Author Archives: Hervé Lebret

The Trouble With…

2 Replies

I just finished reading The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. It is a GREAT book. Now what has this to do with innovation and start-ups? Well I see a link:  In my book I refer to Thomas Kuhn, the author of the “structure of scientific revolutions”. Indeed Innovation and Research have similarities in the way they progress. The specific topic he focuses on is the lack of progress in physics. Don’t we have a similar issue with innovation? I also quoted Pitch Johnson, one of the grandfathers of venture capital who wrote: “Democracy works best when there is this kind of turbulence in the society, when those not well-off have a chance to climb the economic ladder by using brains, energy and skills to create new markets or serve existing markets better then their old competitors.”

thetroublewith.jpg

Smolin considers Science needs two ingredients: ethics and imagination. If the established science and scientists prevent the emergence of young people and new ideas, there might be a crisis. It is what he analyses brilliantly in his book. (By the way, his book tells much more, it is a really great book). When Silicon Valley people such as Joe Costello and Richard Newton claimed that Silicon Valley needs to take more risks and that greed is more important than ethics, I see similarities…

The Human Piece of the Venture Equation

Leave a reply

An interesting post by Fred Wilson about when ask the founders to step back and entitled “The Human Piece of the Venture Equation“. I added my own comment which is obviously linked to my pet subject: passion in start-ups. Here is what I wrote.

I like this post very much so I’d like to add my own views. As a former student in SV and then as a former VC, I have seen many, many start-up and founders. My intuition is that in an ideal world, the founder should stay as CEO as long as possible. Let me make an analogy: a start-up is a baby; the founders are its parents. Except if the parents are totally incapable of educating a baby, they will hold responsibility for its education. Many “experts” will assist them (teachers, doctors and so on…). And obviously they will make rocky mistakes and sometimes it is deadly. It does not mean they should control the kid’s life forever. Hopefully not! (Though it sometimes happen too…) By the way, let me add also that two parents/founders are better for the kid (am I too conservative?).

So I fully agree with your “nothing can replace the entrepreneur’s passion and vision for the product and the company. If you rip that out of the company too early, you’ll lose your investment. I think it’s best to wait …”

I published “Start-Up” just before reading “Founders at Work” (which is a great book on the subject as you know). In mine, I tried to take a broader perspective as I am not sure the Internet and the Web2.0 have fundamentally changed things. Yes, you can do things quicker and less expensively but Hewlett and Packard were in their mid-twenties when they founded HP in 1939. So Gates, Jobs, Dell are not the first ones. It is not only about software and computing, there is something else. I think passion is more important than experience, but once again this is gut feeling and I agree that deeper studies may be needed. Passion is one of the subjects I have developed.

A final point: do you need to replace a CEO when he “the CEO’s job goes from managing the product, writing a little code, doing customer support, and raising money to managing people and teams, processes and priorities.” I am not fully sure about this. I do not disagree but as you say later, the CEO role is about defining the right vision and strategy. Can not you ask the COO and the other top-level managers to handle processes? When Logitech was in trouble, its founder, Daniel Borel, stepped back and the new CEO was a marketing guy from Apple if I am correct. He redefined the marketing/vision. The unique story of Steve Jobs have similarities (“Inside Steve’s Brain” is another piece of interesting reading).

It is hard to know about the Human Equation and there are many counter-intuitive elements. It is neither black nor white, you need passion and experience and by definition, they are very seldom found in the same individual. It is an argument for teams of two. Google has probably nicely succeeded with Eric Schmidt as there is no doubt the two founders are still critical to the company.

Win, Win, Win

Leave a reply

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.

Inside Steve’s Brain

Leave a reply

Inside Steve’s Brain

The book by Leander Kahney is interesting as it shows how Steve Jobs is unique in the high-tech world. Let me just mention a single example: “But unlike a lot of people in product marketing those days who would go out and do customer testing, asking people what they wanted, Steve didn’t believe in that. He said ‘How can I possibly ask someone what a graphics-based computer ought to be when they have no idea what a graphics-based computer is? No one has ever seen one before’.” …and… “Like Henry Ford once said: ‘If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse’. ” (pages 63-64).

If you like this, you’ll enjoy the book. Thanks to Jacques for recommending it.

The Next Google?

