Category Archives: Innovation

So you want to be an entrepreneur

So you want to be an entrepreneur, but you’re just not sure. And you wonder: Should I quit my well-paid job in the middle of a recession, raise money on 37 credit cards, build a lab bench in my garage next to my rusty old bike and start a […] company? Hell yes! Leaping into the void leads to freedom and growth, which always lands you on a higher plane. Afraid of failure? You’d be amazed at how many investors prefer to back someone who has tasted the bitter fruits of failure. In failing you learn what not to do. Get your skin in the game and there is no failure—you have opened your mind to growth and yourself to reinvention.

This is how Larry Marshall, a serial entrepreneur, begins an article he wrote in 2001! Maybe not as sexy as Guy Kawasaki or Paul Graham, but certainly as interesting. I just discovered this and his blog yesterday and I thought it is worth reading it entirely. So here is the full paper taken from Laser Focus World.

So you want to be an entrepreneur, but you’re just not sure. And you wonder: Should I quit my well-paid job in the middle of a recession, raise money on 37 credit cards, build a lab bench in my garage next to my rusty old bike and start a photonics company? Hell yes! Leaping into the void leads to freedom and growth, which always lands you on a higher plane. Afraid of failure? You’d be amazed at how many investors prefer to back someone who has tasted the bitter fruits of failure. In failing you learn what not to do. Get your skin in the game and there is no failure—you have opened your mind to growth and yourself to reinvention.

As engineers and scientists, we have natural obstacles to overcome if we are to become entrepreneurs. We look at things from the technology perspective and forget the mantra of the marketplace. Open your mind to a market, understand your customer’s problem, then create a solution that puts more cash in his pocket. While technology can enable a new business, it is not necessary. However, knowing your market and the needs of your customers is mission-critical in starting your business.

Too early to market and you run out of money before you generate revenue to sustain your business. Too late and you’re just another “me too” scrambling for the crumbs of the pie dropped by the market leader. But if you read the market right, then you ride the crest of the market wave all the way to success.

Focus, focus, focus
As a photonics person you should understand focus. In a startup your focus must be diffraction limited—do one thing and do it better than everyone else. With limited resources, the only way to produce enough force to penetrate the market is to focus all your weight on a single point. Don’t wear blinders. You must be aware of and respond to changes in the market. But focus is the key. Pick the one product you think will sell. Talk with your customers to define your product. Make sure that your customers want to buy it. Then, when you have defined it, engineer it, produce it, and sell it fast. Pick the wrong product and you will fail quickly. But try to spread the risk and you will linger in purgatory indefinitely.

Only two things create value in a company—product development and selling (marketing is selling to groups). Research may be the key to your company’s future, but there are bills to pay between now and then. Don’t get into business to do research—find a university and give them some money to do it for you; they’ll do a better job for less money. Your mission is to satisfy a market need and make money in the process. Unfortunately, it is possible to raise money today on the promise of tomorrow’s great technology, but this is a train wreck waiting to happen.

There is another aspect to focus—the customer. Everyone in the company from the janitor to the CEO must focus on the customer. Successful hi-tech companies maximize interactions between their engineers and customers and promote peer-to-peer selling. Customers are not only the source of your revenue, they are also the wellspring of your ideas.

One more thing, answer this question: Do I want to change the world (even a little), or do I just want to get rich quick? Those who start businesses because they want to create something new and better don’t always succeed, but those who are just in it for the buck almost never do. The fire inside your belly sustains you through the ordeal, but greed alone will not.

Did I mention focus?

Raising money
After funding startups in several ways, including using credit cards (37 of them, and in a recession too), friends and family, corporate backing, and venture capitalists (VCs), I have these observations. Bootstrapping and incubation work extremely well if you are smart enough to see far ahead of the market—then you can afford to trade time for money. You can raise an “angel” round to finance your prototype development and line up some real customers before you give away half the company raising venture financing. Although a VC will want 40% to 50% of the equity in the first round of financing (regardless of how much money you raise), if you can’t see more than two years into the future, get VC money (see “Making the pitch,” this page).

