‘Accelerator Centre’ Tags

Cheerleaders don’t move the ball down the field

5432620.bin  300x193 Cheerleaders dont move the ball down the fieldBy Francis Moran

When the British Columbia Lions and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers meet in the 99th staging of the Grey Cup, Canada’s professional football championship, in Vancouver this Sunday, both teams will have squads of cheerleaders jumping and shouting from the sidelines in a loud and colourful effort to get the B.C. Place crowd roaring for their side. But while the young women in short skirts waving pompoms might be interesting for some to look at, nothing that they do is actually going to move the ball even a single yard down the field. They will score not a single point. Their contribution to the spectacle will not be captured in a single game statistic.

This morning, I was at the second event in as many weeks where the whole game plan seemed to be on pumping up the volume of the cheerleading rather than on the fundamentals of moving the ball down the field.

Speaker after speaker at these two events — last week’s kick off to Ottawa Entrepreneur Week and this morning’s regular monthly execTALKS event, both organised by the Ottawa Centre for Regional Innovation — spoke of the imperative that more “buzz” be created around Ottawa’s moribund technology scene as though sheer enthusiasm alone could overcome the very real challenges that face this critical sector of the local economy.

Now, don’t get me wrong; both events were hugely successful if measured by the size of the turnout and the energy of the participants. Like many others who said as much, I haven’t been at such high-energy and well-subscribed Ottawa tech events since the heydays of the late 1990s and early 2000s. And full kudos to OCRI and its new chief executive Bruce Lazenby for making every good effort to reboot that sense that we can make great things happen here in Ottawa.

I fear, however, that the cheerleading is drawing attention away from just how badly our team is actually performing on the field, and what needs to be done to turn that around. In a somewhat frightening three-part series in the Ottawa Citizen this past weekend, veteran Ottawa tech writer James Bagnall detailed how the region has lost about 40 percent of its high-tech jobs over the past four years, with employment levels in the sector threatening to tumble further to the disastrous lows of the post-telecom-meltdown years.

More tellingly, we have lost ground to nearly every other significant technology cluster in the country. Over the same four years, tech-related employment has jumped more than 50 percent in Kitchener-Waterloo, more than nine percent in Toronto and about six percent in Calgary. Vancouver and Montreal have, like Ottawa, lost tech jobs but their decline has been nowhere near as steep as ours.

The second and third articles in Bagnall’s series sounded a more optimistic note with their profile of the next generation of entrepreneurs who are igniting Ottawa’s tech scene and a good prescription for what is needed to pull the region out of its profound slump. But these are still grim times. And yet, talk to some of the folk who turned out for the two events and to some senior OCRI people and you’d swear Bagnall was making stuff up and that the K-W region was mired in hopelessness. For example, many people I spoke to this morning dismissed out of hand the factual underpinning of the Citizen series in favour of a shoot-the-messenger attitude.

More critically, I recently had to listen to a very senior representative of OCRI tell a group I belong to that economic development in the K-W region is a dysfunctional mishmash of disconnected organisations that can’t work together to get anything done. By not being able to get anything done, he must have been referring to the Accelerator Centre that in five short years has graduated startups that have generated over $20-million in sales, raised $40-million in external funding and created more than 400 permanent jobs. By not being able to get anything done, he must have been referring to the Communitech Hub where startups, student entrepreneurs, established companies and the cream of the continent’s venture capitalists regularly collide in a process that, as previously stated, has driven a 50 percent increase in regional tech employment. By not being able to get anything done, he must have been referring to the innovative Velocity entrepreneurship residence at the University of Waterloo where a dozen or more student startups are incubated every single semester.

All these accomplishments might have been lost on the OCRI rep who spoke to my group but they most certainly were not lost on Deloitte Canada’s vice chair and Americas managing director of consulting Bill Currie, who was the speaker at this morning’s event. In the question-and-answer session that followed his thoughtful and provocative presentation of a seminal Deloitte study on the Canadian productivity gap, Currie praised the Communitech Hub and other efforts in Kitchener-Waterloo and said they were exactly what we needed to replicate in Ottawa.

