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 39
• 40. Thank You! IEEE UBC Okanagan Big Data, The Cloud, and Smart Mobile: Big Deal or Not? ©David Mayes 40
• 41. ©David Mayes 41

 

The Internet of Things: The Promise Versus the Tower of Hacked Babbling Things

The term “Internet of Things”  (IoT) is being loosely tossed around in the media.  But what does it mean? It means simply that data communication, like Internet communication, but not necessarily Internet Protocol packets, is emerging for all manner of “things” in the home, in your car, everywhere: light switches, lighting devices, thermostats, door locks, window shades, kitchen appliances, washers & dryers, home audio and video equipment, even pet food dispensers. You get the idea. It has also been called home automation. All of this communication occurs autonomously, without human intervention. The communication can be between and among these devices, so called machine to machine or M2M communication.  The data communication can also terminate in a compute server where the information can be acted on automatically, or made available to the user to intervene remotely from their smart mobile phone or any other remote Internet connected device.

Another key concept is the promise of automated energy efficiency, with the introduction of “smart meters” with data communication capability, and also achieved in large commercial structures via the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design program or LEED.  Some may recall that when Bill Gates built his multi-million dollar mansion on Lake Washington in Seattle, he had “remote control” of his home built into it.  Now, years later, Gates’ original home automation is obsolete.  The dream of home automation has been around for years, with numerous Silicon Valley conferences, and failed startups over the years, and needless to say, home automation went nowhere. But it is this concept of effortless home automation that has been the Holy Grail.

But this is also where the glowing promise of The Internet of Things (IoT) begins to morph into a giant “hairball.”  The term “hairball” was former Sun Microsystems CEO, Scott McNealy‘s favorite term to describe a complicated mess.  In hindsight, the early euphoric days of home automation were plagued by the lack of “convergence.”  I use this term to describe the inability of available technology to meet the market opportunity.  Without convergence there can be no market opportunity beyond early adopter techno geeks. Today, the convergence problem has finally been eliminated. Moore’s Law and advances in data communication have swept away the convergence problem. But for many years the home automation market was stalled.

Also, as more Internet-connected devices emerged it became apparent that these devices and apps were a hacker’s paradise.  The concept of IoT was being implemented in very naive and immature ways and lacking common industry standards on basic issues: the kinds of things that the IETF and IEEE are famous for.  These vulnerabilities are only now very slowly being resolved, but still in a fragmented ad hoc manner. The central problem has not been addressed due to classic proprietary “not invented here” mindsets.

The problem that is currently the center of this hairball, and from all indications is not likely to be resolved anytime soon.  It is the problem of multiple data communication protocols, many of them effectively proprietary, creating a huge incompatible Tower of Babbling Things.  There is no meaningful industry and market wide consensus on how The Internet of Things should communicate with the rest of the Internet.  Until this happens, there can be no fulfillment of the promise of The Internet of Things. I recently posted “Co-opetition: Open Standards Always Win,” which discusses the need for open standards in order for a market to scale up.

Read more: Co-opetition: Open Standards Always Win

A recent ZDNet post explains that home automation currently requires that devices need to be able to connect with “multiple local- and wide-area connectivity options (ZigBee, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GSM/GPRS, RFID/NFC, GPS, Ethernet). Along with the ability to connect many different kinds of sensors, this allows devices to be configured for a range of vertical markets.” Huh?  This is the problem in a nutshell. You do not need to be a data communication engineer to get the point.  And this is not even close to a full discussion of the problem.  There are also IoT vendors who believe that consumers should pay them for the ability to connect to their proprietary Cloud. So imagine paying a fee for every protocol or sensor we employ in our homes. That’s a non-starter.

The above laundry list of data communication protocols, does not include the Zigbee “smart meter” communications standards war.  The Zigbee protocol has been around for years, and claims to be an open industry standard, but many do not agree. Zigbee still does not really work, and a new competing smart meter protocol has just entered the picture.  The Bluetooth IEEE 802.15 standard now may be overtaken by a much more powerful 802.15 3a.  Some are asking if 4G LTE, NFC or WiFi may eliminate Bluetooth altogether.   A very cool new technology, energy harvesting, has begun to take off in the home automation market.  The energy harvesting sensors (no batteries) can capture just enough kinetic, peizo or thermoelectric energy to transmit short data communication “telegrams” to an energy harvesting router or server.  The EnOcean Alliance has been formed around a small German company spun off from Siemens, and has attracted many leading companies in building automation. But EnOcean itself has recently published an article in Electronic Design News, announcing that they have a created “middleware” (quote) “…to incorporate battery-less devices into networks based on several different communication standards such as Wi-Fi, GSM, Ethernet/IP, BACnet, LON, KNX or DALI.”  (unquote).  It is apparent that this space remains very confused, crowded and uncertain.  A new Cambridge UK startup, Neul is proposing yet another new IoT approach using the radio spectrum known as “white space,”  becoming available with the transition from analog to digital television.  With this much contention on protocols, there will be nothing but market paralysis.

Is everyone following all of these acronyms and data comm protocols?  There will be a short quiz at the end of this post. (smile)

The advent of IP version 6, strongly supported by Intel and Cisco Systems has created another area of confusion. The problem with IPv6 in the world of The IoT is “too much information” as we say.  Cisco and Intel want to see IPv6 as the one global protocol for every Internet connected device. This is utterly incompatible with energy harvesting, as the tiny amount of harvested energy cannot transmit the very long IPv6 packets. Hence, EnOcean’s middleware, without which their market is essentially constrained.

Then there is the ongoing new standards and upgrade activity in the International Standards Organization (ISO), The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Special Interest Groups (SIG’s”), none of which seem to be moving toward any ultimate solution to the Tower of Babbling Things problem in The Internet of Things.