Leave a reply

There’s been plenty of activity in search in the recent years so entrepreneurs are apparently not afraid of Google. Today, a new one appeared, with a lot of Venture Capital: cuil. What is most remarkable is that the founders left Google… good luck!

cuil.jpg

Not related is the release of Ilog being acquired by IBM for $340M. Ilog was one of the European success stories. After the acquisition earlier this year of mysql by Sun, another European company is acquired by an American giant…

ilog.jpg

About the origins of innovations

Leave a reply

An interesting article about the origins of innovations was recently published. It looks at the R&D 100 Awards as a way to analyze where innovations come from. There is an interesting analysis about the evolution of economy in general such as:

– Changes in the Place of Scientific Knowledge:

– the old distinction between “basic science” and “applied science” is becoming obsolete,

– a high degree of consensus that successful technological innovation now requires the assembly and management of multidisciplinary teams,

– IBM, Xerox and others may have been the locus of great innovations, but these firms sometimes failed to exploit radical innovations.

– Dramatic shifts in oligopoly capitalism due to new challenges:

– mounting competition from foreign firms,

– shifts in government regulatory policies,

– impact of computerization,

– shifts in consumer taste away from standardized products,

– shifts within the financial markets.

– The 80’s efforts to:

– increase the commercial impact of research such as the Bay Dohle Act,

– finance precompetitive R&D (SBIR),

– provide technical support to business firms,

– support consortia (SEMATECH).

As a result, there has been a shift in the origins of major innovations as illustrated below.

fortune500inno.gif

I would have thought that the shift was in favour of universities and start-ups. The study shows that interdisciplinary collaborations as well as the Federal Laboratories have become the major source of innovations. “Research efforts that involve cooperation between two or more different organizations similarly weaken this hierarchical constraint on thinking outside the box.”

The end of the article is a discussion of the reasons why Fortune 500 companies have been less effective at innovating. Factors seem to be:

– big corporations facing relentless pressures from the financial markets have been forced to cut back on expenditures that do not immediately strengthen the bottom line,

– the rise of computers and the Internet, have made it much easier for small firms to enter markets previously dominated by large firms,

– a change in the employment preferences of scientists and engineers… “it seems quite possible that many talented scientists and engineers have voted with their feet and have left work in corporate labs in favor of work at government labs, university labs, or smaller firms,”

And the authors are quite convinced the USA has returned to “Edison’s model, i.e. successful research organizations, public or private, developing a highly productive mix of internal and external projects.”

As a conclusion, “In the United States, there is no central plan for innovation, and different federal agencies engage in support for new technologies often in direct competition with other agencies. The federal government has created a decentralized network of publicly funded laboratories where technologists will have incentives to work with private firms and find ways to turn their discoveries into commercial products.” There is thus a combination of decentralized networks and targeted federal programs, similar to the venture capital model where many ideas will fail but a small number will succeed. “The enormous gains from the small percentage of winners are more than enough to cover the losses from the others.”

Europe and Silicon Valley

Leave a reply

Clearly the topic is hot. Two recent articles address the issue of helping Europe in its efforts. One is in English and was published by the Science-Business Innovation Board. The full text follows. Even if I have some doubts, I agree overall. The other one is in French, was published in Le Monde and can be found on the French version of my blog.

What is interesting is these are both letters signed by credible people. Worth reading.

innovation_100.jpg

Europe needs to focus.

Too many initiatives in the European Union are blunted by lack of clarity – trying to please too many constituencies at once, and in the end pleasing none. Now the EU is about to embark on another policy initiative where clarity and focus are needed. This letter, based on our collective experience in academia, industry and policy, is a plea for single-minded efficiency.

The issue is “cluster” policy – in short: How do you make a Silicon Valley in Europe? After several months of study, the European Commission is due to issue its first formal answer to that question, with a policy statement recommending action to the EU members.

There’s no dispute that clusters of dynamic companies around top-rated universities are vital to economic success. Cambridge, Oxford, Münich, Grenoble, Leuven and Stockholm are all vibrant zones for scientific discovery, technological innovation, and jobs. But large, they are not. Just one US research institution, the University of California–San Francisco in the Silicon Valley cluster, has spawned publicly traded companies with a combined market value of $90 billion – three times the value of Europe’s entire bio sector. China has concentrated resources and tax breaks on three mega-hubs for technology development. Whether by market rule or government fiat, these are clusters big, bold, and concentrated.