Venture capitalists add value beyond mere money. Their portfolio of companies can contain your future customers, their name should greatly leverage your cash, and their networks will open doors through which you could not otherwise pass. If you are a diamond in the rough, they will polish you until you shine, but if you don’t shine they’ll find another rock that will. And whoever gives you money, be it your brother, your barber, an angel, or a VC, make sure you like each other—you’ll go through a lot together in the years to come. Remember: you always need much more money than you think.

How do VCs decide which businesses to fund? Ask yourself how you decide to lend money to a friend. Trust. A VC trusts character, experience, team, and the quality of the idea. The idea will attract them, but the team will hook them. Venture capitalists invest in people first and ideas second. The market will change after you are funded and unless the team responds with better ideas, the business will fail. Startups have a wonderful ability to respond rapidly to change, and this, I believe, makes them the new-product development engines of industry.

Building the team
So what makes a great company? A great team. Clearly, a great CEO surrounds himself with people whose skills complement his own. Technical excellence alone is insufficient justification to hire any individual. It is better to have a well-coordinated team of good players than an ungainly group of outstanding individuals. As a founder you must set the tone for your company and recruit people who share your vision, goals, and ideals. Hire the best people you can find wherever you can find them. And always be on the lookout for your own replacement—after all, don’t you want the best people running your company?

When you start hiring skilled people, many of them will want to “make the move to management.” Few of them are capable. A great manager gathers information first, and then takes decisive action. A great inventor makes leaps of faith based on intuition, and is usually a frustrating manager. A great entrepreneur is a mix of the two. Understand that many people want to be managers but few should be—management is not about ego. It is about serving your subordinates in any way that better enables them to do their job, and then getting the hell out of the way so they can do it.

Even the best team players are working for a paycheck. So, share the wealth. Pay people what they are worth, not what you can get them for. Generally, compensate those who contribute to future value—scientists and engineers—in stock, and those who generate immediate value (sales) in cash. If everyone is an owner of your business they will take pride in it, nurture it, and ensure its success.

And remember, you are the lynchpin of your team. Surround yourself with quality advisors on technology, marketing, and business. These are peers, colleagues, and friends. But most important, find an experienced startup CEO who has built companies like yours before and who is still actively doing it, and make him your mentor.

Build more than a better mousetrap
As technologists we often are fooled into thinking that if we simply create a better technology, the market will be ours. A business creates solutions for which customers pay. So if better technology creates a better solution, then the world will beat a path to your door, right? Wrong! Technologically, visible diodes were a quantum leap from HeNe lasers, yet it has taken 10 years for them to replace the HeNe. It’s much harder than you think to displace an entrenched technology. You need substantial improvements, better cost structure, or both. Cash in the pocket is the customer’s bottom line—if you keep more in theirs, they will put some in yours. There is a fixed amount of cash being spent in any given industry. If you want a portion of that cash, either you can take market share from competitors, or capture cash that is paid to others (lifecycle costs, for example), or (ideally) grow the market by adding functionality. This is the crux of any new business.

In my second business, we created a revolutionary solid-state laser technology to replace the ion laser. We could produce several watts of green laser output from an all-solid-state box the size of a cigar case. This was a big improvement over ion lasers, but only to people who worried about 3-phase power, water-cooling, portability, and lifetime. It turned out that, for many people, other benefits of ion lasers that we had never considered outweighed these problems. We persevered, though, and ultimately found a niche in the medical market creating the world’s first miniature portable photocoagulator. Customers loved it. We also replaced copper vapor lasers in dermatology. Again the customers loved it. But we forgot to grow the market. We had made a box that didn’t need a new tube every few years. It worked so well, that once we sold a unit we never saw that customer again. Your new product should not only offer greater functionality at a lower price—it also needs to grow the market.

