Tech IT Easy » operations

On making Global Package Delivery a little better [Weekend Ramblings]

Vincent van Wylick — Sat, 08 May 2010 13:12:39 +0000

I’m currently on a tirade against two things. Global package delivery, which, every single time, seem to have me waste my time waiting for a doorbell to ring. And software-updates, which for some reason are a pretty fragmented affair.

OK, there’s nothing to do about software updates and I already give up.

Global package delivery, on the other hand… UPS was founded in 1907. That’s right, gentlemen & ladies, it is over ONE ZERO ZERO (purposefully emphasised) years old! That means that people have been carrying UPS parcels around on horses, then on Fords, on ships, on aeroplanes, and will most likely carry them to space also. Unlike regular mail, the Package Industry is here to stay as well, ladies and gentlemen, all thanks to you for ordering from places like Amazon every single day.

Now, I don’t mean to pick on UPS. I actually have a problem with FEDEX (founded 1973) this week and with DHL (a German company, founded 1969), both of which like telling me things on their website that aren’t true, or are true, but so incredibly late to publish that truth that it’s just a false truth.

Dear companies that I just mentioned: we are in the age of real-time. When my best friends go to the bathroom, I know about it 5 min. before they even think about it, that’s how quick Twitter is. Sadly, that doesn’t bring a hot new gadget into my life, like your great service does. I appreciate your service, it allows me to be lazy and order to Visa’s delight. But it’s meant to be a service of convenience, and I don’t consider having to drool over my doorbell-phone by any kind of definition, “a convenience.”

Here’s what happened with DHL: Package shipped on the 6th out of Germany. On the 7th, at 4:30 a.m., package left Germany heading for the Netherlands. I sent them a mail asking whether if it doesn’t arrive today, they ship on the weekends. No reply! At 20:00, I found out, that package has arrived for sorting at a sorting centre at 17:42. I decide to call the next day to ask whether they ship on the weekends. The kind person at DHL the Netherlands informs me that a. he has no idea where my package is and b. they do not ship on the weekends. 2 hours later, the doorbell rings. It’s the mailman, who works for TNT (the Dutch equivalent to DHL) with the package from DHL. Status on the website on the 8th: “7th of May, package has arrived for sorting at a sorting centre at 17:42.”

Here’s what happened with FEDEX: Package shipped on the 5th from the US. Paris then somewhere in the Netherlands on the 6th. Estimated delivery: on the 7th at 6 p,m. I’m home at 3:30 p.m. At 20:00 I get a message that FEDEX passed by my house at 14:55 p.m. and no one was home. Status: sadly FEDEX does not receive phone-calls on the weekend.

We need a change, we need that thing you do with the tracing, not to be restricted to when it arrives in parcel sorting centre 42. We need it to have an RFID chip in the parcel, which is connected to a GPS device in the truck, which at all times tells a satellite to send me a tweet of where exactly you are at what given time. And when I’m not home, I can tweet back to said truck to give notice, to save fuel, to save the planet, and/or to change the address to my work-address. Saves your time and mine and the planet’s.

This is not rocket-science. GPS exists (globally since 2000), RFID exists (required by Wal-Mart since 2005), real-time web exists (Twitter since 2006). Yet for some reason, in 2010, I still have to wait 10 hours for an update about something REAL & RELEVANT that happened 10 hours ago. Sigh.

OK, all ranted out now. Now go fix.

Management Innovation : problems, facts and 10 lessons for the future

ceciiil — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:16:06 +0000

God bless Jon Husband : he pointed me via a Twitter conversation to his telling blog post (Will Enterprise 2.0 drive management innovation) on Fast Forward blog, where he quotes Gary Hamel FAN-TAS-TIC book : The Future of Management.

To start with, Gary Hamel is not an obscure blogger or some kind of geek preparing the internet revolution. He has been ranked the most influential business thinker by the Wall Street Journal ahead of personalities such as Thomas Friedman or Bill Gates. Therefore, it won’t be as easy for corporate afficionados to dismiss his theories as it may be to dismiss Cluetrain Manifesto’s chapters by Chris Locke ou David Weinberger (regardless of how brilliant these are).

This is fascinating essay. Lucid, smart, driven by a relentless desire to find the truth and to help the reader find the one of his company.

Problems

Funnily enough, Gary Hamel asks the same question as Chris Locke : how relevant it is in the 21st century to use same management techniques defined by Taylor or Weber in a world where :

Change has never been so fast or happening to such a scale. Nowadays not only advantages erode rapidly but whole industries are crashing (airlines, music …)
Barriers of entry have never been so low because of deregulation and technologies. Therefore, companies are now facing ultra low cost competitors.
Internet offers a light speed disintermediation between producers and consumers
Strategy life cycle is shrinking. New Business is faster than ever
Customers (and employees !) have never been so well informed thanks to the internet and the amount of information available to them

Facts

Looking into these management issues, Gary Hamel analyses how management works today and how innovation prone it is. Well, not much since :

All companies gets obsessional about innovation and yet don’t apply any at management level
Right now, your company has 21st-century Internet-enabled business processes, mid-20th-century management processes, all built atop 19th-century management principles.
19th century management will just not work to manage knowledge workers in a world-changing at such breathtaking space.
Management is extremely conservative because it is based on unchallenged beliefs and politics of people willing to keep their status, power and benefits
The only solution to survive and succeed in an ever-changing business environment is to be adaptable
You can not be adaptable if the whole company is controlled by a heavy and fossilized hierarchical chain of command. Adaptable eco-systems (life, markets, cities) are not reduced to mere vertical top bottom flow of information and processes but on peer-to-peer democratized flat systems

Use cases

The Future Of Management goes through different real life use cases and tell the remarkable stories of enterprise very famous world-wide for their amazing innovation ability.

WL Gore

Bill Gore left DuPont in 1958 to create a company (WL Gore) based on Douglas McGregor book The Human Side of Enterprise. Motto : make money and have fun. Which reads in terms of organisation :

Small operating units
No bosses but leaders that get things done and are excelling in team building
Team free to fire its boss
High Trust / Low fear environment
Willing commitment instead of assignment
20% time to personal project.

In terms of quality of workplace :

For the 13th consecutive year, W. L. Gore & Associates has earned a spot on FORTUNE magazine’s list of the “100 Best Companies to Work For.” Only a dozen other workplaces have appeared in every edition of the rankings. The company, known for everything from waterproof, breathable GORE-TEX fabric to life-saving medical devices, is No. 13 on this year’s list, now posted at fortune.com/bestcompanies. (fibre2fashion)

Whole Food Market

WFM is the most profitable food retailer chain in the US according to their profit / sq foot ratio. 3000% increase in revenue between 1992 et 2007. Rules :

Small units (up to 8 people)
associates are empowered and accountable
Trust and equity : executive can not earn more than 19 times of the lowest salary
Strong purpose and common cause : quality and healthy food, local producers

Google

Again extremely innovative and rather successful company.

Network of lateral communication
Small work units (3 to 4)
Position and hierarchy don’t win an argument.
Grueling recruiting process
Collaborative tools (MOM, MiscList)

10 Lessons

Out of the real life stories above, Gary’s extracts the following lessons for management innovation :

Management innovation is critical. Because systemic management brings advantages that are tough to replicate.
Principles matter. Whole Food Market is quite representative in this respect : love, community, trust transparency, mission are the principles the whole company has based its success on
The main obstacle to management innovation is the belief that there is no other way to manage an organisation. Ask : who benefits from the status quo ?
Management innovation redistributes power. When people are empowered (responsibilities, accountability) their job makes more sense and they are more likely to get more engaged and passionate about. And engaged and passionate people are happier and more productive
Costs of management innovation are more obvious than benefits. For instance, WL Gore cluster of factory plants sounds ridiculous in terms of costs savings for business orthodoxy. But in practice, it offers cross business learning to the people in the company. How to measure such intangible assets as adjacency, autonomy, agility, commitment ?
Management innovation that humanized work is irresistible : the three main case studies (Whole Food Market, WL Gore, Google) this book is based on are exhilarating examples on how empowering people fosters a grand slam in organisation success : innovation, profits, and employee engagement. This is leveraging Gary’s pyramid of human capabilities.
Experience managers are not the best in terms of innovation and MBA is an obstacle to management innovation. In all 3 real cases above, CEOs are graduated in computer science, philosophy and chemistry. As Gary Hamel puts it, not doing MBA, they are not been told what NOT to do. Which echoes the David Heinemeier Hansson presentation : Unlearn your MBA.
Small is the new big. All these companies have chosen to have small operating units
Manager is more a producer of the show rather than being the lead to quote Cristobal Conde.
Internet is the best metaphor of for 21st Century Management. This is where we go back to Jon’s insightful blog post :

Whether we like it or not, we are passing from an era in which things were assumed to be controllable, able to be deconstructed and then assembled into a clear, linear, always replicable and thus static form to an era characterized by a continuous flow of information. Because it feeds the conduct of organizations large and small, it is a flow that necessarily demands to be interpreted and shaped into useful inputs and outputs.

What’s next

If you have any interest in management, do yourself a real treat and read this book. It contains many questions that will help you rate your organization in terms of management innovation : very useful.

Surprisingly enough, this book concludes on the Internet as a metaphor for management. This is the perfect introduction to another Harvard Business Press release : Enterprise 2.0 new collaborative tools for your organization toughest challenges book by Andrew McAfee.

We are now faced with this chicken and egg question type of question : who was the first in the 2.0 landscape : Management 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0 ? This has to be the subject of another blog post …

E’ship diary part 7: Gut Instinct vs. Calculation, or On Managing Uncertainty

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:24:06 +0000

Let me start by saying that it’s hard to write about what we’re doing, particularly from a non-marketing angle. Tech IT Easy is a .Org and it doesn’t feel right to use it as a commercial medium (apart from the sponsorship banner, which I value very much and which will at some point host my company’s logo as well).