The Brave New World of Internet privacy issues relating to this tidal wave of Big Data are not even considered here, and deserve a separate post on the subject.  A recent NBC Technology post has explored many of these issues, while some have suggested we simply need to get over it. We have no privacy.

Read more: Internet of Things pits George Jetson against George Orwell

Stakeholders in The Internet of Things seem not to have learned the repeated lesson of open standards and co-opetition, and are concentrating on proprietary advantage which ensures that this market will not effectively scale anytime in the foreseeable future. Intertwined with the Tower of Babbling Things are the problems of Internet privacy and consumer concerns about wireless communication health & safety issues.  Taken together, this market is not ready for prime time.

 

Big Idea Social Entrepreneur: The New 21st Century Career

Late last year I wrote on this blog about my frustration with the lack of Big Ideas driving innovation. My rant was stimulated by a New York Times article on the grim underbelly of the “an app for everything” culture: people who were working on “small ideas,”  and losing their shirts in the process.  I also shared the thoughts of other entrepreneurial leaders, investors, and journalists, also bemoaning the fact that we seem to have lost our way, and are no longer thinking BIG.  This morning I stumbled on a post on the HBR Blog Network, entitled “Idea Entrepreneur: The New 21st Century Career.” I took some editorial license and added the words “Big”  and “Social” to my blog post, simply because the author was actually making the case for Big Ideas and Social Entrepreneurship, and the hopeful sign that there may be a re-emergence of people who care about Big Ideas.  Read my original post here, followed by the HBR Blog post.

The concept of “social entrepreneurship” has noticeably taken off with this generation of young people. While there some debate about the definition of “social entrepreneurship,” I am comfortable with the following explanation.

A social entrepreneur is a person who pursues novel applications that have the potential to solve community-based problems, both large and small. These individuals are willing to take on the risk and effort to create positive changes in society through their initiatives.

Examples of social entrepreneurship include microfinance institutions, educational programs, providing banking services in underserved areas and helping children orphaned by epidemic disease. Their efforts are connected to a notion of addressing unmet needs within communities that have been overlooked or not granted access to services, products, or base essentials available in more developed communities. A social entrepreneur might also seek to address imbalances in such availability, the root causes behind such social problems, or social stigma associated with being a resident of such communities. The main goal of a social entrepreneur is not to earn a profit, but rather to implement widespread improvements in society. However, a social entrepreneur must still be financially savvy to succeed in his or her cause.

I had the good fortune of working with the global social entrepreneurship NGO,  Enactus and a group of my students from the UBC Faculty of Management. We interacted with other social entrepreneurship groups as far afield as Perth, Australia, and Rotterdam in the Netherlands to develop our own project. Enactus categorizes projects by the potential for the project to become self-sustaining by the participants, and the original project volunteers working themselves out of a job. Our project was designed to meet the highest categorization within Enactus. We designed a roof-top hydroponic vegetable garden project that would produce high yield cash crop fruits and vegetables for the homeless community, managed by a local housing organization.  The end goal was to enable the homeless volunteers to take over the operation, generate income for themselves, and collaborate with the charity organization to enter into simple permanent housing.

Read more: What Makes Social Entrepreneurs Different?

Read more: http://mayo615.com/2012/11/18/app-development-booms-depressing-underbelly-what-ever-happened-to-big-ideas/

“Big” Idea Entrepreneur: The New 21st Century Career

Reblogged from the HBR Blog Network

by John Butman  |  10:00 AM May 27, 2013

Read more: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/05/idea_entrepreneur_the_new_21st.html

There is a new player emerging on the cultural and business scene today: the idea entrepreneur. Perhaps you are one yourself — or would like to be. The idea entrepreneur is an individual, usually a content expert and often a maverick, whose main goal is to influence how other people think and behave in relation to their cherished topic. These people don’t seek power over others and they’re not motivated by the prospect of achieving great wealth. Their goal is to make a difference, to change the world in some way.

Idea entrepreneurs are popping up everywhere. They’re people like Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO and author of Lean In), who is advocating a big new idea from within an organization. And like Atul Gawande (the checklist doctor), who is working to transform a professional discipline. Or like Blake Mycoskie (founder of TOMS shoes), who has created an unconventional business model.

In my research into this phenomenon (which forms the basis of my book, Breaking Out), I have been amazed at how many different kinds of people aspire to be idea entrepreneurs. I have met with, interviewed, emailed or tweeted with librarians, salespeople, educators, thirteen-year-old kids, marketers, technologists, consultants, business leaders, social entrepreneurs — from countries all over the world — who have an idea, want to go public with it, and, in some cases, build a sustainable enterprise around it.

The ones who succeed — whether it’s disrupting an established way of doing business as Vineet Nayar has done with his company or bringing a mindset change to a small community like Maria Madison has done in Concord, Massachusetts — share the following methods:

• They play many roles. They are manager, teacher, motivator, entertainer, coach, thought leader, and guru all rolled into one. Think Reid Hoffman (founder of LinkedIn and author of The Start-Up of You), Daniel Pink (author of Drive) or, in India, Kiran Bedi, leader of a worldwide movement to transform prisons and root out corruption.

• They create a platform of expressions and generate revenue to support their social activities. Idea entrepreneurs have to be exceptionally good at expressing their idea, and usually do so in many forms. They give private talks and major speeches, write books and blogs and articles, participate in panels and events, engage in social media — activities that can generate revenue (sometimes in considerable amounts), through a combination of fees, sales of their expressions, and related merchandise. Jim Collins has created a long-lasting enterprise supported by the sale of books and media, as well as fees for consulting, speaking engagements, and workshops.

• They offer a practical way to understand and implement their idea. Because people have a hard time responding to an abstract idea, the idea entrepreneur develops practices (and personally models them, too) that lead people to the idea through action. Bryant Terry, an “eco-chef” who argues that good nutrition is the best path to social justice, embeds his ideas in cooking methods and suggestions for social interaction around good food.

