Start-Up : le livre

Carol Bartz est une femme exceptionnelle. La nouvelle CEO de Yahoo avait donné une interview recueillie en 2002 dans le livre Betting It All. Michael Malone y décrivait ses deux passions. “Combattre le cancer” et “les Filles face aux Math”.

“Les filles ne sont en général pas intéressées par les math. Je crois qu’elles en sont en fait dissuadées.” A propos du sujet plus général des femmes et de la technologie ou du business, elle ajoute: “J’ai quitté 3M car je n’aurais pas eu de progression de carrière parce que j’étais une femme. [...] Vous êtes une femme, qu’est-ce que vous faites ici?” Et d’ajouter: “Mais être une femme dans la Silicon Valley est aussi appartenir à une minorité”. Le sujet des femmes et de la technologie est un sujet peu ou pas assez abordé.

Carol Bartz est une femme d’énergie exceptionnelle : “Je continuai à diriger ma société alors que je suivais une chimiothérapie”

Enfin parmi les ingrédients de l’entrepreneuriat, elle cite l’incertitude qu’il faut affronter: “Face à nombreux jobs que j’ai acceptés, je n’étais pas très à l’aise, parce que je me demandais si j’étais la meilleure personne.” Tout en ajoutant sur le risque: “Si vous n’y arrivez pas, vous traversez la rue et vous essayer chez quelqu’un d’autre… ce qui est bien sûr toujours possible dans la Silicon Valley”

J’avais lu In the Company of Giants en 1997 juste avant de devenir capital-risqueur. Puis, lorsque j’ai commencé à relire des livres sur les entrepreneurs, je n’ai simplement pas pu retourver l’ouvrage et j’ai du utiliser le réseau des revendeurs d’Amazon. Il est aussi intéressant que d’autres mentionnés dans mes posts passés (Once You’re Lucky, Betting it All, Founders at Work).

Je vous laisse faire le lien entre les noms et les photos!

Steve Jobs: “In the early days, we were just trying to hire people that knew more than we did about anything and that wasn’t hard because we didn’t know a lot. Then your perspectives are changing monthly as you learn more. People have to be able to change.”

T. J. Rodgers (Cypress Semiconductor): “the standard entrepreneurial answer is frustration. You see a company running poorly, you see that it could be a whole better. Intel and AMD were arrogant. If you think about it, any billion dollar company, that has so much money to spend on R&D should be unassailable. But the large companies routinely cannot crunch little companies so something’s got to be wrong.”

Gordon Eubanks (Symantec): “What makes a company successful is people, process, product, and passion. You must have great people and product and passion balanced by process.”

Steve Case (AOL): “Do something you really love, you are passionate about. Take a long-term view, be really patient. There are going to be bumps on the road.”

Scott Cook (Intuit): “People [customers] won’t tell you what they want. Often they can’t verbalize it because they don’t understand things they’ve not seen. You must understand fundamental motivations and attitudes.”

Sandy Kurtzig (ASK): “I did not see it as incredible risk. Many entrepreneurs would tell you why it was obvious to do what they did. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. That’s why so few entrepreneurs can do it a second time. Even Jim Clark did not really start Netscape or Jobs did not really start Pixar. They funded it. You need other people to be hungry… Believe in yourself, surround yourself with good people, be willing to make mistakes, don’t get wrapped up in your success. You are still the same person you were when you started.”

John Warnock and Charles Geschke (Adobe): “Actually there was the very first business plan, then there was the second business plan, and then the third business plan; we never actually wrote the third business plan.”

Michael Dell: “It did not seem risky to leave school because I was already earning obscene amounts. The worst thing that could happen is I would return to school. The greater risk was to stay at school.”

Charles Wang (Computer Associates): “Managing is not just telling people what to do, but it is leading by doing. Know your strengths and weaknesses and complement yourself. Be realistic and objective. Surround yourself with great people.”

Bill Gates: “It’s mostly about hiring great people. We are [in 1997] 18,000 people and still the key constraint is bringing in great people. We naively thought there were guys who could tell us we weren’t doing things the best way.”

Andy Grove: “I can’t look at a startup as an end result. A startup to me is a means to achieve an end.”

Trip Hawkins (Electronic Arts): “You don’t have an objective, rational process. You need a certain amount of confidence. There are many things that you don’t know will go wrong. If you knew in advance all the things that could go wrong, as a rational person, you wouldn’t go into business in the first place.”

Ed McCracken (Silicon Graphics): “My venture capital friends tell me that many of the ideas they’re seeing for new businesses are coming from people under 26 years old.”

Ken Olsen: “Business school’s goal today is to teach people to become entrepreneurs. I think it’s a serious mistake. You learn first how to be a team member, then a leader.”

Bill Hewlett: “It was 1939 and it was no time to start a company. It was probably the supreme optimism of youth.” and “It’s not all due to luck, but certainly a large percentage of success is. We were in the right place at the right time. We were lucky and we had wonderful teachers and mentors. HP didn’t start in a vacuum.”

Très éloigné de mon précédent post sur Perkins, le livre de Peter Drucker Innovation and Entrepreneurship aura été une lecture paradoxale. Les premiers chapitres me furent pénibles même s’ils sont brillants. J’y ai compris que l’innovation est un processus qui sera mené à bien s’il il est planifié et géré avec soin . Heureusement le chapitre 9 a complètement transformé mon malaise lorsque l’auteur s’attaque aux innovations basées sur la connaissance, qui englobent science et technologie. Je vais résumer (en anglais) ma compréhension de ce chapitre:

1- the characteristics of knowledge-based innovation:

a. the time span between the emergence of the technology and its application is long, 20 to 30 years,

b. it is a convergence of several knowledge and until all the needed ones are available, this innovation can not succeed,

2- the requirements:

a. a careful analysis of the required factors, i.e. the available knowledge and the missing ones,

b. a clear focus on the strategic position, i.e. you have to be right the first time or others will take your place,

c. learn and practice entrepreneurial management, because most tech. innovators lack management skills ,

3- the risks:

a. first, even after a careful analysis, knowledge-based innovation remain unpredictable and turbulent (see also Moore’s books about the chasm and the tornado), and this is linked to its characteristics above; this has two important implication:

i. time plays against innovators,

ii. survival rate is low,

b. there is a limited window where new ventures start, and when it closes, there is a general shakeout, where few survive; who survives is also unpredictable. The only chance of surviving is to have a strong management and resources,… and luck;

c. there is also a receptivity gamble. Even market research does not work with these innovations and the reason why an innovation is accepted or not is also unpredictable.

I have to admit this confirms an intuition I had since my VC years: you have to make a bet and then work hard. But there is no way, you can really plan the success of knowledge-based innovations.

The end of the book is quite good, in particular its conclusion: “The first priority in talking about public policies is to define what will not work: Planning is actually incompatible with an entrepreneurial society and economy. Innovation has to be decentralized, ad hoc, autonomous, specific. It had better start small, tentative, flexible. […] It is popular today [1983!], especially in Europe, to believe that a country can have “high-tech entrepreneurship” by itself. But it is a delusion. In fact a policy which promotes high-tech and high-tech alone will not even produce high tech. All it can come with is another expensive flop, another Concorde. […] The French are right, economic and political strength requires high tech but there must be an economy full of innovators with vision and entrepreneurial values, with access to venture capital, and full of economic vigour.”