I’m sure this post will do nothing to temper whatever reputation I might have as a nay-sayer and perpetual critic. It would be unfortunate if that were the lens through which what I’ve just written was viewed. I have lived in Ottawa for nearly 25 years. I have founded companies, created jobs and contributed wealth to this community. My PR agency over its 13 years has contributed thousands of pro bono hours to almost every technology group going, including OCRI. Ottawa is my home and it’s where my business and most of my employees are located. Unlike many in my sector, I have not fled for the safe harbour of government work as the tech sector has had its ups and downs. I am as committed as anyone in this city to the goal of seeing Ottawa thrive as a centre of innovation, technology and job creation. But we can’t let our enthusiasm for that objective blind us to the reality that we have been drastically losing ground and we need to reverse that trend. Building up our city doesn’t require that we tear down what others are doing; it requires that we study their successes and adopt the best bits for ourselves. And most of all, it means we must recognise that cheerleading is no substitute for a solid playbook full of fundamental strategies that are going to move the ball decisively down the field and into the end zone.

Photo: Vancouver Sun

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

30 considerations for getting tech to market: Part II

This is the 31st article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

FM Series banner head 300x145 30 considerations for getting tech to market: Part IIBy Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

Last week, we began a three-part recap of our Commercialization Ecosystem series with insights and practical advice on securing investment capital and finding champions to help get your technology to market. We continue this week with commercialization out of the university setting, the value of mentor capital and building your startup’s DNA.

11. University researchers needs champions, too

Academic researchers should not be expected to become entrepreneurs to develop their innovations into commercially viable products. They need business-savvy champions to pick up the ball and run with it while they continue to do what they do best – research.

“Commercialization requires expertise of a very different kind, and if we don’t have enough experts in the business of commercialization and managing innovation, then that’s the shortcoming on which to focus,” Tom Brzustowski, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of Management wrote in The Way Ahead, Meeting Canada’s Productivity Challenge.

“Serial entrepreneurship is key … it is an entrepreneurial problem that has to be solved by entrepreneurs,” said Scott Valentine, director of marketing and communications at Solium Capital.

12. So do students

“They know the science and technology, they will need a job and so are more likely to be heavily involved in a spin-out company than a tenured faculty member, and are happy and willing to learn the ropes on how something they helped developed in a laboratory can help solve a market or social need,” wrote Scott McAuley, founder of Lunanos Inc., and outreach and entrepreneurship associate at the Institute for Optical Sciences.

“Placing highly qualified graduate or undergraduate students into a network of industry professionals creates a powerful combination of market experience, technological expertise, and innovative drive, that can create new opportunities for universities’ two greatest products: IP and graduates.”

The wall between the classroom and the real world must come down, said Ronald Weissman, chair of the Software Special Industry Group at Band of Angels.

“If universities taught entrepreneurship as a value, we would all be better for it. If I were the head of a major university, I would love to see students demonstrate their prowess by starting things in the community, profit or non-profit … when you put students in a position to lead something, to start something, it gives them a very different view of the world,” he said.

13. Have a vision for your company

For any venture to succeed, its founders must have a vision that will stretch the boundaries of what they know and challenge what they believe is attainable.

“Nothing disheartens me more than meeting an entrepreneur in B.C. who says his ambition is to one day conquer the Ontario market,” said Anthony Lee, general partner at Altos Ventures.

“As entrepreneurs and business leaders, we need to push ourselves out of our comfort zones and our time zones. We need to take advantage of emerging opportunities abroad. It isn’t easy, business seldom is, but it is the reality we live in today. It doesn’t matter if you make shoes, toilet paper or advanced telecommunications software,” said Andrew Fisher, executive VP at Wesley Clover.

14. Lever the power of diversity

Diversity, be it in terms of gender, ethnicity, industry experience or skillset, is crucial to building a strong, dynamic management team.

“Having a good balance is very important. You need a healthy debate with a diverse team of people who are right and left of center,” said software industry executive Jeff Campbell.

