Start-Up: the book

I just read two reports about innovation. The one in French is very deep (see my post on the French part of the blog). The one in English is also full of interesting lessons and learning. “What is the right strategy for more innovation in Europe? Drivers and challenges for innovation performance at the sector level” was published last June by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research. (Direct link to pdf file)

The authors try to differentiate innovation with sectors and geography (economic advancement.) For example “The data show that firms in economically less advanced member states are less likely to be innovators than firms in countries with more developed economies such as Germany or Sweden, and if they are innovators they are more likely to be technology users.” and “It has also proposed a new classification of industries that is based on the characteristics of entrepreneurship and a broad concept of innovation that transcends the conventional R&D-based classifications.”

I like some of the conclusions such as “Knowledge acquisition from external sources is of particular importance in sectors with large shares of technology users, whereas R&D activities are important in sectors where firms that are technology producers prevail. […] For firms based in countries that are at a distance from the world technological frontier, technology transfer and non-R&D related innovation activities are extremely important to promote innovation. […] On the other hand, for firms located in countries on or close to the technological frontier, intensive innovation activity is a driver of competitiveness. In order to maintain a competitive edge firms need to invest in R&D, acquire and adapt new technologies.

Of course all this is not obvious and may be counterintuitive. Look at Cisco in the USA, which does A&D more than R&D (they acquire start-ups and then develop). Is Cisco at the Frontier or not?

In terms of national policies, an interesting lesson: “The results show that the impact and the magnitude of these factors vary greatly across industries and countries. In fact, most variables can have either a positive or a negative influence depending on the sector. For the energy sector, the ICT industries and the aerospace industry public R&D subsidies have a positive effect, whereas R&D spending by the government seems to crowd out R&D investment in the textile, chemical and ICT industries.” I see a slight contradiction here but…

Then the authors address the issue of human capital: “Engineering and science skills contribute directly to international competitiveness” and “the returns to higher education will be higher for countries farther away from the technological frontier due to the greater importance of technology transfer and absorptive capacities […] On the other hand, in countries that are on or close to the technological frontier accumulated knowledge and experience are a precondition for sustained innovation performance and growth.”

On the competition side, they explain: “Competition is based on the interplay between the creation of novelty and imitation, i.e. between exploration and exploitation of opportunity. […] Firms that compete mostly with less advanced firms, have an incentive to reduce their risky R&D investments, as they are easily able to keep a competitive advantage over their rivals without incurring the cost of R&D investments. On the other hand, if they compete with firms with similar technological capabilities, they have an incentive to invest more in R&D, as this is a means to explore new opportunities and market niches and therefore set themselves apart from their competitors.

About the gazelles, the fast growing companies: “… a count reveals a significantly higher number of gazelles in the new member states of the European Union than in other EU countries. […] Statistical analyses show that in the more advanced economies of the European Union (continental and northern countries) fast growing firms are mostly of the creative entrepreneurship type and they also have a significantly larger share of turnover from product innovations. For gazelles in the southern European countries and the new member states innovation is much less important.”

Among the challenges for Europe, here are some scary elements:

-          There is the danger that firms will increasingly relocate their research activities to countries where conditions concerning human resources and scientific infrastructure are better.

-          For technology intensive sectors the problem is that they are not able to hire enough top level science and engineering graduates or attract the best-qualified engineers, scientists and specialists from abroad to their industry. These problems are particularly severe for new and fast growing firms that cannot rely on a long-standing reputation to attract people with top level qualifications and skills.

-          For firms carrying out high-risk research, for young and small start-up firms and for firms facing extraordinary growth opportunities the lack of financial resources constitutes a serious problem. New financial instruments tailored to the needs of emerging firms remain underdeveloped in most EU countries.

I discovered yesterday the new 2008 Academic Ranking of World Universities done by the Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (IHE-SJTU). Again the USA has the lion share: 8 in the top 10 and 17 in the top 20. Only the UK (Cambridge and Oxford) and Japan (Tokyo) enter the list. You can assess the ranking in more details with the full 500 ranking if you wish.