By contrast, Europe’s approach is small, timid and diffuse. The EU counts some 2,000 clusters, 70 different national cluster policies, and hundreds of regional programmes. Now it has the opportunity for change. Between 2007 and 2013 the European Union has budgeted €308 billion for structural funds, a type of regional-development “catch-up” funding that can be applied to knowledge networks as easily as to road networks. The EU’s upcoming cluster policy statement, led by Vice President Günter Verheugen, could direct that spending wisely. We urge that it incorporate the following principles:

A CHARTER FOR CLUSTERS

  1. Build on existing strengths. Clusters cannot be planted on bare soil, wherever a politician feels like it. They can only be nurtured in places that have already demonstrated knowledge, skills and growth.
  2. Focus resources. Don’t scatter the money far and wide. Pick just a few of the most promising regions and sectors for support, and provide an environment – family-friendly, multidisciplinary, well-paid – that will attract the brightest minds.
  3. Be open. Encourage the best people, wherever in the world they may be, to work in Europe’s clusters. Promote open competition, among universities, companies and regions, for funding . Promote border-crossing – among people, ideas, scientific disciplines, and industries.
  4. Benchmark, monitor and be transparent. Base funding and regulatory policy, not on the clash of political interests, but on empirical analysis of what’s working and on open competition.
  5. Encourage risk-taking, cross-disciplinary work, bold innovation and experimentation

These are broad principles. One practical idea for implementation is to create Special Innovation Zones in Europe (SIZE).

We urge the EU to designate a few – and we mean just a few – existing clusters to benefit from a new legal status as special innovation zones. It would give them extra cash from that €308 billion structural-funding budget to invest in schools, infrastructure and cultural amenities that attract the world’s top knowledge workers (reversing the “brain drain”) and to stimulate university research, teaching and spin-out company formation. They would get special, temporary dispensation from rules that hamper free movement of people and ideas, such as immigration and labour policies that make it hard for small companies to hire or fire. They could tap seed funding, supported by the EU and managed by investment professionals. They could earn a new, low-tax status reserved for young, innovative companies, and access low-cost, high-quality office space and support services

How would the EU pick these centres of excellence? Through transparent, international, data-based competition, rather than through closed-door, regional politics. Create a council, dominated by non-EU experts on technology, development and education, that weighs competing applications from the regions based on their performance – in hard numbers, per euro spent, of significant inventions, publications, spin-outs, licenses, stock-market flotations, post-doctoral fellows and jobs, and soft analysis of governance, infrastructure, quality of life, and visionary planning. There are already models for this. The newly created European Research Council last year achieved a first: handing out €300 million in research grants based solely on the judgment of international experts. The “cull rate” was ferocious: 97% of applicants were rejected. But the winning 3% were, beyond any doubt, scientifically worthy of funding. If this no-nonsense, expert approach can work in the university sector – interbred and politicized as it is in many EU nations – it can surely work in regional policy.

Time is running out for Europe. The American capital markets, treacherous as they may be, are pouring vast sums into the nation’s technology centres. In South Korea, government investment of $11 billion in the Incheon Free Economic Zone has drawn $49 billion in foreign investment. At the same time, we are all confronted by the urgent problems of global warming and rising energy costs; solutions must be found through research, innovation and entrepreneurship. Unless Europe improves its capacity to innovate, it will miss these opportunities to lead and prosper.

Europe’s politicians cannot afford any longer the luxury of playing big spender to all regions great and small. They need to be bold, brave and selective. They can start with the Commission’s upcoming cluster policy statement.

Signed:

Esko Aho, President, Finnish innovation fund SITRA, and former Prime Minister, Finland

J. Frank Brown, Dean, INSEAD

Jean-Philippe Courtois, President, Microsoft International

Pat Cox, President, European Movement, and former President, European Parliament

Roch Doliveux, CEO and Chairman, UCB

Denis Payre, CEO, Kiala and Co-Founder, Business Objects

Philippe Pouletty, General Partner, Truffle Capital

Alfons Sauquet, Dean, ESADE Business School

Helmut M. Schühsler, Managing Partner, TVM Capital

Harriet Wallberg-Henriksson, President, Karolinska Institutet

Members of the Science|Business Innovation Board

EDA, an industry from Silicon Valley

3 Replies

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).

eda.jpg

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-market1.gif

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.

 

eda-net1.gif

Is there a recipe for entrepreneurship?

3 Replies

Students from the Ecole Hôteliere de Lausanne who naturally have a taste for good food asked me the question recently. I took inspiration from Paul Graham and Steve Jobs to provide the ingredients. The text is available in pdf. Here is the full answer…

stvoi.gif

Is there a recipe for entrepreneurship?