Marketing aside, it’s hard to write about something that continues to evolve. What is a permanent truth is that you get presented with a lot of information, challenging problems, and Choices (with a capital C) all the time, and I wouldn’t exchange this period for anything (except for a bit more sleep).

The Uncertainties
Today’s post will be about managing uncertainty, which is really at the core of my job description. I wrote about technology, market, people, and other risk before, which is a way to abstract what is happening.

What really is happening is that you have multiple people in a company, each has their own job, not each does it in the same (predictable/independent/insert apt term here) way. These people have to build or build upon often multiple technologies that may or may not exist yet. All of that needs to happen before the project runs out of money. You need to involve external parties who have to like what you’re doing, enough for them to give us stuff for free, invest in our stuff, and/or buy our stuff. Risks from all angles but oddly enough it feels fine.

Lilypads allround
In a draft I wrote a few days ago and don’t want to bore you with, I compared it to the following:

Entrepreneurship is different. You may love doing a certain activity more than others, but doing so may very well come at the price of success. If I were to try to describe the feeling, I would say it feels like jumping from one lilypad to the next and keeping them all floating in the same general direction. I can spend more time on one lilypad because it houses a nice frog I like or because the sun’s shining on it just right. But eventually, the pressure would push the leaf into the water and I would drown. Or something to that (slightly nightmarish) effect.

This isn’t that bad, of course, or rather if you think it’s bad, believe me: you’ll get used to it! I wasn’t prepared for this, but I knew it would be hard and now it’s just an everyday thing.

The best way to deal with all these lilypads is to learn to be efficient and to spread the love around equally.

Gut instinct vs. calculated risks
During the early days of my master in entrepreneurship which was supposed to teach me all this stuff, we tried to analyse “the entrepreneur” from the psychological, sociological, and economical perspective. The most frustrating part about it was the psychological side because every academic paper and article seemed to compare the entrepreneur to a superman. It probably didn’t help much that plenty of those articles were written during the .Com days where we all worshipped entrepreneurs many of which later turned out to sell very good smelling air.

One thing that struck me, however, was the concept of “calculated risk.” Entrepreneurship isn’t a risky venture, it is an exercise in calculated risk. I didn’t get what that meant until very recently.

As mentioned, our company is composed of several people, all of whom are different and work differently. I have people that need structure, people that hate structure, and people that seem to jump from one lilypad from the next, with me, the “boss,” chasing after them. In one way I hate it, in another way I really want people to find the best way FOR THEM to work, though of course respecting the general reality of our situation.

I am taking a risk there, but the crucial part is that I do so in a calculated manner. And that is more literal than you think. For example:

We have a very clear vision of where we want to be in several months time, but there are alternative paths to get there. One would be to build upon existing technology, which would involve a slight adaptation but at a very high financial cost. The advantage is that we have a ready to go product, the disadvantage is that we have to calculate the higher cost down to our customers. That’s ok, if it wasn’t for path no. 2.

No. 2 would require building something from the ground up that would interface with an existing technology, except that it allows us to create something much more impressive (and innovative!), as well as build a series of cheaper prototypes until we reach the mature prototype phase. Cost of production would be the same in the end, except that we can produce 10 versions of our product for the same price. The advantage is a superior product for the consumer, the disadvantage from a developmental stance is that instead of a minor adaption such as in path 1, we spend more time on this part, time we could allocate to other areas.

These are pretty much once-a-week decisions that I have to make, and a large part can already be decided by instinct. It is better to build 10 cheap prototypes than 1 expensive prototype. But how much better it is can also be calculated out in time and material cost in a simple excel sheet.

How I choose to interpret “calculated risk” is that it is actually calculated. Risk is simply uncertainty and uncertainty means that there are alternative paths to a destination and we don’t 100% know which is the right one.

You can apply this to plenty of other things, such as how to design products for different business models and how to design companies for different investors. It is amazing what clarity it brings to quickly crunch the numbers when a new idea is introduced that appears to derail the whole project. After calculating the cost of that choice (the “risk”) it may in fact bring the project to a whole new level!

I still consider myself a visual thinker where ideas are concerned, but I am becoming more and more convinced of the power of “the numbers” in turning ideas into commercial innovations. There is a risk to spending too much time in them, of course. Who hasn’t heard of forecastoritis, also known as the hockey-stick financial forecast. Life doesn’t work that way and while any forecast over a longer period of time ends up looking like starting with a large minus that turns into a larger plus, the best forecasts actually reduce the minuses to a minimum. I see a large R&D budget as the equivalent of a welfare state that just sponsors those types of people that don’t really ever want to make money: the scientists. They just want to build things and love an endless R&D budget. What they don’t realise is that when a company actually makes money, part of that money will be used for R&D anyway, which actually becomes an endless development budget! But only after you have a viable cash cow that makes it happen and only if development continues to generate continuous revenue opportunities. Ok, that last paragraph was a bit of a rant…

All my entrepreneurship diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ I don’t write about what we do as a company on purpose, but you can always ask in the comments or via the email address on the right. Pictures are courtesy of the great M.C. Escher and nature.

E’ship diary part 6: on the important matter of product design

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:43:03 +0000

I made a fairly big mistake with my company at the start, I tried to segment functions in the company too fast. Maybe it was my business education, maybe it was books like “The E-myth Revisited,” and certainly it was my lack of management experience, but I tried to keep my area focussed on business development and away from technology for which “I have a CTO.”

But startups don’t work this way and the entire reason for working in a team is that you share the work and hopefully create synergetic effects (1+1=3!) in the process.

And the truth is that even as for non-technologist like myself (I am a geek though) designing products is not so hard.

I had a discussion with an industrial designer (my all time fav. people to hang around with) concerning the term ‘a perfect product.’ Her field understands the term as a product that functions perfectly, I choose to add “for the customer” to that definition.

The start of product design is always to ask: “so is this cool for people?“, meaning will they like it, do they need it, will they pay for it? I don’t think all question can be answered from the start, except the one of “is this cool?”

A very big part of entrepreneurship is sales, and as they say: you have to believe in what you sell. Easier when you already have a product, I’d love to sell Apple computers for a living, but when the product doesn’t exist, you have one of two choices: one, you design the product yourself, starting with “is it cool?”; two, you trust that your CTO can design something cool.

That’s not a problem, except for one thing: is cool something we decide or the market decides? It is of course the latter and one bullet point in an entrepreneur’s job description missing from that of the CTO’s is keeping a close eye on the market.

Therefore, product design is absolutely something entrepreneurs cannot delegate! And on that short note, I’ll leave it.

Unlike

SOFTWARE SEARCH: Excel-based Graphical Outliner for Mapping Cost Scenarios, Does it Exist?

Vincent van Wylick — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:03:32 +0000

Just a quick shout out to all you smart people out there. For a cost analysis, I’m trying to build several alternative cost-structures, but preferably in an outliner-like format. I’ll go into what I mean in a second, but if you can think of anything, please comment or send me a mail on techiteasyblog (at) Google Mail.

What I want is a combination of this:

And this:

And what I’d like to do with it is drag & connect different modules together and have it auto-add the end-sum when multiple modules are linked.

Any help appreciated, thanks! I have no reward for you at the moment, except if you’re in the Netherlands or I’m in your country, I’ll take you out for a drink and I will definitely pimp your site in this blog post if you include it with your awesome answer!

E’ship diary part 5: project management and vision development in the face of ambiguity, technology and market risks

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:00:37 +0000

Having reached a personal milestone, part 5 of my entrepreneurship diaries, I should mention that it’s very pleasurable and useful for me to write on these topics, and I hope it’s the same for you. In this post, I want to briefly address the issue of uncertainty in early stage technology companies and how that affects management.

As I mentioned before, I was asked to join this company as CEO after consulting them on the commercial applications of this exciting new technology. Joining a year later, we had a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current organisation. During the consulting stage, I wrote a business plan with a fairly clear time line (to me and our sponsor), but it wasn’t being executed upon as required. One of my the deliverables I set myself was therefore to get development back on track, which not only respects the resource boundaries (financial, human, technological) we face, as well as sends out the signal that we are a serious business.

One thing I keep hearing over and over from entrepreneurs is that you have to be comfortable with ambiguity. And that is absolutely true. We continue to iterate on ideas based on changes in technology, customer and partner feedback, and our own ideas, something that would drive any sane man crazy, but we have to keep it under control. The best way that I find to do that is continuing to develop the vision of where we are going (the strongest motivator I can imagine) and maintain a loose type of project management that gets us to that goal.

I call this project management, as it deals with schedules, milestones, and resource allocation over a period of time. Uncertainty is an important factor to consider in this. In a large company, chances are you’re dealing with a predictable environment, in an early stage startup this is not the case. Getting a tighter schedule in place continues to be a challenge we are working on, however I find that being alert, flexible, and adaptive all the time contrasts with the more stable art of project management. Please correct me if I’m wrong, in which case present a solution also! Of course, there have to be thresholds in place, which to me is very much defined by risk assessment.

Regarding risks, let me start by saying that not all risks can be addressed, which is why being comfortable with ambiguity is so important. And second, there are many different types of risk, technology, financial, market, etc., but one usually outlines the thresholds that you have to respect. In my case, I see this clearly as market risk, as nothing matters if your customers aren’t buying… however, this really is not something to take for granted.