• They draw other people into their idea. The idea entrepreneur gathers people into the development, expression, and application of their idea. They form affiliations, build networks, and form groups. Al Gore created the Climate Reality Project Leadership Corps to bring his ideas about environmental sustainability to people around the world. Eckhart Tolle, a spiritual leader and author of The Power of Now, has established the online Eckhart Teachings Community with members in 130 countries. This inclusion of many people in many ways creates a phenomenon I call respiration— it’s as if the idea starts to breathe, and takes on a life of its own.

• They drive the quest for change. It is all too common that people with an idea for an improvement or a change to the world are satisfied to point out a problem, propose a solution, and then expect others to execute. The idea entrepreneur, however, sees the expression of the idea as the beginning of the effort — and it can be a lifelong one — in which they will continue to build the idea, reach new audiences, and offer practices that lead to change. Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, based in Delhi, believes that world-class sanitation is necessary for India to realize its full potential. In forty years of idea entrepreneurship — spent in writing, speaking, travelling, network building, and technology development — he has influenced the way millions of people think and act.

People who have shaped our thinking and our society over the decades, even centuries, and continue to do so today — from Benjamin Franklin to Mohandas Gandhi to Hannah Salwen, an American teenager who modeled a disruptive approach to philanthropy — have followed the path of the idea entrepreneur.

These days, the model is well-defined and, thanks to the amazing range of activities we have for creating and sharing ideas, is within reach for just about anyone. If you have an idea, and want to go public with it, idea entrepreneurship can be one of the most powerful forces for change and improvement in the world today.

Why The Biggest Tech Companies Are Not In Canada

Mayo0615 Reblog from July 22, 2013

It dawned on me that my blog post from July 2013, still has particular relevance to the current situation in Canada. I discuss the longer term structural issues confronting Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian venture capital. Boris Wertz, founder of Vancouver’s Version One Ventures is also crucial to this discussion. When I first arrived in Canada, I learned quickly that the Vancouver startup ecosystem was nothing like what I knew from Silicon Valley. My personal case study was Mobile Data International, a pioneering company in wireless data, well before WiFi and Bluetooth, that could have led the market and the technology. Instead, the company was taken public much too early.  MDI was bought by Motorola Canada for $39 Million,  in a hostile takeover, and was essentially moved out of Canada and shut down.  Later, in 2012, I had another opportunity to be up close and personal with Canadian innovation, as a participant in the Canada Foundation for Innovation deliberations in Ottawa. These two experiences have played a major role in the development of my views on this topic.

The following reblog raises the tough questions that are holding Canada back.

From July 2013:

In 2013, ContentDJ founder Jerry Tian published a blog post addressing the issue of “Why Canada Has No Big Tech Companies” – Nortel is dead and RIM is quite obviously dying, he points out. Tian, who was himself responding to an interview with Boris Wertz, founder of Vancouver’s Version One Ventures, offers a thought provoking theory and one that applies to a large degree to all up-and-coming startup ecosystems.

The founder questions the commitment and willingness of Canadian investors and entrepreneurs to devote the ten years or more that it may take to build an independent multi-billion dollar company with staying power, rather than flipping that company for an eight, nine, or even ten figure exit – typically to Silicon Valley acquirers – and exporting that future innovation and wealth building. It’s a charge that could be applied equally well to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Austin, Boulder, and dozens of would be international startup hubs.

“’Silicon Valley is not a place but a state of mind,” Tian writes, quoting KPCB General Partner John Doerr. “Some of these insights are collaboration, competition, openness to innovation, failures and experimentation. Probably the most important one is the long term commitment behind technology companies.”

Of course, Tian and Doerr are spot on. What emerging startup hubs often miss when trying to “become the next Silicon Valley” – a flawed mission in and of itself – is that the grandaddy startup ecosystem is more than its physical infrastructure of entrepreneurs, engineers, designers, investors, service providers, universities, and the like. Equally important are the systematic irrationality and a feedback loop around the willingness to turn down the quick buck and go for the massive once-in-a-generation success story.

This isn’t the case with every company, founder, or investor, but it exists in enough density in the San Francisco Bay Area, and based on results to a lesser extent in Seattle, that these are the only two areas areas in the country that have led to multiple ten billion dollar plus technology and internet companies – the true giants that transcend their local ecosystems and seep into the lives of average consumers.

It is these companies, with their ability to attract talent, make acquisitions, invest in long-term R&D, and create systemic wealth that make ecosystems. And with very rare exception, getting to this scale requires a decade or longer commitment and a willingness on the part of founders and investors to turn down near and mid-term paydays. Similarly, it requires a vision and an ambition  to build something that will be around forever.

Tian writes:

So, why is nobody talking about these acquisitions? I think it’s simply because investors are getting filthy rich off these deals.

And that’s exactly what not to do if you want to create the next Silicon Valley. You cannot sell the hen that lays the golden eggs for a few quick buck [sic]. Technology companies take 10 years to really manifest the value. To really build a billion dollar company, it takes tremendous multi-decade commitment. And that’s the biggest missing piece in Canada.

Like or hate Zynga founder and former CEO Mark Pincus, one has to respect him for saying that he wants to build a “digital skyscraper,” a company that would be around for 100 years. Pincus went further to say that he views serial entrepreneurship as failure and that he wants to run Zynga for the rest of his career. Ironically, he recently replaced himself as CEO, personally recruiting Don Mattrick for the role. But Pincus made the ego-busting move in an effort to return Zynga to its former glory and to get it back on that century-long track.