15. But don’t forget that you’re building a company, not an all-star team

“The value built needs to be in the company itself, not reliant on a few key people. Yes, you’ll need some talented people to help build the company, but just remember to actually build a company along the way. Good contracts, processes, strategy, oversight, margins, IP, lively meetings, strategically constructed barriers to entry, a flexible product road map, real culture, and some form of a solid CRM. These are just some of the things that give a company real value. If one or two people can leave your company and drop the value of your business in a significant way, you haven’t built a true company. And yes, that includes you,” wrote Nick Quain, co-founder and CEO of CellWand.

16. Know your startup’s DNA

It’s a myth to say there is a culture common to a typical startup. What a startup has is DNA that is as unique as the people who have founded it, a DNA which is shaped by its technology and where it fits into the market.

“Startups don’t have a common culture. This is a myth that’s been created, perhaps intentionally, by the 95 percent of people who’ve never worked for a startup … Startups have DNA, just like people. It may not surprise you to hear that a startup’s DNA is in part a mixture of its leaders’ DNA. If you think you merely have ‘startup culture,’ then you’re not driving your business, it’s driving you,” wrote Jason Flick, co-founder and president of YOU i Labs and president and CEO of Flick Software.

17. Appreciate the value of failure and risk

One of the best lessons to be learned from Silicon Valley’s culture is that failure is a virtue, provided, of course, you can demonstrate how you have learned from your failure.

“I’m a huge, huge believer in the only way you innovate is by failing. You’ve got to try different things and that means a lot of mistakes along the way. So if we can eliminate some of them, we can help clients get to market quicker and get them to do it on a more frugal budget,” said Tim Jackson, COO of Waterloo’s Accelerator Centre.

Valuing failure instead of fearing it goes hand in hand with having a healthy appetite for risk.

“Attitude towards risk is a huge barometer of entrepreneurial culture,” said Weissman.

18. Don’t overlook the value of mentor capital

A mentor, by definition, has already earned their degree in the school of hard knocks. Their counsel is often a more valuable resource for a startup than cold hard cash and the best insurance against avoiding the missteps that typically cause a startup to stumble.

“When we see companies at an early stage work with mentors, all those problems end up cut off. Talk to as many people as you can possibly humanly talk to … The more people you talk to, the fewer pitfalls you will fall into,” said Nicole Glaros, general manager of Tech Stars.

19. Seek out creative collisions

Coming together with like-minded individuals is crucial to entrepreneurial success. You must be willing to share your ideas, solicit feedback and take criticism. The environment of the typical startup incubator is an invaluable hotbed for this kind of interaction.

“The kind of client who gets in (to the Accelerator Centre) is someone who wants to learn, is not afraid to hire people who are as talented as they are, is not afraid to ask for help. So it’s a case of putting all of these smart people together, collectively they share ideas with one another and we think that having them in here, having access to the mentors, access to the community that is volunteering to help, is going to get them to market faster than if they were doing it on their own,” said Jackson.

20. Understand what it means to be lean

Eric Ries coined the term “lean startup” several years ago and recently updated his definition to mean “low burn. Of course, many startups are capital efficient and generally frugal. But by taking advantage of open source, agile software, and iterative development, lean startups can operate with much less waste.”

“Lean is not small. Lean is a tactic by which we help our entrepreneurs and our entrepreneurs help themselves in a data-driven way figure out how they’re going to iterate their product. And through data and through vision, we also pivot that business model if we believe the business model no longer works,” Ann Miura-Ko, co-founding partner with FLOODGATE, said in a lecture at Stanford titled Funding Thunder Lizard Entrepreneurs.

We conclude next week.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Accelerated: Waterloo’s culture of collaboration

This is the 18th article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

FM Series banner headART 1 300x145 Accelerated: Waterloo’s culture of collaborationBy Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

Throughout this series, we have often referenced startup accelerators and the important role they play in the commercialization ecosystem, as well as where government support fits into the equation. So we thought it was time to take a closer look at these entities by profiling three different ones from Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.