In medicine for instance, which is traditionally patent-based and largely dependant on a complex regulatory process, you have a 15 year window, of which you can spend up to 12 years developing your super-innovative cure. Clearly the technology risks outweigh the market ones (note: this ignores the rise of generic, cheap, knock-off drugs). In the web-industry, on the other hand, it’s perfect for rapid prototyping, it’s hard to protect innovations and easy for competitors to clone them, and it makes much more sense to push out your products asap. That means that there can be plenty of competition and the risk lies in grabbing sufficient market share to make a (sustainable) profit.

In our case, we are not as “high-tech” as medicine and not as “high-market” as web-development, in the sense that we face both market and technology risks. However, I see market risks as more important and try to align both market & technology approaches together. As an example, one of the things we did several months ago, was demo our technology to the general public and to selected partners. After the experience, we interviewed them thoroughly on their experience, as well as their initial expectations. We want to make sure that people don’t expect something different than what we deliver and that our product meets and exceeds their expectations. That gives us a clear view of where we want the product to go.

On a technology level, that presents us with certain thresholds in terms of “the experience” and price-points. And whenever we face a technology change, whatever solution is being developed, it has to fit within that end-picture the customer expects. That also overcomes the problem of black-box development, which is not uncommon in technology development.

So, that’s more or less how we continue to develop the vision for our company and the project management that supports it. We started with a lucid dream of producing great technology. We demoed initial versions and tried to align our vision to the needs of our users. And we end up (hopefully) building what our customers want and pay for. I would love to do this in a web-environment, as that really makes prototyping so much cheaper and quicker, but we do the best we can with our not so intangible technology.

E’ship diary part 3: Why I don’t like the term ‘entrepreneurship’

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:00:56 +0000

Both ‘startup’ and ‘entrepreneur’ are terms that immediately evoke an often false reaction from an audience and I would personally prefer not to describe my work using those words. In the following post, I write about three associations in regards to entrepreneurship, one positive, one negative, both somewhat false, and one what I see entrepreneurship as really: just a job. As usual, these diary posts, which I try to write in a short amount of time, are produced with minimal editing. I hope it makes sense. All my entrepreneurial diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ I don’t write about what we do as a company on purpose, but you can always ask in the comments or via the email address on the right.

The popular associations
The word entrepreneur has two popular and a third upcoming association. One association is negative, that of a risk-taker and in some ways a loser—this would be more in a European context where job-security is highly valued. The other is positive, that of a potential Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, i.e. the smart entrepreneur who sees a big opportunity and has the drive, intelligence, and access to other resources to make it very big.

Of these two, the latter is what we are all aiming for, but realistically that applies to less than 1% of entrepreneurs today (using the very broad definition of someone that starts anything from 1-man webdesign company to an ambitious cure for cancer). The first association is also a misunderstanding of entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurs are not blind risk-takers, or at least they shouldn’t be. I would say and hope that it applies to a minority of entrepreneurs also.

The third association: a career-choice
The third association is that of an upcoming trend: entrepreneurship as simply a job. You’ll find plenty of job-adverts with “entrepreneurial attitude a plus” or similar in the job-description, a term I hate just as much as the often mis-used “business development,” standing for just B2B sales.

Added to the job-description part comes that there are plenty of entrepreneurial courses and full academic programmes available to the public, one of which I enjoyed, though I know from personal experience that that doesn’t make a person an entrepreneur.

A third factor contributing to the ‘entrepreneurship is a job’ association is easier access to the marketplace. I’ve had some online discussions with Cecil Dijoux on this blog about today’s technology culture in the context of enterprise software development, and there is as much a democratisation of software-/web-ware development, as there is of other increasingly “low-tech” industries. (As a side note: My definition of low-tech is a technology something has very low barriers to developing it.).

I think that the abundance of resources (not just) in regards to programming, to very well developed (internet) distribution methods for getting products, tangible or intangible, out to customers, as well as more-and-more programmes for funding/assisting startups, means that entrepreneurs have access to a better developed funnel where it comes to their profession of gathering resources and marketing their products.

That doesn’t make it easy, and actually brings other challenges like being one tree in a very large forest, but it does mean that it can be seen as a type of job.

Now, what is there not to like about the word ‘entrepreneurship’?
Maybe it’s a personal thing, but I feel very uncomfortable telling people I meet that I’m an entrepreneur. One, I do see it like a job, a job that I have to do well, and nothing special really. The term ‘entrepreneurship’ makes it sound fancy, which it is not. Two, I’m a European and I do feel the same association that many Europeans have to the word, which is that it’s “less than a real job.” Rationally, I don’t think that’s true, but emotionally I have found myself feeling the following initial reaction more than once when someone comes up to me and describes himself as an entrepreneur:

“Get a job, you hippie!”

Add to this that a startup is not a company until it makes money, and an entrepreneur is not an entrepreneur until he makes money doing what he does.

So I think the term ‘entrepreneurship’ is glorified, perhaps invented to make entrepreneurs feel like they’re doing something special, same as the term ‘Artist’ or ‘Inventor.’ Art isn’t art unless the audience considers it so, and people have invented plenty of mousetraps that are now collecting dust in a garage somewhere.

Suggest something new please
I’d like a new term for what I do and maybe you can suggest one. It should perhaps be related to a startup, which immediately summarises what is happening: A company that is starting up and isn’t there where it wants and needs to be yet.

The problem is that an entrepreneur is not always in the same class as a startup. He can be 50 years old and have a long and successful career behind him. Would you call him a “starter,” a term often used for people fresh out of college applying for a job at Consultant X or Multinational Y? Generally, entrepreneurs are responsible for the activities that happen in a startup in order to make it a success. Their chances of success increase if they have prior experience, resources, and networks to build upon, that make it easier to access the three pillars of “starting up,” as I’ve summarised in the picture above.

In regards to the above, I personally like to describe my work as “I’m running a small company and we’re developing a new product X,” but that is also a bit of a mouthful.

The other side of the coin is that entrepreneurs are in (desperate) need of marketing, where glorification does play a part. I read somewhere that entrepreneurship can be described as the process of developing something irregardless of resources currently in possession. That suggests a pitch is necessary, and perhaps already being termed an entrepreneur helps getting a foot in the door. I doubt it and it would personally bother me if that’s all it took, but I’m smart enough to realise that we “entrepreneurs” need to do whatever it takes to acquire resources, as long as it fits our code of ethics of course.

So, entrepreneurship, yes or no? I don’t like the term, but I may be stuck with it. If I come up with something more apt, I’ll let you know. And same for you please!

Unlike

An e’diary part 2: what are the responsibilities of an entrepreneur

Vincent van Wylick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:06:23 +0000

This post is part of a series, a diary of starting a business if you will. It follows part 1, the decision of becoming an entrepreneur.

One thing I found out is that it’s hard to put your responsibilities down on paper… there are so many!!! There is of course a basic job-description, which more or less sounds like that of a project manager/pull-the-rabbit-out-of-the-hat magician: “make it happen that we go from this thing on paper to the product in the hands of customers.” “Make it happen” is a super-loaded phrase, which can mean countless things.

There is a continuous struggle between micro-management and keeping the overview. Micro, because it is your responsibility that every (little) thing is carried out by your employees (if you have them). Overview, because You the entrepreneur are The Organisation. There is a third struggle that shouldn’t exist really, that between your professional life and your personal life. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to do this thing well is to focus on it exclusively. Friends, family, love, …blogging… it’s a nice luxury to have, but it comes second place.

The responsibility of an entrepreneur are thus: have a goal and make sure that everything is executed to get to that goal.

In a technology company, there are matters of technology and business (really, in what business except for strategy consulting isn’t there a mix of “technology,” which can mean anything from cooking to software development, and the commercial side of things, which is meant to pay for everything?). What I found was that as someone with a business background, who sort-of-kind-of has an idea about product development, and has a better grasp of business development, I still can’t let go of the reigns of product development entirely.

Product development ties in directly with business development. People are unwilling to pay for something that doesn’t exist and similarly our budget is supposed to last us until we have something worth paying for or investing in. Therefore, as an entrepreneur I have to make sure that product development stays on track. The absolute best way to do this is to have a capable product development manager in charge. The truth of it is that startups by their nature are resource-poor, which includes tripple-A product development managers (probably employed at multinational X or Y somewhere), and there is a lot of learning/training on the job. Learning/training means that the (hopefully) existing product development manager (in our case yes) still has to be managed, through schedules and regular meetings. In any case, product development is in its conceptual stage a very brainstorm-friendly activity, which means the more the merrier. But ultimately, a startup must get beyond this stage, respecting the entire resource-poor situation that a startup usually faces.

So, responsibilities of an entrepreneur as far as the technological product development is concerned: If you have a product development manager, you have to make sure that he works under the realities of the business. If you don’t, which I imagine many 1-person software startups operate under (as well as those lucky strategy consultants), well then you have to do the job of product development as well, keeping a close eye on the business realities.

OK, the business part of things. My role is fairly well-defined here as I come from a business background and approach startups from a business perspective. Assume that role 101 is having a firm grasp on everything that goes on, which can be phrased as “where are resources (people, time, money) being expended at and is it wise to do so.” This entails having a good budget plan and sticking to that.

Role 102 is to build the business, which I call business development, but that often gets confused with sales as that that is what it says in job adverts. Business development is the building of the business, which includes sales, but also includes building the company and all that entails.

So, we are trying to get from point A to point P, how do we go about it? If product development is about turning an idea into a product, business development is building a business plan into a business. Business plans are total BS unless they contain validated information. Some key-chapters in business plans are the market overview, the market approach, the time-line, and the financial need to meet all these objectives. Business plans can serve as a. cannon fodder, b. a plan of approach, c. one of several signals to attract investment. For c. no investor will take a look at your business unless you have a plan of approach (b.). On that plan, there should be a time-line, which you are following (predictability!) and there should be a goal: the market you are targeting and your approach.