Running your business
The marketplace is a crucible that burns away all irrelevancies and leaves one pure product—profit. If you don’t make money, your business will fail, and no amount of excuses can save you. No excuses is a core principle of business. Keep your commitments! If you tell Wall Street you will make $1/share earnings—do it. If you fail, have a recovery plan and be sure to eliminate the source of the failure. The market hates failures, but it hates excuses more.

The market rewards results, not effort. As R&D people we learn there is no such thing as failure; even a null result is valuable. Not in business. If you spend a year working on a contract that then goes south, you just wasted a year. You failed to generate revenue and you took food out of the mouths of your team. You should be shot! I hope you had a backup plan.

As your company grows, it will change. Businesses tend to excel at only one thing, but that thing evolves over the life of a business. A typical cycle would be technology, then execution, then manufacturing. JDS Uniphase (JDSU; San Jose, CA) is a great example—it penetrated the market with a great technology, gaining knowledge and experience that enabled the company to execute better than everyone else, and ultimately developed a world-class automated manufacturing system that produce long-lived quality products at a lower price. Now JDSU has fine-tuned a process that allows it to buy new technologies and quickly integrate them into that finely tuned manufacturing machine—that’s an ability that’s hard to beat.

Are you the CEO?
I’ve been lucky enough to report directly to several different types of CEOs whose backgrounds were technical, sales, marketing, and engineering. The two best were technical and marketing. The latter person had a natural advantage over the others in that he valued technology for its ability to reach the customer, not as something of intrinsic worth. He was customer-focused and hired great technology people (I like to think I was one of them) to create his vision.

The technology person was a truly visionary CEO. He immersed himself in his customers’ market. He spent a lot of time working alongside his customers to understand their needs, and thereby won both their trust and their business. He understood their problems and solved them. If you can do this too, you will win! So what are you waiting for?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have been fortunate enough to learn from some outstanding people and I thank them here: Josh Mackower, Milton Chang, Ted Boutacoff, Don Hammond, Bill Lanfri, Walter Koechener, Paul Davis, Bob Anderson, Robert Haddad, Bob Byer, and Dan Hogan.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Larry Marshall is the CEO of Lightbit Corp, a next-generation telecommunications components startup. He has angel-invested in three startups, and personally done three others, including Light Solutions Corporation, which merged with Iris medical, and went public as Iridex, in February 1996 (Nasdaq:IRIX; Mountain View, CA). Marshall is an active inventor, holds nine patents protecting 16 commercial products, and has over 100 publications and presentations. He is chairman of the OSA Conference on Advanced Solid State Lasers, is an editorial advisory board member to Laser Focus World, and is on the board of directors of two telecommunications startups. Larry Marshall is founder and CEO of Lightbit Corp. P.O. Box 20453, Stanford, CA 94309; e-mail: larry@lightbit.com.

_______________________________

Making the pitch
When you write your business plan and pitch to a venture capitalist, you only need to answer seven basic questions:

  1. What problem or need will you solve or serve?
  2. Who are your customers?
  3. How much will they pay?
  4. What is your product?
  5. How much will it cost to build and sell?
  6. Who are your competitors and how will you beat them (barriers to entry or exit)?
  7. How big is the payoff and when will it happen?

Your single-page executive summary should answer these questions and is likely to be the only part of your plan an investor actually reads. Write concisely and honestly.

When you write your business plan remember that a little bit of “hype” goes a very long way—the wrong way. And don’t believe your own hype. If you claim, for example, that “there are no competitors” or that “they are inferior,” you are actually telling investors that you are either a genius or a fool (and they will assume the latter). It’s actually pretty easy to sell a story and there have been some great cons. But if you do sell a story you’ll spend the next several years building a business doomed to fail—and who wants to do that?

It is hard to be honest with your own ideas, so take them for a test drive with friends. Surround yourself with quality business advisors who are not afraid to tell you the truth and you can quickly separate the lemons from the gems.