This week, we start with Waterloo’s five-year-old Accelerator Centre. We recently spoke with Tim Jackson, COO of the AC, about the role that this kind of organization plays in the process of getting technology to market, what makes it tick, the culture required to support it and how it measures success. What follows is an abridged transcript of our conversation.

How do you describe the role that the AC plays in the commercialization ecosystem? What gaps is it intended to address?

The gap that we really fill is the entrepreneur who’s got an idea … and they need help accelerating the revenue …What does that really mean? It means learning from other people’s mistakes…

I’m a huge, huge believer in the only way you innovate is by failing. You’ve got to try different things and that means a lot of mistakes along the way. So if we can eliminate some of them, we can help clients get to market quicker and get them to do it on a more frugal budget.

We have a pretty extensive screening process that identifies entrepreneurs who know what they don’t know, so the kind of client who gets in here is someone who wants to learn, is not afraid to hire people who are as talented as they are, is not afraid to ask for help. So it’s a case of putting all of these smart people together, collectively they share ideas with one another and we think that having them in here, having access to the mentors, access to the community that is volunteering to help, is going to get them to market faster than if they were doing it on their own.

What was the inspiration for the AC’s model and range of services?

When you look at the ecosystem here in Waterloo, it starts with the University of Waterloo. The genesis of the entrepreneurial culture really comes from the university, which has the most liberal intellectual property policy of anywhere in the world. It’s very simple – the inventor owns (the IP), full stop. The university has no ownership rights in anything invented at the university. That attracts commercially oriented researchers to this region (from around the world). If you track the history of technology companies for the past 53 years, the university is at the centre of that.

(About seven years ago), there was a feeling in the community that we needed a physical place for early-stage entrepreneurs, we had all this entrepreneurial activity happening, but there wasn’t one central location … a physical place where entrepreneurs could come together which the community could use as a focal point for supervising ecosystem resources.

We looked at a lot of incubators and accelerators and the number one lesson we learned … was move people through quickly. Churn is the most important. From day one we have said we will get people in here and we will move them through rapidly … either succeed quickly or fail quickly. When we looked at other accelerators and incubators, those that had struggled tended to be filled with stagnant companies … so we put in place a system of tracking, we measure some very specific metrics in areas such as governance, human resources, sales, marketing, finance and the like and we track how the companies are progressing, and what that allows us to (do it) put some discipline to make sure these companies are progressing and advancing.

Does this put you in the business of picking winners or losers?

It does to some extent. We’re in a fortunate situation where demand exceeds supply. We have a wait list. We are to some extent picking folks initially and as I say, we’re looking for folks who know what they don’t know. But of the dozen or so companies that have left (without graduating), I believe only one is not still in business. So it doesn’t mean that a company (that doesn’t progress through the program) has a bad business idea. It may just mean that it is not a fit for the type of mentoring and guidance that we’re offering.

Sometimes that’s just a style thing. There are some entrepreneurs who want to do their own thing, don’t want the guidance, don’t want the mentoring. Our view is, the clients in here pay about one third of the cost of operating the facility, the other two thirds is public money that is used to provide mentors and the like, so if a company isn’t taking advantage of that, we think we’re better off putting someone in who will because that is what the taxpayers are subsidizing.

The AC has had about 10 successful graduates so far. Who are some of them?

Miovision Technologies is one, founded by Kurtis McBride. It uses cameras to track traffic patterns. Kurtis had maybe a dozen employees when he graduated from here, he currently employs 50 people, he has 200 customers in 20 countries. You now have this company that is employing 50 Ontarians and it’s an exporter generating tax dollars for the local economy.

Another example is Clearpath Robotics, which came out of a program at the University of Waterloo.

Please describe the specific role that government and public money plays in the AC’s programs and services.

The tenants pay rent to be here and what they pay covers what I call the real estate costs of the operation, keeping the lights on, the communications infrastructure and the like.