The market section of the business plan presents a big problem for technology entrepreneurs. Because (non!) customers often don’t know what they want. I can ask a target group “what kind of air do you like to breathe?” and it wouldn’t surprise me if a significant number of responses would say: “I like to breathe air that smells like perfume.” OK, that’s a terrible question, but what I mean is that people sometimes make up answers that have nothing to do with reality (that said, both the perfume business and the fast-food industry have made lots of money from essentially selling air that smells good. Scent is also plays a very important part in memory, but I digress…)

What I’m a big fan of is validated market data, which is data gathered from actual customer experience with your product or part of it. That brings forth another problem of a bias towards early (and over-excited) adopters, something which the book “crossing the chasm” deals with, but is really not something that I think is realistic to address at an early stage, except that validated market data can also come from experts in the markets you are targeting.

The implication is also that product development is again completely tied in with business development which leads us down the path of rapid prototyping, another practice that works great in software / on the web, not as easily (though not impossible) with hardware. In any case, the experts in this area most well-known today are:

- Steve Blank, who wrote “The Four Steps to Epiphany” and is currently hosting the excellent Stanford’s Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders seminars (btw. Steve Blank also writes a great blog on customer-focussed development, which I’ve only just started reading.
- Eric Ries, who authors the blog Startup Lessons Learned and has some great articles on responsible (=lean) development.
- And Donald Reinertsen, who wrote an incredibly dense book called “Principles of Product Development Flow,” a book which is clearly an authority in the field, but which I cannot recommend to any sensible entrepreneur with a 60hr/week schedule. Those principles, by the by, number in the 100+.

As well as of course Toyota and plenty of other experts out there, I’m sure, many of which are referenced by the people mentioned.

I think that it can safely be said that task 3 or a sub-task of business development is working towards the customer, the lifeblood of a business.

There are other tasks of course, which have to do with human resources, legal work, accounting, etc. Some of which can be outsourced, some of which can be done half-heartedly (oh no, I didn’t say that), some of which are really-really important, etc.

All these tasks, however, require a certain authority. The entrepreneur’s responsibility is to either be an authority on a task level or to be sure to work with authorities, either in the company or in an (informal) consulting fashion, so that they are carried out responsibly.

Task 4 can thus be entitled: be an authority on the tasks that need to be carried out or have access to one.

So, a whole can of worms starting a company can be and it is vital that it does not interfere with the single most important thing that you must do as a human being: be healthy! Health is part sleep, part exercise, part food, part love. There is no yin without yang and vice versa. Thus forget everything I said about personal life being no. 2. The best is if it reinforces what you do in your work. Health leads to happiness and happiness leads to optimism: a key-quality in entrepreneurship if there ever was one.

So the responsibilities of an entrepreneur summarised:

100: keep your eye on both sides of the court: the goal & the resources needed to get to that goal
101: align Product development with Business development
102: always validate your market data by staying close to your customers
103: be an authority on the tasks that need carrying out or have access to one
104: stay healthy and happy.

This was written in a single session with minimal editing. I hope it kind of makes sense. Part 3 of my e’diary will be on the topic of: can you prepare for entrepreneurship? As I have a master in entrepreneurship, I thought it might make for an interesting perspective. All my entrepreneurial diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ By choice, I’m being mysterious about my company. If you have questions, feel free to comment or write to me via the email address on the right.

Picture courtesy of Be The Dream.

Unlike

Please welcome Anand Kishore Raju, a new blogger on Tech IT Easy !!!

Vincent van Wylick — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:20:14 +0000

Dear everyone,

I am extremely happy to start off this new year by introducing a fresh face on Tech IT Easy, Anand Kishore Raju, who will be blogging with us in 2010. His main areas of focus as a blogger will be greening the internet, carbon footprints, energy and power figures of the internet and web2.0.

Anand is currently working as a Research Engineer at Telecom ParisTech (ENST). His area of research focuses on the Energy aspects of the Internet, what the scientific community calls “Green Networking”. His efforts are directed towards making Computer Network Science aware that processing, moving and storing bits has a cost in terms of energy and in terms of the Carbon Emission Footprint.

In the past, Anand had also worked at Collaborative Systems Group (ColSys) at Bilkent University, Turkey, where he developed a taxonomy for user properties, influence factors for feedback quality in web 2.0, existing and novel models for deviation types and their detection. He also holds a degree in Computer Science and Engineering and aspires to join HEC in near future.

Anand joins a smart team of collaborators, some of which also work in green computing and many of which share an interest in this important topic for sure. As such, please join us in welcoming Anand to the team and I hope you enjoy reading his words on Tech IT Easy!

Happy New Year,

The Tech IT Easy team

Unlike

The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers

Vincent van Wylick — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:17:21 +0000

I’m always fascinated by business models, i.e. at how entrepreneurs and companies put together services in order to make money from them. I’d call it the source code of business if I hadn’t seen the other source code in Luxembourg —legal and accounting—but arguably that’s more like binary code, i.e. 99% unintelligible.

Sarah Lacy writes about SMSONE, a ultra-local news provider in India similar to Outside.IN, a Union Square Ventures funded US-only company that provides news updates via the web. SMSONE does it, as the name suggests, via SMS. And it spreads through a franchising model, working with local entrepreneurs that pay a franchise fee and also collect a share of the advertising revenue from locally focussed businesses. It is able to do this because of something that apparently doesn’t exist in the US (but does in Europe): receiving an SMS in India doesn’t cost the recipient anything.

When reading about this, I was immediately reminded of a similar business model employed by a Dutch entrepreneur in Russia, Ms. Annemarie van Gaal, founder of Independent Media, a company that distributed Russian versions of magazines like Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire en Good Housekeeping (source). When she spoke at the Star entrepreneurial seminar in Rotterdam a year ago, she told us about how she differentiated herself from the competition (paraphrased as I haven’t got my notes with me):

The trouble with getting your magazines distributed in Russia was that you had to pay quite a lot of money (some would call it bribes) to companies that would then take care of it… badly. Instead van Gaal decided to do it differently. She would hire street kids to distribute her magazines, similar to the gold days of newspapers: the newspaper boy.

If you read Sarah Lacy’s account on Techcrunch, you’ll see that SMSONE does it similarly, hiring local kids, often without much education, to take care of distribution. Doing it via official channels is likely a nightmare over there, and centralising distribution kind of defeats the purpose of micro-news.

It’s a different way of thinking, which many of us westerners don’t have. I mean, would you entrust your products to a beggar on the street or to a street musician? Not only is it probably against the law (except if the government does it), we pride ourselves on our super-organised infrastructure, where anything from temp-workers to interns are there to provide companies with a flexible workforce, and anything from printing presses to mobile internet exists to produce and distribute your stuff.

Of course, I wouldn’t just leave you with these two examples. In the beginning of 2008, Boston Consulting Group published a study of “local dynamos”— domestically focussed companies, which use creative business models to capture value from emerging markets that are filled with challenges, like lacking infrastructure and low-income consumers. The map below shows how widespread these companies are.

Some very interesting examples are mentioned, like:

Shanda, a Chinese gaming-company, that, in order to combat software-piracy, focusses on providing interactive services through gaming, services that are impossible to pirate. And to overcome a lack of a financial infrastructure to pay for online services, they work with pre-paid cards.
Indian CavinKare, which sells cheap sachets of shampoo through small local retailers, while using educational marketing to teach customers how to use their products.
Goodbaby, which targets the many 1-child families in China, who are both willing to spend more on their child than multi-child families would, but are also in need of education.
Amul, an Indian food-and-beverage-marketing-organisation, which collects and pays for milk locally, while tracking all operations via satellite and uses ERP solutions to make analysis based on the data and gauge whether future supply needs to be increased or decreased.
Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods (Russia), which works extensively with local partners, and has devised leasing schemes for expensive machinery to boost their production and is able to serve 280 million consumers nation-wide.

The BCG, of course, takes the stance of its customers, Western companies, and the study is mainly aimed at how multinational companies (MNCs) can replicate 6 of these dynamo’s advantages, in order to compete with them. They are:

Customising to local needs – which involves first understanding these needs, and then meeting them.
Devising innovative business models that overcome local challenges – a logical follow-up to the last point, how to make money from the info you gained.
Leveraging the latest technologies – meaning that these emerging economies are less burdened with traditional infrastructure and quicker on the uptake of more affordable, newer, and easier-to-spread technology, e.g. mobiles.
Beneﬁting from low-cost labor and overcoming shortages of skilled labor – there’s two ways to look at this; a local workforce will be better equipped to interact on a local level, a highly-trained workforce will be better equipped to run a business. Tough call.
Scaling up fast – Russia, India, China, Brazil, etc. are all giants with the promise of huge rewards when you capture them. Many of these dynamos grow quickly through both through acquisitions and building up their network of suppliers and distributors.
Sustaining long-term hypergrowth without imploding – this kind of follows on to the last point

Some of the Western companies mentioned, which have managed to compete on a local level, include:

General Motors, which has adapted its luxury-liners to meet the demands of its Chinese customers, who are usually sitting in the back;
LG, in China, which has learned that the audio-quality of its televisions is more valued by its customers, who often reside in noisy environments;
Carrefour, which has started to work with local municipal governments in China, as these don’t meddle in their operations like local dept. stores would, and are able to provide access to prime locations;
Perfetti Van Melle, in India, a candle/chewing-gum manufacturer, which has found local means to advertise, interacts frequently with local partners, and has adapted its products to local tastes;
and Yum! Brands, which owns Pizza Hut and KFC, and has adapted its menus to meet local Chinese tastes, started a new food-chain aimed specifically at the market, and uses its international expertise to integrate IT, lean supply chains, and a higher level of food standards into their offering.