In his somewhat controversial on-the-ground reporting on the Chicago ecosystem last summer, Trevor Gilbert delved into “the Midwest Mentality” and the impact it has on the types of companies that are built there. Gilbert called Chicagoans “pragmatic.” Lightbank partner Paul Lee offered an example of this pragmatism, saying that Chicago startups typically focus on generating revenue from day one, rather than building a massive, but unprofitable user base, a la Facebook and Twitter pre-monetization. Profit is all well and good, and should be the ultimate goal of any business that wants to be around for the long term, but focus on it too intently early on and it can be impossible to invest in growth. It takes a special kind of vision and fortitude to look past the short term and make the big bets required to create massive companies.

This is not to pick on Chicago. A similar phenomenon seems to exist in LA where companies race out to a low nine-figure valuation and then either stall out in that vicinity or sell for sub-one billion dollars to a larger out of town acquirer. Call it the curse of the big-little deal – maybe everyone here just wants to see their name in lights. In a market that is desperate for success stories and validation, these medium-sized exits are hailed as “wins” – and they are, given the difficulty of building a hundred-million dollar company – but they often rob the ecosystem of potential multi-generational tentpole companies. This is a mentality that appears to have changed in recent years, but that change has not yet bore fruit in the form of LA’s answer to Google, Amazon, or Facebook.

New York has seen its own version of this phenomenon, with the ecosystem’s biggest success stories, DoubleClick and Tumblr, being exits to Google and Yahoo respectively. Local darling MakerBot followed suit, selling for $600 million in June. New York does have Fab, Gilt, and Foursquare all shooting for the moon but these companies and the ecosystem as a whole still must prove that they can sustain this ambition and parlay it into a giant company.

As Tian points out, part of the blame for these exits falls on investors. It’s not that investors aren’t interested in massive outcomes – they most certainly are. But not all non-Silicon Valley investors are equipped for the financial and time commitment it takes to create them. These investors, many of which operate out of first- or second-generation funds, often have smaller pools of capital to invest out of.

Write a $2 million check at a $10 million valuation out of a $100 million fund, and a 50x return looks pretty good, returning 98 percent of your fund. Make that same investment out of a $1 billion fund and the impact on fund economics is decidedly less interesting. This is one of the few arguments in favor of mega-VC funds. But it also benefits firms that are on their fourth, fifth or sixth fund and have less to gain reputation-wise with solid base hits.

Returning to Tian’s piece, he closes by writing, “If you are wondering why Canada doesn’t have the [sic] billion dollar company, it cannot be more obvious than this. Too many people are in it trying to get rich quickly off entrepreneurs. Not enough people have the gut [sic] and commitment to create or help create something truly meaningful.”

Tian paints with a broad brush, yes, which ignores many of the subtle nuances and external factors that contribute toward building massive technology companies. But there’s little arguing that people in Silicon Valley think differently. Armed by decades of case studies and social proof, the ecosystem has developed a healthy disregard for rationality.

Mark Zuckerberg famously did just that when Yahoo came calling. He was just 20 years old and Facebook, at less than two years old, was unprofitable with just $30 million in revenue. Yet Zuckerberg and Facebook’s board, which included Peter Thiel and Jim Breyer, turned down Yahoo’s $1 billion offer. When the elder advisors tried to convince the young founder that his 25 percent of that offer would be a big number he said, “I don’t know what I could do with the money. I’d just start another social networking site. I kind of like the one I already have.”

Israeli social mapping company Waze just made the opposite decision, selling to Google for slightly more than that mythical $1 billion. Sarah Lacy cautioned Israel-bulls to “reconsider too much high-fiving over Waze.” While legendary local angel investor Yossi Vardi likes to compare Israeli startups to tomato seeds which need more experienced farmers to grow properly, Lacy believes that the country has the potential to build and sustain globally dominant Web companies without selling, offering MyHeritage as an example.

None of this is to say Silicon Valley is immune from this syndrome. There are thousands of entrepreneurs in the Bay Area who would rather flip their company than do the long, hard work of building something sustainable. But the sheer density of the ecosystem means that a dozen or so each year choose the road less traveled. Also, given the scale of the Valley ecosystem, building a big company is the only way to move the needle and attract talent and capital. Everyone in line at Philz coffee is working on the next “billion dollar business.”

Finally, Silicon Valley is a magnet for those entrepreneurs around the globe who want to build great technology companies, and the ecosystem surely benefits from this imported talent. This was actually Wertz’s central point in the original interview and is one that Tian touches on briefly. It’s a difficult problem to solve, given the power of knowing someone (or several someones) who has summited the mountain before and who can show you that it can be done. In each of these other markets, someone will have to be the first.

In many cases, it is highly irrational to turn down a nine- or ten-figure acquisition offer. There are real benefits to gaining access to the financial and personnel resources of a larger acquirer, ones that can often make or break the success of a still fledgling company. But, if there’s anything in Silicon Valley that Canada, LA, New York, and other startup ecosystems should aspire to it’s this willingness to roll the dice. Sometimes the shooter rolls a “7.”

The Okanagan Never Has Been, And Never Will Be, Silicon Valley: A Lesson From New Zealand

UPDATE: This post from February 21, 2016, is being republished in the light of the announcement that Club Penguin is closing its doors in March. No amount of PR spin, arm waving, or equivocation can make the bitter truth of this post go away.  I note that Lane Merrifeld and Accelerate Okanagan have been conspicuously silent.  Before that, it was Silicon Valley company Packeteer, that morphed into Vineyard Networks when Packeteer pulled the plug and was eventually “parked” with Procera in Silicon Valley, which benefited very few in the Okanagan.  There is a long legacy of this that need not continue.