But what government does is provide us funding to support the mentoring, things like our in-house mentors who are the specialists in human resources, sales, marketing and communications, our education programming, our entrepreneurship council, which is the group of volunteers, and the staff support behind that. That is all provided through government funding.  Really, that’s what makes the difference, that’s what turns this place from just being a pure real estate rental operation and is something that adds value.

Where do individuals from the private sector come into the picture?

We have about 40 volunteers who are C-level or vice-president level executives with local technology companies. They range from large operations like Research in Motion, OpenText and Christie Digital to smaller entrepreneurs who have been successful in their own right. They all volunteer their time. Any client in the centre gets assigned one or two of these individuals. They act like a board of directors … for the most part they build relationships with the entrepreneur and they become a regular ongoing advisor.

Also we have service providers, like law firms and accounting firms, who come in and provide pro bono support.

How does the AC measure the results of its efforts and demonstrate a return on the investment of taxpayers’ dollars?

One of the requirements to come in here is that the client has to agree to report to us on a quarterly basis both while they’re here and after they’ve graduated around metrics like revenue generated, third-party financings, number of jobs, sales. We’re relatively early, being just five years open … but that’s how we start to measure things … the economic impacts, that what we talk about when we talk to our government funders, our stakeholders.

Can we have some hard numbers?

Through the end of December, our clients had generated in excess of $20 million collectively in revenue, they’d received $40 million in external funding, the community had provided more than 12,000 hours of mentorship, we’ve created in excess of 400 permanent jobs in the province. All of the companies have remained in Ontario.

Editor’s Note: These results to date are the result of an investment of public money of less than $5 million.

Where do we go from here? Who else in Canada is doing what the AC is doing?

I think there are pockets of things going on. Last week I was in Vancouver at Wavefront, which is an accelerator there dealing with mobile phone applications. There are pockets popping up in Montreal, there’s MaRS, obviously, in Toronto.

I think the key is, when we’re asked by other municipalities or other governments to help out, is that the biggest thing is the ecosystem. That’s the challenge … what does the ecosystem look like, are there post-secondary institutions that are entrepreneurially minded, are there experienced entrepreneurs who can support this, are there law firms, accountants, other service providers that can be accessed?

What is it that makes the Waterloo region such a successful locus for technology and entrepreneurship?

I truly think it goes back to the university. The university is the genesis of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that exists, that intellectual property policy which attracts commercially oriented researchers.

It’s just grown from there. This community has always been one that takes care of itself. People have passed off from one generation to the other. You have a situation here where we have all the benefits of being close to a large metropolitan area, Toronto, yet it is a community that has become self-sufficient.

I know as COO of the Accelerator Centre that I can phone the CEOs of any of the large public companies in our community and say, “I’ve got a client that needs a little bit of help, could you or someone in your company help this person?” I know I am going to get a response and they are going to effectively do what others did for them … they’ve never forgotten that they needed help from a peer-to-peer standpoint and they continue to give back to the community …

As a community we speak with one voice now. Communitech and the AC are connected at the hip. We don’t compete with each other. We work collaboratively. I think in too many places across Canada it’s fractured. There are too many organizations trying to do the same thing and it becomes sometimes confusing for entrepreneurs.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Government: The road to hell is paved with …

This is the 16th article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

FM Series banner headART 1 300x145 Government: The road to hell is paved with ...By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

As we stated in last week’s post, government’s role in the commercialization eco-system should be to create that “supportive and normative framework.” The common sentiment among the various VCs, angel investors, accelerator and incubator executives, entrepreneurs and others we have interviewed is that government should stay out of the way as much as possible.

But before the big G steps back, what should it do to enable startups that are trying to get to market, or more established enterprises looking to break into foreign markets or migrate their product lines?

Taxes, taxes, taxes

Tax regimes intended to stimulate an innovation economy must go beyond R&D to foster commercialization and wealth creation. There must, of course, be some form of benchmarking and measurement to track the return on this investment of taxpayers’ dollars. Government money shouldn’t be a form of life support for private enterprises that can’t cut it.