It shows the value of out of the box thinking in terms of reaching people, and I believe that traditional “Western” thinking should long ago have been thrown out the door anyway, particularly in light of the troubles that media-, automotive, and financial industries are going through. We are in the flux of disruptive innovation and only those quickest to grasp new technologies and ways of thinking are able to survive another day.

No shortage of lessons on that from entrepreneurs in emerging economies…

Vincent out

Unlike

The Dynamics of Blogging and the Dynamics of Doing Business

Vincent van Wylick — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:05:07 +0000

I hate breaks in anything I do, blogging, work, sports, love, etc., because it’s always harder to return back into the zone. Similarly, I already knew subconsciously that it would be hard to return back to blogging after the proposed hiatus. Routines are good and when they are moved aside, they get replaced by something else.

The human body is a machine and everything, from hours in the day, to food and exercise, to making money, to relationships, are all pieces in the machine of life. There’s only so many hours in the day is a well-familiar phrase to most of us and reflects the difficulty in balancing different activities and responsibilities, with some just falling off the map.

I am not saying that I plan to stop blogging, but I do think that we all need to make choices in our lives which will affect other, previous ones, like domino blocks.

Dynamics…

I just bookmarked a blog post on delicious on forming sales teams in a startup. It’s a good one and you should all read it. As I tagged and bookmarked however, I immediately thought, hey, I’m pretty sure no one on my company will read it. Why? Maybe because we already figured it out… Maybe because we figure stuff out as we are doing it… Your choice.

Blogging or any kind of writing for public purposes brings several complications to business people:

it is public knowledge, meaning that the competitive advantages are slim: I don’t think this is a major factor, as most innovations are combinations of different ingredients that may or may not be public knowledge. Great artists steal, as they say.
Writing is processed explicit knowledge from something that was previously implicit and needs to be made implicit again by the reader for it to be useful in a practical context: I’ve written about the knowledge-generating company and the knowledge spiral twice before. Another phrase, “You can’t help yourself, because your *self* sucks!” also comes to mind.

It’s the latter that represents the greatest challenge to authors and consumers of their work. I’ve also previously written about the benefit of formal education, which, I think, tries to recreate the knowledge spiral, turning explicit knowledge into the implicit kind, to be used by students in their work later on.

The dynamics of business is that there are expenses—YOU, the team, the office, etc.—which need to be recuperated by your work—the work you do for customers, after which they pay you. It leaves very little time for reflection, e.g. through blogging, etc., and for making things explicit, e.g. through blogging, etc.

I’m still a big fan of Michael Gerber’s E-myth revisited, which is really about writing that franchise manual for your business, so you can both understand the processes happening in your company, and expand on those, by more easily passing on knowledge. It’s Taylorism, of course, or Scientific Management, or any of the other management methodologies that followed in the past century.

But these activities require time, time which people inside organisations usually do not have, and hence prefer to outsource to outside consultants, who then need to make their knowledge explicit and again implicit in the minds and methods of their clients’ organisation.

It’s a real nightmare for people (like me) who think to much and always aim for something higher. And who want to blog. And who want to do good business…

Thoughts?
Vincent

(Picture courtesy of Fisica & Psychica)

Unlike

Another post on Starbucks – on “3rd place” Makeovers

Vincent van Wylick — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:29:58 +0000

It’s been a while since I wrote about food and retail, an area that I still like (and actually find much more interesting than tech or simple business), but which I’ve put on the backburner for now. I don’t like Starbucks as a business nor as a coffee, for a number of reasons that I will elaborate on in this post, but I do like that the company, back under the helm of Schultz, is undertaking some new initiatives.

Reasons why Starbucks bothers me include, most of all, that it is not a coffeeshop with a European target-audience. We Europeans have plenty of choice and tradition in terms of coffee, and I have no problem finding a place of atmosphere with some kickin’ coffee at half the price of one of those Americanos (which, btw. taste terrible). The only attraction of Starbucks is for me as a take-away place, but that was not really the aim of the business, as described in Schultz’s book.

Starbucks was meant to be a “3rd Place,” a place where people can temporarily reside that is not their office or their home, and that is where Starbucks, in my opinion, fails. It should also not seen in isolation from other chains, like McDonalds, Subways, and the many “CloneBucks’s” that have arisen since the writing of Schultz’s book—it is basically a manual for how to start your very own Starbucks and, apart from its partnerships, it’s a low-tech business. Right now, when you enter a Starbucks in say, Cologne, Germany, it will look exactly the same as the one in Paris, France, and that act of replication already devalues the concept in my eyes. All Starbucks Cafés are very clean-looking, unlike a Hard Rock Café for instance, which doesn’t make them all that much better than a McDonalds (Café), which serves coffee equally well.

End complaints about Starbucks, a chain I had all but given up on.

The most depressing part of this business is the ease at which McDonalds managed to replicate its basic features, ……… but let’s not forget that the Starbucks people aren’t stupid and learning goes both ways. Clearly, McDonalds (another business, I’m a fan of) has strong process-advantages, which are also quite apparent to the observer and can be benefitted from by outsiders. Something that, it turns out, Starbucks exploited and will hopefully lead to a more efficient machine of a business, while (hopefully) placing the focus back on the “3rd Place” idea.

And now, it has been revealed, Starbucks is trying to get back into that game with its “community coffeeshops initiative.” While I don’t think that this will drastically improve the Starbucks offering, I do hope that it allows for more creativity and individuality down the road.

That said, there is still a lot of room for “3rd Places,” also in terms of building chains of them, they just need to be better designed to actually be a 3rd place. From books, to music, to zen-gardens, people like me are still looking for the equivalent of what was before probably known as the “gentlemen’s club,” by I mean, in an entirely un-sexist way, a place where you can go and relax, alone or with friends.

Starbucks seems to have gotten lost on the path and retreated down to the level of commoditization. It make me wonder if perhaps these types of qualitative initiatives simply cannot be undertaken quantitatively, without losing too much in the process.

Vincent

Unlike

Old world vs. the new world and the digitalisation of (financial) services

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:27:47 +0000

Read today about a new service in the Netherlands that is doing very well. It’s called doehetzelfnotaris.nl, which translates roughly as ‘Do-it-yourself Notary,” and has already attracted 13,000 visitors since it launched 2 weeks ago (for NL, that’s a big deal). By allowing you to automatise certain services, like preparing the contracts and wills, it claims to save you 30% of the price of having a notary take care of these things. Needless to say that during these financial troubles, people like it when they can save some money.

At our financial trust, I’m currently filling out a pretty long survey from the Luxemborg statistical office (STATEC) regarding our level of “internetisation.” It’s not easy being digital in a world where you often deal with highly sensitive data, sometimes coming from individuals who do not like dealing with you through digital means. The very word “Trust” in our company description, already forces you to ask the question: can clients trust us using digital communication?

The answer is in most cases No. Go to any bank and try to get significant things done and they want you to sign for it. Same with notaries (and doehetzelfnotaris.nl does not automatise the signing part). The financial sector is particularly stuck in what I would call “the old world,” though not, I would say, without good reasons.

My question to you is:

is there such a thing as fool-proof communication, which cannot be falsified by any means?

Is there a surrogate for being there in person and signing your name?

I don’t know of any, but I always assume that our readers are smarter than me.

Chime in, if you can.

Vincent
(Picture of a Robot Accountant. Waah!?)

Unlike

Where do Good Ideas come from?

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:11:29 +0000

I have hardly any time today, catching up on the week, which is terrible for the creative spirit. So, as a 15 min. therapy, where do good ideas come from? Here are 4 areas that I can think of:

Exploration / Rest: Spending 3 days in Paris and 2 days celebrating the national day of Luxembourg was great for thinking about life, discussing various topics and plans, and brainstorming ideas. It is in a way the anti-thesis of working life, which is focussed on making you into a machine, constantly moving, constantly following a routine, and not breaking out into new creative patterns. Ease of Implementation: Ideas are often abstract and need a lot of work to make them useful.

Iteration: This the primary way that companies innovate, by constantly developing routines, slightly adapting them over a long period of time, until version 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.infinity, etc. It is why (consumer) products are the way they are. Ease of Implementation: when you actually have new ideas they face the challenge of breaking existing patterns that are cemented into operating companies and more difficult to change. Still, new ideas are often based on practical data and should thus be more easy to implement.

Deconstruction: This is what I call the Sherlock Holmes way or the “where have you last seen it?” way. You are faced with a problem, e.g. finding something you lost or figuring out how an electronic device works. The best way to do it is to break it down into small steps or pieces (deconstructing) and then reconstructing the reality again. In technology, you might also call this reverse engineering. Ease of Implementation: much like iteration, it is based on realities that already exist. Ideas are often better than what came before, because you’re an outsider, taking something apart and throwing away the junk. Ever lost a piece of text you wrote due to your computer/software crashing? I guarantee that your version 2 will be shorter, more to the point, and better.

Conflict: I was discussing this with Jeremy this weekend, regarding the building of teams that can challenge each other. It’s a destructive and constructive process all at once and I think the benefits usually outweigh the risks. Ease of Implementation: It’s difficult to find that kind of talent and the right mix, so I would say that implementation is not easy. It should however be at the top of the agenda of any organisation who wants to be an innovator in its field.

Other ways to come up with fresh ideas? The floor is yours!

Vincent

Unlike

What would an Always-On Device look like? Do we even want it?