Kelowna Innovation Centre

British Columbia and New Zealand share many economic similarities, except that New Zealand has way more sheep, is way better at rugby and has much better sailors.  Both economies are focused on natural resource exploitation, tourism, wine, and horticulture. The motion picture industry has been a major factor in both economies, but both are highly vulnerable to foreign exchange fluctuations. Both economies have similar populations though we have more space and are not isolated in the South Pacific.   Both economies have made efforts to diversify into high tech, pouring millions into development of startups. Both economies have had modestly successful companies in high tech, which seemingly have mostly been bought out, moved out and any benefit to the local economy lost.  The crucial difference may be New Zealand’s pragmatism about how to deal with this economic reality.  British Columbia could learn from New Zealand.

Andy Hamilton, the long-time Director of Auckland, New Zealand’s Ice House high-tech incubator shared the following article from New Zealand’s NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW.  I first met Andy when I headed up New Zealand’s “Beachhead” incubator facility in Silicon Valley some years ago. The article has significant relevance to our situation in the Okanagan and British Columbia as a whole.  The Okanagan has seen high-profile startups like Club Penguin, Vineyard Networks, and Immersive Media bought by much larger foreign buyers, essentially leaving little benefit to the local economy. The founder of perhaps the most successful startup in BC, Ryan Holmes of Hootsuite, admitted that he did not base the company in the Okanagan (he is from Vernon) because he knew he could not attract the necessary talent here. It is well-known that many if not most UBC Okanagan graduates do not stay here.  While Vancouver has D-Wave and General Fusion, it has also seen Recon Instruments bought by Intel.  New Zealand has dealt with the same reality.  Forget the names of the Kiwi companies in the following editorial piece and substitute any Okanagan or BC startup company you feel is comparable. With Kelowna now tarred with the reputation as the worst job market in Canada, it would serve the local Okanagan establishment to give serious thought to the editorial below.

New Zealand: We’re not, and never will be, Silicon Valley

NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW (NEW ZEALAND)

MONDAY FEBRUARY 22, 2016

OPINION

BEN KEPES

New Zealand’s Diligent Corporation chief executive Brian Stafford

John Donne famously wrote that no man is an island entire of itself. The same is true for countries, and especially those countries situated in the middle of nowhere and with a relatively tiny population. At the same time, the old adage of not wanting to throw out the baby with the bathwater springs to mind.

All this mixing of metaphors seems timely given the current debate over Diligent Corporation [NZX: DIL] and its likely sale and exit from New Zealand. People on one side of the debate bemoan foreign sales and suggest this is why we should stick to our primary production knitting. Those on the other side suggest  offshore sales are fine since the money reenters into the economy via the oft-quoted “rinse and repeat” cycle.

To be honest, both sides simplify things with their arguments and I think it’s time for New Zealand to think a bit more deeply about what we want our economy to look like.

We’re not, and never will be, Silicon Valley.

It frustrates me when people glibly suggest that New Zealand should create a mini-Silicon Valley down here in the South Pacific. Silicon Valley only exists in one place and is a unique creation of a number of factors including a university that was founded on the idea of entrepreneurship. Leland Stanford created the university as a memorial to his 15-year-old son who died of typhoid. The university was to be co-educational (a rare thing at that time) and, above all, designed to produce practical members of society. This wasn’t about research for research’s sake, Leland Stanford, a railroad magnate, wanted to produce research which was focused on commercial possibilities.

Add to that a hub of military research, significant funding streams for startups, a cultural focus on technology generally, and entrepreneurship specifically, and you have a unique place. Silicon Valley the product is very much a product of the crucible of Silicon Valley the place. We’d be advised to remember this.

But there are more reasons beyond viability to not want to recreate Silicon Valley in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch. I’m lucky enough to spend a huge amount of time in “The Valley” and while I’d be the first to suggest that it is an exciting and bustling place, I’d also hate to live there. Unaffordable housing that makes Auckland look easy by comparison, ridiculous traffic issues (don’t even bother trying to drive the 101 on a weekday). A slightly weird culture in which 20-year-old entrepreneurs trying to reinvent laundry services or lawn care are seen as more heroic than doctors, firefighters or teachers.

Silicon Valley has something of a culture of “viva la revolution”. Ride-sharing service Uber’s founder, Travis Kalanick, is almost religious in his fervor for making transportation undergo a rapid revolution. Ultimately, he sees drivers as an impediment to this and is actively investing in driverless car technology in an effort to get rid of the very individuals who are currently making his service viable.

Perhaps this is the very reason that we shouldn’t try and recreate Silicon Valley in New Zealand. We have a society that, to some extent, at least, looks out for everyone. We were the first country in the world to give women the vote. We have a social welfare system that provides a safety net for people. When we’re sick in New Zealand we take it for granted that (hospital waiting lists notwithstanding) we’ll get treatment. The Silicon Valley focus on “automation and efficiency above all” forgoes all of this and, while creating a society where we can get our floors vacuumed by robots, our lawns mown as-a-service and even our meals prepared with synthetic meat by robot chefs, also helps create a dystopian world where anyone who isn’t a computer programmer, a robot engineer or independently wealthy falls by the wayside as an “unfortunate side effect of productivity enhancing tools and technological change.”

A final note on this point. Rod Drury, the chief executive of Xero [NZX: XRO], famously chooses to live in Hawke’s Bay where he can enjoy all that the region has to offer. Rod has seized this idea of balance in his working life and has found a way to build a business while not forgoing all possible quality of life. Indeed, this is a theme that Xero has used often when trying to attract talent. Let’s never forget these aspects in the desire to create GDP growth.

Do these technology exits really feed our economy?

All of this talk of quick technology exits funding lots of $100,000 plus software developer jobs here in New Zealand is a nice sound-bite but it arrogantly sidesteps the questions about what all those people who are left disenfranchised by those technologies are going to do. While TradeMe’s exit certainly helped to create companies like Vend, we need to be thinking, as a nation, about what is going to happen to all of those people who actually do things – tradespeople, manufacturing staff etc – once this ultimate in globalized efficiency is achieved.