We’ll say no more on this one and instead refer to recent guest posts The risks of being a nation of R&D junkies by Denzil Doyle and Tech companies need a hand up, not a hand out by Andrew Fisher. (We’ll be running a follow-up post from Andrew next week.)

Fresh off the boat

Skilled immigrants can be a rich resource for companies when specific skill sets are in short supply, and even when they’re not. Immigration and visa policies must facilitate this. Ronald Weissman, chair of the Software Special Industry Group at Band of Angels, said this has become an issue in the U.S., where the Obama administration has come to emphasize family reunification rather than intellectual capital.

This push-and-pull debate is by no means unique to the U.S. and is fueled by other issues, such as whether or not government policy should be embracing more skilled immigrants at periods of weak economic activity and high unemployment. The Wall Street Journal recently ran an interesting story on the issue from the U.S. perspective, Long-prized tech visas for U.S. entry lose cachet.

From Weissman’s perspective, emphasizing intellectual capital should be a priority, though the challenge is how to have these skilled immigrants contribute in some way to the domestic economy before taking whatever skills and experience they acquire back to their home country.

“We should not be hard-hearted against family reunification,” he said. “But we must balance it more and give both aspects (of immigration) a fair shake.”

Cooperation vs. competition

U.K.-born John Stokes, a partner at Montreal-based Real Ventures, stressed the importance of a co-ordinated innovation strategy and contrasted Canada with the U.K. to emphasize his point.

While U.K. government policy tends to favour a single multi-faceted innovation policy, in Canada there is a dog’s breakfast of programs with quite different philosophies and methodologies as one moves from province to province. Quebec, for example, is a big believer in venture capital and in supporting VC in various ways, such as through tax credits. Ontario, on the other hand, is less supportive of the VC community and more interventionist, putting money into specific entities and projects.

When efforts to support innovation and commercialization are fractured across a province, state or country, the inevitable competition for resources isn’t likely to foster a healthy eco-system. In a couple of weeks, we’ll be featuring Waterloo’s Accelerator Centre. Its success speaks to the emergence of that entire region of southern Ontario as Canada’s true Silicon Valley North (sorry, Ottawa) thanks to the high degree of cooperation between the Centre, Communitech, the University of Waterloo and area tech firms to make the most of available resources, including government programs.

Addressing the market need

We’re not talking about tech companies understanding their market, but about government bureaucrats and policy makers understanding what their customer base needs, and tailoring their efforts accordingly. In this instance, that customer base is made up of technology companies trying to commercialize competitive products and services. Mistakes here are going to be costly, even harmful, and it doesn’t matter if decisions were made with the best of intentions.

In a January 2010 report, Exploding the myths of U.K. innovation policy, the University of Cambridge nailed successive British governments for three decades of public policy blunders. One of the most damning conclusions was that government policy has been driven by a belief that the best way for government to support technology development in companies is by “funding multi-partner research collaborations between universities and private sector firms” instead of “R&D contracts to solve customer problems and develop new products” that are defined by the needs of the open market.

This is but one example demonstrating that public policy should be formulated with ample input from the entrepreneurs and executives on the front lines. Utilizing strategic marketing to know thy customer is just as important to bureaucrats and politicians as it is to private enterprise.

You can’t legislate an appetite for risk

As we explored a couple of weeks back, an entrepreneurial culture can’t be ordained by public policy. However, any government’s appetite for risk will most certainly colour its efforts to support innovation and be reflected in its public policy decisions. One could argue that less government involvement is invariably better because, no matter how well intentioned, intervention by bureaucrats who haven’t lived on the front lines of building a globally competitive business will always suffer for that lack of seasoned perspective. They will almost always favour the safe bet, the low-risk option, the choice that is most likely to secure votes. A risk-averse mindset such as this not only runs counter to true entrepreneurship, it can instil behaviours that act against it.

Are we taking an overly cynical position here? What do you think government should do, should not and how must it engage with the business community it is trying to serve to ensure it efforts are on the right track?

Next week, we look at how post-secondary education fits into the value chain of getting tech to market.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,