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:18:47 +0000

It’s funny how our thoughts evolve from one day to the next. Which reminds me that we need to adapt our About page to reflect that a little more, as it’s about 2 years old. My thinking about Always-On Devices comes from a simple pain that I feel when I miss “a moment.” Sometimes I wish that I could… well Andy Warhol in Miraclemen phrases it much better than me.

In Alan Moore’s & Neil Gaiman’s graphic novel, Warhol’s existence is not painted in a very colourful light (pun intended). He has been resurrected as a machine into a society where money no longer plays a role and is very depressed. So his ability to record everything is really not very meaningful to him. Having only read this part of the comic last night, already my sentiments about Always-On are changing towards… and what would it accomplish?

I recently visited an Art Exhibition of independent artists in Maastricht and tested out a little what an Always-On Device would look like to me. I used my camera, a Canon 870 IS, as a recording device, which I held in front of me while walking through the crowd.

I managed to capture the people experiencing an exhibition, a piano player who was adding atmosphere to a room full of art, just hypnotically playing a few notes over and over. What actually intrigued me the most, I captured maybe two dozen miniature sets for the Maastricht Opera house. It was very surreal, the sets which were made out of cardboard and wood mostly, were 3-dimensional, and I was floating with my camera device around it and through it even, capturing it all at angles never deemed possible to me before. As if I was my own film-director.

Of course, apart from the disappointing battery-life on my camera, clearly not designed for video-recording, and the occasionally funny looks that I got, the real challenge is to make that data actionable—a big priority in everything I do. It is a matter of transforming the raw footage into a tight package that can be consumed by others, and the question is really, should this be the responsibility of the creator or of the consumer…?

With us having reached and surpassed the age of the mashup, it makes less and less sense to continue to try and re-invent the wheel, rather delegating that task across far more… interested people (in the area of video-editing at least), of which there is no shortage, as long as the tools and the specific community exists. Clearly, that kind of methodology requires a lax attitude about copyright.

To recap, so that it doesn’t seem like I’m entirely floating in thoughts, an Always-On Device would need:

A willing human recorder
A recording device designed for capturing experiences
A way to process that information into “usable bits”
A favourable legal environment
And a willing consumer

I’ll leave the question of “do we even want it?” for smarter people than me to decide. In the mean time, I will continue my search for point 2 and 3 on that list (more on this blog, if successful).

Until after Paris,
Vincent

Random thoughts on: Men's vs. Women's fashion statements, 'Virtual' Offices, and (corporate) Centres of Knowledge

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:24:30 +0000

We’ll be migrating Tech IT Easy from wordpress.com to a self-hosted solution these coming days, so I won’t be posting much, I don’t think. In the mean time, here are a few things flying through my head.

Men can’t get away with this !!

Jason Kottke pointed me towards an anti-fashion-industry trend lead by some women: the wearing-one-dress-slightly-altered-day-in-day-out-trend. Somewhat jealous, because it seems so efficient (and thus manly), but I don’t think men can get away with doing something like that, do you? Then again, men also don’t look quite as attractive…

Factors influencing the ‘virtual office’

I’ve heard several stories of entrepreneurs setting up their companies that they can operate it independently from a location, and if you’ve read some of my posts on “designing companies” and mobility, you know that I feel very strongly about doing something similar. In VAT-law, there’s the rule that you can’t locate your VAT-payments to a VAT-friendly country if you’re doing significant business in the VAT-unfriendly country. I’m guessing it’s quite similar with virtual offices. If your business activities tie you to a particular location, than that is a ‘tax’ that you have to pay.

Since there are plenty of smart tax-lawyers around who know their way around the loop-holes, perhaps it’s time for some ‘expert-consultants’ that help entrepreneurs become location-free?? The 4-hour workweek guy comes to mind.

On building (corporate) Knowledge Centres

I grew up in a library, one which my father built, so I may have a different perspective from people growing up in the more digital, paper-free world. But, to me, libraries are magical and comforting. One of the first things I did, moving to Luxembourg, was to move many of my books here (with more on the way) and asking my boss whether we can set up a library.

More broadly, a library to me stands for building and storing knowledge, whether for individuals or groups, and is a source of creativity, innovation, and also trust. Large consultancies are most famous for doing such things and if you saw the virtual universities some of them have train their staff, you’d be amazed.

No great point to this story, except that I hope that as an entrepreneur/manager/CEO you’ll also consider how to improve the lives of your employees sometimes, as well as consider that your company, which is essentially a living organism, will only benefit from having more knowledge inside of it.

On that philosophical note, I.. am.. out.

Vincent

Unlike

A very old economy business to new economy business action plan

Vincent van Wylick — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:15:58 +0000

Background: This is an advice that I am giving to someone, who is a traditional artist. She paints and tries to sell her paintings. By writing this down for you, the public, I don’t think I am revealing critical information, in that it is a common sense approach to building a sustainable business. It does not address two critical factors: the intellectual property (which is the art) and the marketing (which comes in part from quality and in other part from choosing the right sales channels).

Here is the situation: I like (her) paintings, but they are very work-intensive. Each painting can take anything from 2 weeks or more to produce and the end-price reflects this as well. In today’s economy, in any economy, this means that there is a segment of the population that will not be able to afford it it. Museums, who display art worth millions, have overcome this problem quite elegantly, by selling posters and postcards of these art-pieces. Countless other art-industries are based on turning a singular piece of art into mass-produced widgets. Similarly, I think it is much more efficient, for more reasons than the work alone, to do something similar for the independent painter. Again, I don’t think this is a trade-secret or anything; the quality of the art and the sales channels are most critical aspects.

In any business, there are two types of cost. These are fixed and variable. Fixed costs are often significant costs and difficult to remove. A workplace is a fixed cost, so is some of the material used to produce a painting. Variable costs are smaller, often more flexible costs, incurred regularly. Paint would be such a cost and you can affect the cost of producing a painting by using different paint. It’s not quite as easy to change the workshop you work in from painting to painting.

Following is the action-plan:

Find out what the total fixed and variable costs are for producing a painting and x amount of reproductions (e.g. 100 posters). In other words, list all the costs in a nice Excel-sheet or piece of paper and add them up.
Divide the total costs by the number of posters you want to sell. Those are the costs per product.
Decide how much you want to charge per poster. If you or the market decides that this price is below your cost, then there is something wrong with your formula and you are making a loss. If, on the other hand, your price is above your costs, you are doing well.
Now… find out how you plan to sell the amount of posters you decided on…

Some … pause in that last point because how can a business man or woman really know that these are the sales they will make? My advice is therefore to keep costs as minimal as possible at the start, focussing a lot on developing the actual sales process.

That’s it really! And it reflects how hard it really is to go from having an idea (and preferably also the skill) to a profitable business. From a right-brained creative approach, you have to do some left-brained accounting, and from a product-focussed, perhaps introversive approach, you now have to become outgoing, market-focussed, and sell. Not easy!

As with all big projects, from writing a thesis to climbing a mountain, it’s my opinion and what I have learned so far, that it is always better to break it down into simple steps, see the relationships between different processes, and understand how the whole project is put together.

I always welcome discussion, so if there is an error in my logic somewhere, please, please contribute through a comment!
Vincent

Unlike

The "captain's chair" phenomenon

Vincent van Wylick — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:42:59 +0000

The “Captain’s Chair” is what I call the chair of the entrepreneur which always has to be filled and which sits prominently in the middle of the office and all the business being conducted within. It comes out of the simple evolution from running a 1-man show, and then hiring on more people to do the work. It also has a lot to do with how sensitive the service is that is being released, and when customers expect services to be at the same level of professionalism that the initial founder has always displayed, it is understandably hard to let go.

It is also a trap that is being written about in plenty of business “self-help” books and is, in my opinion, best solved through designing processes to be as failure-free and as simple as possible. In other words, like the preparation of a McDonalds hamburger, which is a scientifically designed factory process.

One public example of the captain’s chair phenomenon is Micheal Arrington’s Techcrunch, which has, until recently, always been run out of his own apartment, and even today he is (I believe) the no. 1 editor and certainly the no. 1 PR guy. In no other media publication of that size (in terms of readership numbers, not company size) does the founder take such a prominent and involved position and, physically and mentally, I’m sure, it is taking its toll on Arrington. Similarly, I know several small companies, where this is a problem, with similar consequences on the founder.

This is not to say that doing the opposite is necessarily a good thing. As perhaps the case of Starbucks showed, which recently had to ask its original founder, Howard Schultz, to return to the captain’s chair, sometimes an organisation can forget the original values it was based on and do some silly things. In Schultz’s case, I have actually always blamed its problems on his book, which was essentially a franchise manual for anyone who wanted to set up a coffee-shop, and which might have also inspired McDonalds to basically become an affordable Starbucks alternative for the masses. A story for another day, but I think the current Starbucks model is doomed and Schultz will have to redesign the company’s business model from scratch.

There is certainly a careful balance that needs to be maintained when designing a company to both expand a business’s reach, without losing the heart of the business. Together with the simple process of “preparing a burger,” you need to instil the values that also lead to the “smile” that accompanies the sale of the burger and leads to a satisfied customer (and his return-visit).

Designing companies must thus, in my opinion, be a rich process, involving the founder(s)’s, the employees’, and customers’ input, finally leading from the single business to the chain of businesses serving all customers equally or superiorly well.

Vincent

Unlike

My theory of the firm

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:51:41 +0000

Inspired by the Grasshopper podcast on Venture Voice.

Har har,

Vincent

Unlike

How much non-profit stuff do you do?

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:45:07 +0000

This is not a show-off post, more a question about making the transition from student-hood & freelancer to professional. Working at a financial trust, whose very name suggests that we should be trustworthy people, I like to think that being nice and creating things that people love, is also good for business.

