Category Archives: Concepts

Every day I encounter and work to integrate new, interesting concepts that help me frame my thinking with respect to venture and community development. This category specifically examines and discusses new concepts and their impact on the various things I am involved in.

Mow Down the Flowers

I always enjoy reading articles from the Harvard Business Review and today was no exception, when I came across the article, If You’re the Boss, Start Killing More Good Ideas, which examined idea generation and pursuit. The article primarily deals with creative teams, the ideas they generate and the reality of implementation. What is that reality? There are simply not enough resources or focus to implement all the ideas that are generated in a company. Certainly not the bad ones, and generally not many of the good ones either! A great quote that describes this is:

It turns out, however, that the best managed enterprises don’t just recognize the flowers among the weeds; they mow down a lot of the flowers, too.

There is a tendency to want to chase after and monetize all of our different ideas, but with finite resources this is impossible. As this article suggests, one should employ at least two filters on ideas. First throwing out the bad ideas, and second tossing out “the good ideas that aren’t quite good enough to justify a thinner spread of resources, a greater diffusion of focus, and possibly a more complex customer experience.”

This is especially true for startups. You have to be ruthless with your ideas and stay focused or pivot based on new learning that tell you one of your ideas is better to pursue! I have seen too many companies try to do too much and blow their brains out (and their investors money up!), failing to accomplish anything meaningful. Simply because something could be a good thing to pursue, doesn’t mean it should be pursued.

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good

The perfect is the enemy of the good. – Voltaire

Far from a sanction of shoddy work, or an excuse not to think things through, Voltaire makes an excellent point that all start-ups should pay heed to. Attaining perfection, be it in a technology or a business plan, becomes infinitely more difficult as you get closer to achieving it.

There comes a time in every start-up’s life where the CEO must decide that the technology is good enough for the market and the business plan significantly addresses the majority of the issues he is likely to face.

At that time the CEO has a choice:

  1. Tweak and tune the technology or business plan alone in the basement to make it ‘perfect’ (something I would argue you will never achieve that way anyway…); or
  2. Get out there, sell, get the market validation a company needs to grow, integrate customer feedback as you grow.

At some point every would-be entrepreneur must decide to jump into business and make a go of it – and potentially fail. Working to perfect a business plan or technology is the deceptively safe alternative. Why deceptively? Because, in the end, all you have is the unrealised down-side of opportunity cost. I have seen a number of people fall into this trap. Don’t let it happen to you. Get out there, even if what you have isn’t perfect, it might just be good enough to start a killer business.

Team NOT Idea Makes A Company

I truly enjoy what I do these days. I get to work with great start-ups and the people that fund them.

One such company was Cambrianhouse. I met Mike Sikorsky a few years ago at the Canadian Venture Forum (a now dead venture forum) and absolutely loved where he was trying to take his company. In the last week, though, it seems the Cambrianhouse model (hopefully not the company!) has been relegated to the deadpool. The reason: Team.

In this case it was not the company’s team, but the teams meant to commercialize Cambrianhouse’s crowdsource-developed products.

As Mike commented:

The limiting reagent in the startup equation is not ideas, but amazing founding teams.
A key assumption for us, which proved out NOT true: given a great idea with great community support and great market test data, we would be able to find (crowdsource) a team willing to execute it OR we could execute it ourselves. We needed amazing founding teams for each of the ideas – this is where our model fell short.

What we learned: it would have been better to back great teams with horrible ideas because most of the heavy lifting kept falling back on us, or a few select community members… Trying to find people willing or capable to take on the offspring (our outputs) of the CH model was hard and/or incredibly time consuming.

This is a well documented fact: the TEAM is the MOST important aspect of any start-up company, NOT the technology or the idea. Though technology might be an enabler, according to a study conducted on Morgenthaler’s companies that failed, only 10% failed because of the technology or idea compared to 60% failing because the team couldn’t make it happen.

So, let Cambrianhouse’s lesson, and that of hundreds of other start-ups be a lesson to any and all entrepreneurial companies: Technology or a great idea are good to have, but, whatever you do, concentrate on ensuring you have a WORLDCLASS team.

As for Cambrianhouse, good luck, Mike, with your efforts to keep crowdsourcing alive – I still believe the concept (and your tool to make that concept functional) has a role to play in the future of innovation, especially given the recent acceptance of open innovation and network-centric innovation/commercialization.

All Hype, No Hope?

Angel investors often see companies with technology that is, what is sometimes fondly referred to as, on the ‘bleeding edge’.

Bombarded with new technologies it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the trends in the market, what is hot, what is over-hyped, and what was obsolete before it even made it to market. In the ICT space this is especially true.

The Gartner Hype Cycle, I find, is rather useful in that it looks at technologies and charts those that ate hyped versus those that are overhyped versus those that are being widely adopted in the mainstream, something Angels have to judge on a regular basis.

Gartner Hype Cycle 2007

Of course this is an older version of the Hype Cycle, but I think it interesting. Though I have not found any studies that directly relate the speed at which a technology crosses ‘Trough of Disillusionment’ to the amount of capital it might take to cross the ‘Valley of Death’ I think the two would be highly correlated.

Just another thing for companies and Angel investors to think about as they conduct their due diligence.

Age of the Angel Investor

Recently I raised Coase’s Theory of the Firm in discussion with Mark Kuznicki, Remarkk! Consulting, in an attempt to address the question: How do we determine if an organization or company should exist or not, and what should its size be? This conversation was specifically about the proliferation of non-profits, but, having revisited the theory I began to think about the theme of the NAO’s last Summit, Age of the Angel.

Simply put, Coase’s theory states that a firm is established to reduce transaction costs. That is, for example, costs associated with:

  • Search and information costs;
  • Bargaining costs; and
  • Policing and enforcement costs.

So what? What does this mean for Angels?
One of the great things about investing at this time is that, over the last two decades, the communication and transaction costs of high-potential companies (especially in the ICT and clean technology space) have decreased by an incredible margin. No longer are search and information costs the barrier to entry for high-potential innovative companies.

Because of the drastic drop of transaction costs over the past two decades the core of firms has decreased, with the periphery expanding. As such, the economic climate has become increasingly entrepreneur, and therefore Angel, friendly; enabling high-potential, nimble, entrepreneurial companies to bring new technologies to market with greater ease than ever before.

As these transactional barriers to company formation and execution have fallen away, more high-potential entrepreneurial companies have been emerging whose needs to get to market are much less than they have been in the past.

Web-based start-ups, for example, rather than needing a seed round of $2-million can now gain market traction, reach significant milestones, and generally develop their companies with much less financing. Examples such as Well.ca, AideRSS, or StandoutJobs illustrate this point.

Might companies still need higher amounts of finding? Certainly! The point here is that many can now reach more milestones with less cash than ever before, giving Angels a much more significant role to play in the commercialization of world-class Canadian technology.