If we look at the money that has been brought back to New Zealand from the sale of companies like TradeMe, how much has really gone into the economy? Yes, I’m well aware that TradeMe money has gone on to fund Vend, Xero, SLI Systems and a host of other companies. But while these are all interesting companies, doing good things and with (hopefully) a chance of a good outcome, they’re not particularly big employers and hence I’d be keen to see some empirical data about how much the so-called “trickle down effect” from exits like TradeMe actually exists.

True, both Sam Morgan and Rowan Simpson have built big houses that have kept a few tradesmen busy for a while – it would be helpful for some independent economists to really nut out the continuing value from this model. Often this argument is one which is had from a perspective of dogma – we need to really get some clarity as to the economic impacts of the technology industry in New Zealand.

Notwithstanding the economic benefits of these offshore sales, or otherwise, the fact is there is little option for our technology companies. Again, in this respect, Xero remaining, at least to some extent a New Zealand company is very much an outlier.

This talk of the problems caused by companies like Navman, The Hyperfactory, and NextWindow, that have grown, been sold offshore and all the jobs (along with the tax revenue) lost to NZ Inc is simplistic as well. We live in a tiny market, one which makes a domestic focus pretty much impossible for all but the most niche of players. To achieve growth, these companies need to look to customers overseas. In this technology space, the norm is very much to follow a rapid merger and acquisition path.

The very model of the technology industry is for there to exist a myriad of startups, all of whom sprint in order to get ahead of the others. The prize for being at the front of the bunch is generally (with only a handful of exceptions) a quick acquisition by one of the titans of the industry. After which, and other than a general couple of years spent in purgatory working for said vendor, the founders head back and do it all again. Hopefully.

Is there a third way?

Now I’m not suggesting that we shroud ourselves in an isolationist mist. The last person to do that was Robert Muldoon and it was a disaster. But to suggest, as many do, that technology will replace the need for any of our traditional businesses is simplistic. Similarly, the view that it is best to follow these models of building fast-growth software companies to be quickly flicked off to the highest bidder is unhelpful.

So maybe there is a third way. Maybe we can look at what we naturally do well – things like growing grass and turning it into milk and meat, horticulture and agriculture generally, and the technologies that help those industries to be more efficient, ideas that need a unique combination of practicality and DIY-mentality (Gallagher’s fences anyone?) – and apply technology to those things. With the utmost respect to Xero, a company that is a terrific success story for New Zealand, there is nothing about accounting software that we fundamentally have a point of difference with. Xero could have been created out of Bangalore, Silicon Valley or London. The fact that it has been successful out of New Zealand is down to good luck, good timing and some unique factors. Xero is an outlier – a great one – but an outlier nonetheless. It would be a dangerous bet to make to assume that we can create enough Xeros to fund our big, expensive economy.

Ever greater extension of dairy farming isn’t, of course, an option. Our rivers and lakes are already enough of an abomination without more nitrate runoff. But how about celebrating those companies that are attempting to add value to primary production – Lewis Road Creamery is one that springs to mind. But there is a host of exciting new startups in the agricultural technology space as well.

We need a diverse economy, one in which we have small companies making added-value products alongside companies that will grow rapidly and be sold off. If I look at the companies I’m involved with, I certainly invest in the “high-growth and sell offshore” model. Appsecute, a company I was an early backer of, sold a couple of years ago to a Canadian company which, in turn, sold to Hewlett-Packard last year. Companies like MEA mobile, Raygun, ThisData and Wipster will, potentially, follow this model. But other technology companies have a domestic focus or one which favors remaining independent and growing from New Zealand – PropertyPlot, CommonLedger, and Publons are examples. And finally, companies that are involved in real physical products. While it may be totally unsexy to actually make anything in New Zealand anymore, I’m proud to be involved in Cactus Equipment, a company that not only makes awesome products but keeps scores of people employed here in New Zealand – people who are unlikely to become software developers any time soon.

Focus on a diverse NZ Inc

When Sam Morgan suggested that a focus on NZ Inc was unhelpful for companies and would get them killed, he was referring to technology companies specifically. I believe that, as an economy, we should look more broadly at what we do and celebrate both the meteoric risers of the industry, but also the bit players – those who aren’t gunning for a US exit, those who are able to make a living in the traditional economy and those who are trying to add extra value to what we do well.

Christchurch entrepreneur and cloud computing commentator Ben Kepes blogs at Diversity.net.nz.

Want to listen to the day’s hottest stories, plus interviews and panel discussions? Stream NBR Radio’s latest free 40-minute podcast from iHeartRadio, TuneIn, or iTunes.

Read more from Ben Kepes

Email Ben: ben@diversity.net.nz

The Importance of “Convergence” In Market and Industry Analysis

If You Get Technology “Convergence” Wrong, Nothing Else Matters

I came across this book during my most recent visit to the UBC Vancouver campus.  As good as I think this book is at focusing attention, in workbook style, on the importance of market and industry analysis in new venture due diligence, there is an issue that I think is not adequately addressed by any model or theory: not Porter, not STEEP or SWAT. Convergence is the issue.

We can imagine and even potentially envision a very cool business idea, but if the technology to achieve it is not ready, not sufficiently mature, the idea is Dead on Arrival (DOA).   I do not mean to pick on young entrepreneurs, but I reviewed a business concept last week that was a superb and compelling idea, but the technology necessary to achieve it simply was not there, either in terms of its capability or its price point. I am confident that it will be there in time, but it is not now.  As if to make my point, Apple announced that it was acquiring a company for $20 Million in the exact same technology area: indoor location tracking (no small feat).  At this point it is not clear that the acquired company has any extraordinary intellectual property or expertise, and the article primarily focused on the point that this “location identification” technology was “heating up.”  It looks like it may be a simple “aquihire.”   Global Positioning and geo tagging as in smart mobile phones, radio frequency identification technology (RFID), and inertial guidance are all currently used in various combinations by a host of competitors (too many) to achieve required levels of accuracy, immediacy and cost.  A local industrial RFID company has just closed its doors because it simply could not compete and make money.  The simple problem was that this company’s idea, as compelling as it was, could not achieve the necessary price point, or possibly would not even work.