At the same time, a business is about turn-over and offering good value for money, and I sometimes feel that blogging and other stuff can distract from these commercial activities.

How do you feel about it in your job?

Vincent

Unlike

"The knowledge-creating company" — does it work in practice?

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 29 May 2009 10:27:48 +0000

I think I must be a geek because I like creating order (that doesn’t automatically mean that I’m a very orderly person, rather the opposite).

One of my first priorities in my new position was to orientate myself in the “order” of things, or rather to have a good view on what the process from customer generation to customer acquisition is (my interpretation of the lifeblood of every company).

So my questions, very formal, covered following three elements:

what is the profile of a customer most valuable to our company?
what are the USPs of our company for these customers?
what is the process of converting potential customers into actual customers?

The answer was that there is no simple answer to the question, except that over time I would learn to understand what was possible or not.

It kind of follows the paradigm that the famous Harvard Business Review article called “The Knowledge-Creating Company” introduces, where experts possess a lot of tacit knowledge, which they use to do their job (Incidentally, the HBR-article is authored by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, who are the original protagonists of the Scrum approach).

In other words, over time, by accumulating experience, I would be able to develop a type of instinct regarding stuff like what a good customer is, what optimal solution is for him, and how the internal process works of customer conversion.

But the article takes it further (and is also my inspiration) in that from tacit or implicit you move to explicit knowledge, meaning that processes are documented and standardised. A kind of spiral forms, indicated in the picture below. This also reminds of Gerber’s franchise methodology in the E-Myth Revisited.

The question is what internal and environmental conditions have to exist for this spiral to function properly, and whether it can be applied universally to all company processes. I do not think so and would ague that in environments that are constantly changing, like global finance or when starting a company, making things too explicit undermines the speed-advantage that the tacit approach brings.

A little academic perhaps (you know me… ), but what do you think? What company processes typically need to be made explicit, and which are not served by this?

Vincent

Unlike

What I dislike about business plans [addendum]

Vincent van Wylick — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:05:21 +0000

First, what I love about business plans. I contains four elements very close to my heart: Writing, talking to people, innovation, and entrepreneurship. That is not to say that writing business plans is a fun activity that should be taken lightly. The crux of writing a business plan is that it needs to be executed upon. And that is where the complication arises.

One of my last freelance projects was amazing fun and in two ways very rewarding. Financially, because the investment that followed it, far exceeded the more than generous fee I was paid. Creatively, because my involvement lead to a lot of focus product- and strategy-wise, and we developed what I thought was a clear timeline as to the execution of the plan in different phases of product and market development.

But, as mentioned, writing a plan does not mean that it reflects the reality. I was reminded of this again, listening to a venture hacks podcast on “pitching hacks” (you can watch and listen to the presentation here). Business plans are worth squat, because a. there’s a lot of them, and b. the proportion that is executed upon is fairly small.

In theory, business-plans serve as a way to make the strategy of a young company explicit. Kind of like Gerber’s “Franchise manual” for startups in the E-Myth Revisited, it allows you to solidify what you do while you’re doing it. But, I don’t think it automatically leads to a (better or actual) business…

…

Those three dots is where I stopped writing some three weeks ago, and I have in the mean time developed my thoughts further on this. I think that the gist of good business planning is taking ownership of the project. And the single most important key-component of the business plan is the timeline section. And the single most important action as an entrepreneur is to already have at least 10-30% completed of that timeline.

In other words:

if you’re an entrepreneur you should write your own business plan: you cannot outsource this!

The most well-developed section of your plan should be your timeline: as conservative and realistic as possible!

The best way to illustrate the value of your plan (and timeline) is to already be following it: actions scream much louder than written words!

If those three components are in place, I think that the world of business planning and entrepreneurship would be a much better place.

End braindump…

Vincent

Addentum: The problem of multiple agendas! I should also add that another complication is that plans are written with a singular vision in mind, perhaps alternative scenarios are included, but it still very often reflects a singular approach to “doing things.” But… many companies are composed of multiple people, who may or may not have multiple agendas. I still think it can belong to taking ownership of the idea, in the sense that the plan is worked on together and perfected until everyone agrees with it. But more often than not, the business function is delegated to certain individuals, meaning that this isn’t the case.

Unlike

Keeping the job Fun by tracking your time

Vincent van Wylick — Mon, 25 May 2009 14:03:20 +0000

Working at a financial trust means that many companies that you meet make a bad first impression. Because they come in the shape of ca. 1-10 binders and unless you love handling paper, reading balance sheets and legal documents, and breathing dust, you just won’t like it much. Luckily, reading binders isn’t part of my job description, even though I do it because I want to understand how this business works from start to finish. But, to keep my sanity in check, I try to mix it up between a. doing the (boring) work, b. keeping the overview, and c. doing work that I love.

After writing my work-life balance post some weeks ago, I decided to do one thing from the start: I would keep track of all my professional activities in Excel. Another thing I did was to colour-code each activity and note down how much time I spend on it each day and week, in order to track patterns. I am now in week 7, meaning that I have some meaningful data about this.

While I’m not going to share this data with you because I think it’s entirely irrelevant to your life, I will share some lessons that I learned from my experience so far:

Tracking you time requires a certain kind of discipline, as well as a kind of heuristic thinking: a. you need to continuously do it; b. you don’t need to be entirely precise on whether you spend 15 min. more or less on something (I track each 15 min. in my sheet). P.S. Nothing inspires you to keep such a list as much as being paid by the hour (which is how I started with this habit).
Asking lot’s of questions is the single most useful thing to do if you want to improve your job-satisfaction: The last three weeks, I was busy analysing a number of companies through their documentation, in French. A complete Nightmare! However, spending just a few hours with someone that has been doing this for years, meant that I quickly learned what’s relevant and what isn’t.
A person is only really efficient a few hours per day: OK, I should already know this as a freelance consultant who charges by the hour, and you probably know this too. But seriously, track your time during one week and you’ll know this is absolutely true.
A person is more effective at doing the stuff he/she loves than the stuff he/she doesn’t: Again, kind of an obvious point, but I can see through my time-tracking that job-satisfaction goes down and procrastination goes up after just an hour or more spent on non-enjoyable activities. I, personally, hate admin work, but love anything involving creating or learning. Productivity adds more value to the company so try to find an alignment between the stuff that you love and projects for the company you work for. Outsource / delegate the stuff that you hate / dislike / makes you procrastinate more.
Expect a 30% return on investment on a todo-list: Meaning that for every 10 items you write down, you’ll probably manage 3 in the short-term. With a few exceptions, I generally find that those todo’s that don’t get handled are usually not that important anyway / sort themselves out automatically / have a longer due-date. P.S. I finish every day composing thoughts about what needs to be done the next day(s).
Pay attention to how you spend the rest of your time: Work isn’t life and life isn’t work. And how you spend you life will very much affect your work. Things to track include amount of sleep every day, exercise, diet, and learning. Regarding the latter, I keep track of the (study) books that I read, podcasts I listen to, and blog-posts I write. While diet, sleep, and exercise is relevant to productivity in the short-term (that day, that week, that month), learning affects the long-term. I think a good ratio is 10-20% of time that should be spent on the latter, of course mileage may vary.

That’s it for today, hope it added some value to your life and that it made you open an excel sheet to track your time. If you need a template for setting up your own schedule, drop a comment or send me a mail.

Vincent

Unlike

Why you should invest your time & money into space technolology

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:33:02 +0000

Depending on where you stand, this is going to a long boring blog post or an interesting one. While I didn’t write much about it, my last consulting project as a freelancer was to help get a startup into the European Space Agency Incubator (ESI)… successfully, I’m happy to say. I wanted to write a post about how interesting it is, I think, to invest your time and money into space technology businesses, particularly because it’s about spinning space tech off to applications into the real world, but realised that this interview with Bruno Naulais, ESI network manager, would probably do the trick.

I conducted this interview in the summer of 2006, as part of my thesis. It was previously published on my personal blog, but it [the whole blog] has since disappeared into MySQL “does not compute” hell. Here goes.

The Interview

VvW: What is the ESA Incubator all about?

BN: It is actually called ESI, the European Space Incubator. It is part of a network, called ESINET, and consists of 35 incubators, spread across most of ESA member-states and some Eastern European countries (eg Ukraine, Bulgaria).

The ESI business-model, in a large part conceived through Niels Eldering’s thesis [a fellow Rotterdam School of Management graduate] and BN’s Business Plan, could be described as consisting of three dimensions. These are the start-ups, the stakeholders, and the supporting services.

1st Dimension: The start-up

The start-up is seen as a place where fertile (space) technology meets an individual or a team of people. They in turn go through an incubation process (at the ESI) and finally come out as a company to do business.

2nd Dimension: Stakeholders

This doesn’t apply to all incubators in the network, but in the Netherlands, the two main stakeholders are the ESA and the Dutch ministry of economic affairs (EZ). Both naturally want to promote employment, economic growth, and entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. Furthermore, ESA has the objective to improve the image of space in the eyes of the general public, of investors, and of businesses.

The latter is of particular importance, as space is still perceived as expensive, dominated by large players, and generally irrelevant to the lives of Earth’s citizens. What the incubator aims to do is to show to it’s stakeholders and to the general public, that space-technologies and space-systems can be benefited from in everyday life.

3rd Dimension: Support

This happens both through 3rd parties, something called Key Innovation Business Services (KIBS) and in-house. Through this, the aim is to prepare the start-up for doing business in the real world, and to receive further investment. The latter of course depends on the ambitions of the founder. Some are pretty limited in their targets. They only want to set up in their country, or perhaps the Benelux. Others want to go cross-continental or even global.