When I published “Start-Up”, I had a conversation with Christophe Alix, a journalist at Libération who told me that I forgot one thing in my explanations of the US superiority in innovation, i.e. the huge budget of the Pentagon. I certainly do not disagree and address the issue further below with a book I am just reading:

“Creating the Cold War University- The Transformation of Stanford” by Rebecca S. Lowen is an interesting book about how Stanford became wealthy in the 50’s and the 60’s thanks to federal money and industry contracts. Frederick Terman, often credited as being the father of Silicon Valley, called it a “Win-Win-Win” situation. The government funded basic and applied research (the difference between the two was often fuzzy) to develop military applications during the Cold War, the industry developed the products from the results of the research (and did not always have to directly fund the research), and companies like H-P, Varian, GE benefited greatly the effort. Finally Stanford became wealthy as well as excellent in research (which it was not in the 30’s).

Lowen explains that “by 1960, the federal government was spending close to $1B for academic research and university-affiliated research centers, 79 percent of which went to just twenty universities, including Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech, MIT, Harvard and the University of Michigan” (page147). In the Shanghai ranking, Harvard is #1, Stanford is #2, Berkeley is #3, MIT is #5, Caltech is #6 and Michigan #18 only.

Money definitely helps. I had however reacted against Alix’ argument as military money can not explain by itself the entrepreneurial spirit that Boston and Silicon Valley developed. Caltech and its JPL laboratory never reached the same start-up activity. But the quality of universities and their wealth is an extremely strong ingredient for successful technology clusters.

Penny Aycinena asked me to write a short article in EDA confidential, which summarizes my concerns and hopes about innovation and start-ups. It is published today (June 30, 2008).

Let me add more here:

The chapter of “Start-Up” which has been the least noticed is Chapter 6. It is one of my favourites though. It is about EDA, which stands for Electronic Design Automation. Today, no architect would design a complex building without software, nor would an automobile engineer. It is exactly the same with digital circuits.

Twenty five years ago, EDA was nearly non-existent. Forty years ago, chips were designed internally (and manually) at IBM, Motorola… and little by little, some new players emerged, tiny start-ups became big and an industry was born. It was more than $5B in revenues in 2007. The typical ebb and flow of start-up creation and acquisition went on for two decades. But since 2001, not much has happened: no IPO, small M&A deals and a few days ago, Cadence, the biggest EDA vendor, announced a hostile acquisition bid against Mentor, the number 3 player. Both companies were founded in the 80s.

EDA is a good illustration of what Silicon Valley is: a rich network of individuals, academics, entrepreneurs, investors. What is interesting about EDA is that its center is probably Berkeley (rather than Stanford or Sand Hill Road) as the picture below shows. Let me quote again two legends of the EDA field, two recipients of the Kaufman award, the Nobel Prize of EDA:

- “Risk taking in EDA is gone.” Joe Costello

- “If there is a single point I wish to make here today, it is that as a discipline, both in industry and in academia, we are just not taking enough risks today.” Richard Newton

It could be that the maturity of EDA and of Silicon Valley is not such a good sign.

I am not the only one complaining about the weakness of Europe in terms of start-ups. Juha Ruohonen compared in his report VICTA (www.tekes.fi/julkaisut/victa.pdf) the situation of Finland and Israel and he reaches similar conclusions to mine: not enough growth companies, a lack of ambition, and too many lifestyle companies.

His comparison table is self-sufficient:

And his analysis of the reasons for problems are:

Finally his conclusions: There is a clear need in Finland:

• To create a viable high-growth ecosystem
• To multiply the number of VC capable growth companies
• To eliminate the waste of resources to lifestyle companies
• To provide a viable platform for fast international growth
• To increase the corporate involvement and the number of corporate spin-offs/-outs
• To better facilitate the transformation from research project into a fast growth start-up.

This can be achieved by:

• shifting focus from quantity into quality
• moving from project-based development to efficient long-term structures
• creating structures to enable success of commercial players
• attracting much more international talent into Finnish early-stage community.

My comment: you can replace Finland by Europe and the analysis is the same. Solutions are complex no doubt but I would add that betting on youth, on risk taking is essential (the “Stay Foolish, Stay Hungry” explained by Jobs, see the July 07 post) and that international exchange must also include discovering what exists abroad.