So we have the problem of “convergence.”  Great idea but the technology simply is not ready….yet.

I have three personal case study examples of the problem of “convergence,” that every potential entrepreneur should study. I have to admit that I was a senior executive at all three of these Silicon Valley companies, one of which actually made it to the NASDAQ exchange.  All of them had the “convergence” problem.. Too early for the available technology.

1. Silicon Graphics.  Silicon Graphics was founded in the late 1980’s by a pre-eminent Stanford professor, Jim Clark, on the idea that 3D visualization of complex problems would become the next big wave in technology. As a minor side business, it also excelled at computer animation, a growing new market of interest to Steve Jobs and others. It is now obvious that Clark was onto something that has now finally become the Next Big Thing, but at that time, the available technology simply made it too difficult and too expensive. Silicon Graphics no longer exists. Silicon Graphics crown jewel was its enabling software code, the SGI Graphics Library. It does still exist in open form.

Read more:http://mayo615.com/2013/03/31/hans-rosling-makes-visual-sense-of-big-data-analytics/

2. iBEAM Broadcasting.  iBEAM was the precursor of YouTube, but too far ahead of its time.  the founder, Mike Bowles, a former MIT professor, envisioned streaming media across the Internet, but this was in 1999.  Intel, Fox Entertainment, Reuters, Bloomberg, Microsoft were all involved, some investing significant sums in the company. We tried mightily to make it happen for Mike, but there were technology convergence problems.  The Internet at that time simply did not have sufficient reliable broadband capability.  In 1999 the vast majority of Internet users still used a dial-up connection.  The company, with help from Microsoft and its other big pockets investors turned to satellite transmission, which is immensely expensive.  I did learn a lot about the satellite business. Great idea, way too early, and the company failed early.

3. P-Cube.  In 2001, I was approached by prominent friends at two downtown Palo Alto venture capital firms to consider joining an Israeli startup in which they had invested. The idea was wildly popular at the time….traffic policy management and so-called Internet traffic shaping.  I enthusiastically joined the new company and became its first U.S. based employee.  The compelling idea was simple, make money by charging for bandwidth. The background idea was to enable deep IP packet payload snooping to prioritize traffic, but also for its political potential. This is the technology that Dick Cheney employed after 9/11 to snoop all Internet traffic.  The only problem was that the technology was simply not yet ready.  The P-Cube Internet traffic switch was a 24 layer printed circuit board (hideously difficult to fabricate), with 5 IBM PowerPC chips, 1 Gig of onboard memory (at the time bleeding edge, but today laptops have more memory), a host of “application specific integrated circuits” (ASIC), and to top it off a proprietary software language to program the box.  In the end, P-Cube burned up $100 Million in venture capital, and I had great fun traveling the World selling it, but the box never worked, largely because the technology simply was not there..  P-Cube’s assets were bought by Cisco Systems and t0day such capability is built into the boxes of Cisco System, Juniper Networks and others.

The key takeaway lesson from this: do not underestimate the importance of technology convergence with a great idea.

Tough Love From Silicon Valley For Tough Times

Heidi Roizen is a very well-known Silicon Valley venture capitalist and entrepreneur. I first met Heidi years ago at a European COMDEX event in Nice when she was still in her entrepreneurial phase. Since that time she has gone on to fund numerous startups, and is now a Partner at Draper Fischer Jurvetson.  In this blog, Heidi is sounding the alarm to entrepreneurs that, as she says, the market has already turned for the worse. She has been there before and offers her sage advice to this generation of entrepreneurs on how to survive. IMHO, she is spot on.

Dear Startups:  Here’s How to Stay Alive

By Heidi Roizen

Reblogged from Tumblr

February 15, 2016

There are storm clouds gathering over Silicon Valley – and it’s more than just El Nino.

As a venture capitalist, I see a lot of data points within the private company marketplace.  Every Monday, I sit in a room with my partners and we discuss dozens of companies, both portfolio companies as well as those we are considering for investment.  When a market turns, we tend to see the signs earlier than the entrepreneurs working on the front lines.

This market?  I’d say it has turned.

It is going to be hard (or impossible) for many of today’s startups to raise funds.  And I think it will get worse before it gets better.  But, hey, my entrepreneurial friend, whoever said it was going to be easy?  One of my favorite expressions is: “that which does not kill us makes us stronger.”

So which is it going to be for you?  Tougher?  Or dead.

Fortunately, (unfortunately?) I’ve been to this movie before, during the dot-com “nuclear winter” – anyone remember that?   I’d like to think I’ve learned some things from that painful experience.

I’ve seen companies live, and I’ve seen them die. And I’ve concluded that certain behaviors separate the two.

Which behaviors, you ask? Here are a few from my downturn playbook for how to stay alive.

Stop clinging to your (or anyone else’s) valuation:  You know what somebody else’s fundraise metrics are to you?  Irrelevant.  You know what your own last round post was?  Irrelevant. Yes, I know, not legally, because of those pesky rights and preferences.  But emotionally, trust me, it is irrelevant now.  We even have a name for this – valuation nostalgia.  Yes, it was great when companies could raise those amounts, at those prices, blah, blah, blah, but the cheap-money-for-no-dilution thing is largely over now. The sooner you get on with dealing with that, and not clinging to the past, the better off you will be. As my DFJ partner Josh Stein says, “flat is the new up.”