VvW: Exploring the “Support”-angle further, how does the ESI assist it’s starters in finding private financing?

BN: First, it is necessary to assess the type of start-up. Depending on the type of product/service and the market, an advice is given as to what the growth-strategy should be. This doesn’t always need to be angel or venture financing. In many cases, the advice is to consider a strategic partnership. In this case, there’s a larger company already active in the market/industry that the start-up is targeting, and has an interest in taking a stake in the company, with the option to acquire it at a later stage. This requires there to be a kind of fit between the partners. So far, the ESI has had two start-ups taking that option.

Then there is also the option for a joint venture, an equal partnership between two starters in ESINET, or a starter and an existing company. One ESI start-up has done that.

For private financing, like a business angel or venture capitalist, start-ups usually still have a way to go. Usually, they first attract financing from the 3 F’s: Friends, Fools, and Family. This can happen before or during the incubation-phase. More experienced investors usually require the company and idea to be more mature. With a proof of concept, you can attract a business angel. When you are ready to sell a commercial product, you can approach venture capitalists. There are some exceptions to this of course, but this is the way it usually works.

The aim is to ultimately have a core group of business angels that are allied with the incubator. To a degree, this is already the case with venture capitalists, of which a group is being made aware of the inner proceedings of the incubator-companies. The idea is that the start-up does not need to educate these people on space or their idea, the incubator is already doing that for them. And the incubator will basically give residing start-ups feedback on their stage of development and, depending on that, the availability of pots of business angel- or venture capital.

VvW: What are the advantages of a start-up approaching investors through the incubator, rather than going at it alone?

BN: To start, a venture capitalist can receive thousands of business-plans during a year. The aim is that ESI-plans land on top of that pile. This is because the ESI, and the ESA, provides a quality label to its’ residing startups, which manifests itself in four ways.

For one, there’s the quality of the work done at the ESA, their procedures and methodologies. The incubator tries to pass those on to the start-ups.

Second, there are the favourable statistics for technostarters residing in incubators. A survey from 2004 [which I still have to read] reports that ca. 87 % of start-ups in the incubation process are still alive after three years. For a standalone technostarter, this figure is much lower, between 20-30 %.

Third, there are the networking-aspects of the ESI. Business incubation does not work well as a standalone function, it has to be part of a network. In the case of the ESA, it is present in 17 countries, as well as active in non-member states, such as the US and Russia. This can be useful as a gateway for the start-up to expand or move to another country. It’s also good for cross-fertilisation—between different ESI-start-ups and -graduates, suppliers and customers, investors, and other companies. Through the ESINET-network, it is also easier to conduct international market-studies.

Last, but not least, there is the access to the ESA technology and resources (experts, labs, test centre, software tools, facilities, etc.).

VvW: Are there examples of venture capitalists investing in any of the ESI startups?

BN: Sure, there’s ThruVision, which received a substantial amount in two rounds of investment [note: I know the exact sum, but am not sure if I can make this public knowledge: I think it's public since it is mentioned on their web site; perhaps you should have a look (http://www.thruvision.com)]. This company has now graduated, i.e. no longer resides within the ESI.

VvW: From your experience with venture capitalists, how do they feel about the companies that are still in the incubation-/seed-stage?

BN: As was mentioned, they prefer more mature ideas to work with. The key-phrase here is “work with.” Venture capital really means two things, investment + support. Along with the investment, the venture capitalist wants to coach, put people in the right place—on the board, as a CEO. For the latter, most of the start-ups in the ESI-program are founded by someone with an engineering-background. A founder is typically someone that understands the technology and how to build a service or product on top of it.

A venture capitalist, on the other hand, looks at the team, the product/service, the market. He or she will look for people that can run the course, manage the growth. The preference then usually falls to someone with a track-record, who has experience doing that. In the case of ThruVision, the founder is now the technical director, and the CEO is someone with an impressive business-cv.

Another statistic from the European Venture Capital Association (EVCA): In something like 95 % of start-ups invested in by venture capitalists, the founder has been replaced as CEO.

VvW: Do venture capitalists also support the incubator itself in some ways?

BN: Not hands-on, no. They do provide access to a network of companies, investors, and people to work with, which wasn’t there before. There will be more, once the ESINET-fund is started.

VvW: What is the ESInet fund?

BN: First a little background. There is obviously a gap between early stage and growth. This was known from the start of the incubator. This is especially so when you talk about space. Investors look at the space-sector with skeptical eyes. They see it as a market for large players like Alcatel and Astrium. They see it as a niche-market. And when you think about satcom, there’s a lot of international competition from the terrestrial systems. The satcom has already lead to a few big-name and big-investment projects to go bankrupt, example of this are Iridium and GlobalStar.

Furthermore there’s a misunderstanding about what the utilization of space-technologies and -systems really means. Utilization means you are using something that already exits. You only need to adapt it to a non-space sector. This means testing, modification, and validation, something that doesn’t need to take years, rather months. Space-systems refer to satellite-technology, for which you don’t need to build the satellite, you need to be able to receive a signal and use it. For space-technologies, we are talking about transferring and adapting applications and materials used and developed for space to non-space sectors.

First investors need to get this picture. But even if a few of them understand, that doesn’t mean they have the needed expertise. Usually venture capitalists are experienced in certain areas like biotech, meditech, telecoms, etc. Space-related technology does not have that many corresponding VC-experts. So the thought was, if investors will be so hard to find, why not start our own fund?

And this is where the ESINET-fund comes from. Its fund managers don’t need to be convinced on potential business development from space systems and technologies (much) and there is funding for early stage ideas. ESA was convinced to sponsor the fund with 5 million Euros and recently selected a management company from 12 applicants to manage the fund and raise more. The target-size of the fund is 40-50 million Euros in total, to be completed by mid-2006. The ESI is responsible for the deal-flow. This will mostly come from ESI-startups, though if those do not fulfill the needed requirements, investment van occur into other ESA-“ventures.”

The fund-management company will act much like a venture capitalist as far as investing is concerned. It will be present during selection of start-ups and have a supporting role in the development of invested-in companies. And it will take shares in the companies it invests in.

VvW: What do you think the effect will be on other investors, to have this fund running?

BN: It’s always a nicer picture to have a fund tied to an incubator. Having a fund will hopefully attract other investors. Many venture capitalists like to invest in syndicated deals, meaning a group of investors spreading the risks between them. In investments, there’s also usually a leader and followers. It is hoped that the fund can fulfill a leading role in the process.

For business angels and the three F’s, there will always be space. For one, they invest much smaller sums, and second they provide the added value that they bring as people. Like many informal investors, business angels are often interested in a hands-on approach, to be involved in their start-ups, which will benefit entrepreneurs greatly.

VvW: What is the investment climate like in the Netherlands, compared to other European countries?

BN: The Netherlands is not so great for finding private capital, except for subsidies. Both the UK and Germany rank highly for private capital. France and Italy have good governmental support.

VvW: OK, back to your start-ups, what criteria do they need to fulfill to become part of the incubator?

BN: During the course of the incubation-phase, they are asked to prepare financial projections, including parameters like Net Present Value (NPV), Return on Investment (ROI), and other ratios. Templates are provided, if needed, and access to third parties that can help. Over the course of the incubation-phase, the incubator-staff tries to follow the evolution of the NPV. In the future, it is hoped that NPV will be calculated at the application-stage, before the start-up becomes part of the incubator. If that’s possible, of course.

Other than that, the number 1 criteria is the market. If they are not able to define it, they will not be accepted. Similarly, a market-study must be prepared.

VvW: How does the ESI feel about teams starting?

BN: Very supportive. On the whole there are both types, entrepreneurs starting solo and finding partners along the way. Or entrepreneurs that start in a team. Generally the incubator encourages partnerships between technologists and business-people. Investors invest in a team after all. The incubator also has good ties with MBA-programs to find people for start-ups.

VvW: Is the staff able to deal with all the demands of the incubator?

BN: The staff has broad knowledge about issues like legal and intellectual property matters. There are specialists that advise on strategy, market, technology, etc. But it is impossible to know everything in depth. For that the start-up can approach third-party specialists, of which they can get the contacts via the incubator.

VvW: Do you compete with other incubators?

BN: Not at all. In fact, collaboration is encouraged and projects are sent to others as well. Geography is also very important to entrepreneurs, they have a life, etc., so it’s not that feasible to draw them away from a more logical location-choice.

Note: If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to post a comment or mail me. If you are interested in applying to the incubation programme at the ESA also, check out this page and also don’t hesitate to ask me about my experiences of working with two tech-startups in the programme.

Vincent

Unlike

Will cars eventually cost nothing?

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:36:29 +0000

Just read the Face Value in the Economist from a few weeks ago, on Shai Agassi, an Israeli entrepreneur and former SAP employee, who is developing an ‘electric infrastructure for cars’ business, called Better Place. The idea is that there will be hotspots across a region and for cars to be subsidised by the subscription that you buy.

After the financial marble that the Indian company Tata Motors has produced, a car that costs between $2,200 and $3,800, and having seen several other concept cars in that price-range from companies like Volkswagen, is it possible that we will approach a time where cars will essentially be free?

I’m more sceptical, I think it’s a sign of the times, a recession + oil-prices and availability + the rise of emerging economies + more abstractly, that whole global warming thing, and the resulting desperation, which is causing businesses to come up with alternative business models around personal transportation.

And if given a choice, I would prefer for a system like Vel’oh!, here in Luxembourg, where you simply borrow a bike and bring it back at a pre-determined parking-zone after you’re finished with it. That said, I do hear that they get stolen a lot over there in France…

Thoughts?
Vincent

Unlike