Born to Grow

I just finished reading an interesting report entitled “Born to Grow – How to Harness Europe’s most innovative entrepreneurs

Nothing really new but a very good synthesis of recommendations and I emphasize in bold the ones I consider really critical:

  • Teach the values of innovation and entrepreneurship in our schools
  • Celebrate successful entrepreneurs – in prizes and the media
  • Break the barrier between business and technical universities
  • Organise researchers to work across scientific disciplines
  • Train young researchers and managers for global growth – and flexibility
  • Adopt policies to encourage innovation clusters around universities
  • Create “free innovation zones” to speed growth in selected clusters
  • Support the role of large companies in cluster-development
  • Give priority to creating “lead markets” for innovation
  • Free information flows – with online portals, benchmarking and patents
  • Target tax incentives and other financing aids to growth companies
  • Even better are the features of a high-growth entrepreneur (page 11):

    Originality. The greatest entrepreneurs have a better idea: a novel product, service or process that fills a need.

    Adventurousness. In the generally risk-averse culture of Europe, it’s rare to find an entrepreneur with the will to quit a cushy job and gamble the future on an idea.

    Dedication. Rigor and determination are hotwired into the best entrepreneurs – and that comes naturally to many scientists and engineers.

    Ambition. International business success comes easier if the entrepreneur’s plan is global from the
    start.

    Humility. Perhaps the rarest, but most important, trait in a high-growth entrepreneur is the ability to recognise one’s personal limitations – and seek help from others, rather than try to
    run the whole show.

    In the nurture of a high-growth entrepreneur:

    A thriving ecosystem. Businesses don’t grow in vacuums; they need networks of suppliers, researchers and customers.

    Financial backing. It takes money for a start-up to grow from minnow to whale; and deeppocketed, deeply engaged investors are critically important.

    A big, open market. A company needs plenty of room for manoeuvre – and some of the brightest entrepreneurial stars have profited when old, regulated markets started to open up.

    Big brothers. For many start-ups, it helps to grow in the shelter of big corporations that create their
    own ecosystems. Examples: Risto Siilasmaa, whose F-Secure antivirus company thrived in the 3,500-company world created around mobilephone giant Nokia; and Peter Bang and Jesper Balser, whose Danish business-process software firm Navision grew up in Microsoft’s programming environment – and was later bought by it.

    US and UK Biotech: Growth and Form

    Another interesting illustration about the differences between America and Europe: growth in the US and UK biotech. The full account can be found in Nature Biotechnology and my friend Andre mentioned the blog Corante where he read about it.

    corante.gif

    The conclusion of this blogger is:

    “What I found interesting about the editorial, though, wasn’t these conclusions per se – after all, as the piece goes on to say, they aren’t really a surprise […] No, the surprise was the recommendation at the end: while the government agency that ran this study is suggesting tax changes, entrepreneur training, various investment initiatives, and so on, the Nature Biotechnology writers ask whether it might not be simpler just to send promising UK ideas to America.

    Do the science in Great Britain, they say, and spin off your discovery in the US, where they know how to fund these things. You’ll benefit patients faster, for sure. They’re probably right about that, although it’s not something that the UK government is going to endorse. (After all, that means that the resulting jobs will be created in the US, too). But that illustrates something I’ve said here before, about how far ahead the VC and start-up infrastructure is here in America. There’s no other place in the world that does a better job of funding wild ideas and giving them a chance to succeed in the market.”

    Is Silicon Valley in trouble?

    A scary video interview about Silicon Valley and I can not fully disagree: the IT industry is maturing so innnovation may be less relevant than it has been.The VC industry is in trouble though it will not admit it. Risk taking is disappearing. “Engineers are gun shy of start-ups”. What a terrible message.

    Of course, there is hope: this is not new… Silicon Valley Fever is a 1984 book which already described the troubles start-ups and engineers could experience. People always claimed there were too few deals for too much money.

    Whatever, enjoy and comment if you wish…

    PS: thanks to Andre M.  for drawing this video to my attention!

    Innovation in Europe

    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)


     

     innova.jpg

     

    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.

     

     

    The Trouble With…

    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…

    Inside Steve’s Brain

    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.

    About the origins of innovations

    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

    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

    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