Redefine what success looks like:  I had lunch last week with a friend of mine who broke her leg in three places four months ago.  “I used to think a successful weekend was 10+ miles of running,” she said.  “For now,  success is going to have to mean making it to the mailbox and back without my crutches.”  When a market like this turns, in order to survive, it is critical to redefine what success is going to look like for you – and your employees, and your investors, and your other stakeholders.  Holding on to ‘old’ ideas about IPO dates, large exits and massive new up rounds can ultimately be demotivating to your team.  If you can make it through the downturn, you will have those opportunities again.  But for now, reset your goals.

Get to cash-flow positive on the capital you already have (AKA, survive):My DFJ partner Emily Melton said this in our last partner meeting:  “Must be present to win.”  I used to say it at T/Maker (the company for which I was CEO) in a slightly different way:  “In order to have a bright long-term future, we need to have a series of survivable short term futures.”  You need to survive in order to ultimately win.

You know what kind of companies generally survive?  Companies that make more money than they spend.  I know, duh, right?  If you make more than you spend, you get to stay alive for a long time.  If you don’t, you have to get money from someone else to keep going.  And, as I just said, that’s going to be way harder now.  I’m embarrassed writing this because it is so flipping simple, yet it is amazing to me how many entrepreneurs are still talking about their plans to the next round.  What if there is no next round?  Don’t you still want to survive?

Yes, some companies are ‘moon shots’ (DFJ has a fair number of those in our portfolio) where this is simply not possible.  But for the vast majority of startups, this should be possible.

So, for those of you in the latter group, I want you to sharpen your spreadsheet, right now, and see if, by any hugely painful series of actions, you could actually be a company that makes money.  ASAP.  Or at least before you run out of money.   Because that’s the only way I know to control your own destiny.  You don’t have to act on it (although I would), but at least you will know if you have a choice.

And if you absolutely, positively, cannot get there without more capital?  Then you need to…

Understand whether your current investors are going to get you there: Guess who else cares about whether you live or die?  Yep, your current investors.   Another duh.  That’s why they are your best source of ‘get me to cash flow positive’ financing.  And yet, even though we all know this, why is it we don’t actually (1) create the plan that gets us to cash flow positive ASAP, and then (2) go to our backers and get their commitment that they will see us through  (or know that they won’t, because if they won’t, the sooner we know that, the sooner we can go out and do something about this.)  I know many VCs hate to be put on the spot about this, but I think entrepreneurs have the right to ask, and to know.

Stop worrying about morale:  Yes, you heard me right.  I can’t tell you how many board meetings I’ve been in where the CEO is anguished over the impacts on morale that cost cutting or layoffs will bring about.

You know what hurts morale even more than cost- cutting and layoffs?  Going out of business.  

I was at a conference once where someone asked Billy Beane how he created great morale at the A’s.  His answer?  “I win.  When we win, morale is good.  When we lose, morale is bad.”

Your employees are smart.  They know we are in uncertain times. They see the stress on your face.  They worry about their jobs.  What do they want to see most?  A decisive plan for survival, that’s what – even if some of them have to go.   Trust me, a clear plan is a real morale turn-on.

Cut more than you think is needed:  Yes, this is simple, but not easy.  It is so easy to justify why you want to lay off fewer people.  However, when you do, by and large, you’ll be laying even more off later.  Why we humans seem to prefer death by a thousand cuts is a mystery to me.  Don’t.  It’s easier on everyone if you cut deeper and then give people clarity about the stability of the remaining bunch.

Scrub your revenues:  Last week an entrepreneur pitched us, and his ‘current customers’ slide was alight with bright, trendy logos of bright, trendy venture-backed companies.  You know what I saw?  A slide full of bright, trendy, money-losing, may-not-survive companies.  (Luckily, in this case, the entrepreneur referenced these customers because he thought VCs would like to see that their smart startups use his stuff, but he actually had a lot of mainstream customers too.  He has a new slide now.) This, I think, was one of the biggest surprises from the last dot-com bust – we all knew we had to cut our expenses, but no one thought about what our customers might be doing. And guess what? They were all cutting costs too – including those costs which comprised our revenues.  Or worse, they were going out of business. If you are in Silicon Valley and your customers are mostly well-paid consumers with no free time, or other venture-backed startups, well, I’d be worried.  And yes, it sucks, but it is better to be worried than surprised.

Focus maniacally on your metrics: I know a few CEOs who delegate the understanding of their financials and their business metrics to the CFO, and then stop worrying about all that ‘numbers stuff’.  Don’t do that.  You have to know your numbers inside and out – they are your life blood.  You also have to know which metrics drive the business, and focus on them like your survival depends on it – because it does.  Figure out your canary (or canaries) in the coal mine (by that I mean the leading indicators that tell where your business is headed and whether it is healthy) and watch them weekly, or daily, or in real time, whatever is possible.  And, have a plan in advance about what you will do if/when the metrics go south.  Many of the best companies to have survived the last downturn became super data-driven, and were constantly course-correcting to make small but continuous improvements in their operations with what they learned.

Hunker down:  These markets generally take a long time to recover. Longer than you think. And, it might get worse. So don’t plan for the sun to start shining tomorrow. Or next month.  Or next quarter.  Or maybe even next year. Sorry.

Having just thoroughly depressed you, let me say that I’ve seen amazing transformations by companies who adapt early to the new reality.  Severe budgets give clarity.  Smaller teams often find greater purpose in their work.  Gaining control (by becoming profitable) feels really, really good.  Watching your competition (who didn’t read this) die, feels – can I say it? – well let’s just say that when your competition goes out of business, you often gain their customers…and that’s a very, very good thing.

Some of the greatest companies were forged in the worst of times.  May you be one of them.