“Launching a start-up is not a rational act. Success only comes from those who are foolish enough to think unreasonably. Entrepreneurs need to stretch themselves beyond convention and constraint to reach something extraordinary.” Vinod Khosla, founder of Sun Microsystems

Europe is aware that it is not as efficient with entrepreneurship as the USA, and Silicon Valley is the extreme illustration of the American model. Google, Yahoo, Apple, Cisco, Oracle, Intel are only a few examples. What are ours? What did we do wrong? My answer is that we have not bet on passionate individuals ready to take risks and face uncertainty: young people who may fail but will learn from their mistakes.

If you are not convinced or surprised with the argument, let me quote some Silicon Valley icons. Steve Jobs said about Silicon Valley success: “There are two or three reasons. You have to go back a little in history. I mean this is where the beatnik happened in San Francisco. It is a pretty interesting thing…You’ve also had Stanford and Berkeley, two awesome universities drawing smart people from all over the world and depositing them in this clean, sunny, nice place where there’s a whole bunch of other smart people and pretty good food. And at times a lot of drugs and all of that. So they stayed… I think it’s just a very unique place.”

The main investor in Apple, Steve Jobs’ company, Don Valentine adds: “Founders are genetically impossible by choice. There were only two true visionaries in the history of Silicon Valley. Steve Jobs and Bob Noyce [Intel’s founder]. Their vision was to build great companies… Steve was twenty, un-degreed, some people said unwashed, and he looked like Ho Chi Min. But he was a bright person… Phenomenal achievement done by somebody in his very early twenties… Bob was one of those people who could maintain perspective because he was inordinately bright. Steve could not. He was very, very passionate, highly competitive.” By the way, Bob Noyce mentored Steve Jobs.

Let me add one more quote by another investor, Tom Perkins: “The difference is in psychology: everybody in Silicon Valley knows somebody that is doing very well in high-tech start-ups; so they say to themselves “I am smarter than Joe. If he could make millions, I can make a billion”. So they do and they think they will succeed and by thinking they can succeed, they have a good shot at succeeding. That psychology does not exist so much elsewhere,”

Quotes may not be any proof, but consider the age of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs: Steve Jobs was 21, the Google founders were 25, the eBay founder was 28, and the Yahoo founders were 27 and 29. Do not think this is linked to the Internet. Mister Hewlett and Packard were 26 and 27 in 1939 when they founded HP. Founders often come also as a team of two; many are foreigners, immigrants who have something to prove, “hungry people”.

But if we would try to find a recipe, a recipe that Europe could use to bake fresh Entrepreneurs for their economies, what would it be? Paul Graham, an entrepreneur whose blog, www.paulgraham.com, is a must-read, has his strange advice: two main ingredients are needed, rich people and “nerds”. In my recent book, “start-up”, I use his advice for my very own recipe:

– Take rich people and nerds.

– Do not add any bureaucracy, do not add concrete.

– In order to attract and keep enough nerds/cooks in a place, there is a need for a large and nice plate.

A university is a good choice, it needs personality, and it needs to be creative. Not only on its campus, but also in its surroundings, so that the ingredients feel comfortable in the plate.

– The ingredients should be fresh, i.e. they should be young and dynamic.

Graham also mentions liberal environments, which, he claims, tolerate strange and brilliant individuals. [Read again what Jobs said above about SV].

– Then the ingredients have to be put in the oven for a very long time.

Silicon Valley began in 1957. It took ten years, even twenty years, to make this region successful; it is about the time it takes to grow infants into adults.

– The oven should not be too hot, so that the desire is not killed, then the temperature should be increased to maintain the enthusiasm.

A temperate, pleasant climate is therefore necessary.

If all the conditions are in place, the result will probably be interesting.

Lausanne has many assets to become such a place. Lausanne has EPFL, Unil, EHL, IMD. It has rich people. It has a nice climate and nice food, a rich cultural environment. So what we “just” need is the desire to try. Of course, ideas and projects have to be well managed. But first and foremost, we need young people, not afraid of being ambitious. As a final word, I think we should also take more inspiration from Silicon Valley. First, visit the place and understand it better; second, invite back the Europeans who live over there and have experienced this unique culture. We have to learn from them. So you have my recipe for entrepreneurship. The recipe for success is more an Art than a Science and listen again to what Steve Jobs said in 2005 at the first graduate diploma ceremony he ever attended: “Stay foolish, stay hungry.”

Sources:

Paul Graham and Silicon Valley
http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html

Steve Jobs at Stanford
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html

“Start-up, what we may still learn from Silicon Valley”
https://www.startup-book.com