This is a little different from my usual posts about entrepreneurship, but given the strong positive correlation between education levels and being a successful entrepreneur in technology, I figured it’s worth the digression.
I am currently reading Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” and just finished reading the chapter on why Asians are better at math. I was initially very excited to read it but upon further reflection am wondering if his theory is really true. Gladwell attributes the success of Asians in math to three major factors:
(1) He draws a parallel between the work ethic instilled by working long hours in rice fields which fostered a culture of hard work and the work ethic in today’s generation of Asians who continue to be similarly hard working.
(2) Apparently, the human mind can remember and process 2 seconds worth of numerical data points. Unlike English, Asian languages use monosyllables to describe numbers. Therefore, where the person who knows the numbers in English can typically remember 4 digits, the average Cantonese speaker can remember 10 digits.
(3) The numbering in Asian languages is logical and intuitive compared to English. For instance, in English we count eleven, twelve etc. not the logical one-teen, two-teen, three-teen etc. Whereas in Asian languages (including my own mother tongue of Tamizh), it is counted off as ten and one, ten and two, ten and three etc. Similarly, in Chinese, the fractions are literally written out as one part of four, three parts of four etc making the concept intuitively easier to grasp.
Gladwell argues that the logical numbering makes it a lot easier for young children to grasp fundamental concepts like addition where they can skip the step of translating say “eleven” into a number before they can add it, learn fractions easily because of how they are framed in their mother tongue. This in turn means they enjoy math more, do their homework with less resistance and therefore begin a virtuous cycle.
Sounds good in theory, but...
(1) I count in English. I understand numbers up to 1000 fluently in 3 different languages but always translate any other language to English in my head before I can perform any mathematical operations. For the purposes of the American census, I am Asian and I suppose as an engineer who started learning calculus in ninth grade and can do math in her head, I live up to the Asians-are-good-at-math stereotype. Several of my friends of my generation and background fit this same mold, so I am not trying to draw a generalized conclusion based upon a data set of one nor am I exceptional in any way.
(2) I know several people whose families are of Jewish origin, who have worked incredibly hard over many generations. Hard work is no stranger to their cultural fabric or the present generation, who recognize that what they enjoy today would not have been possible without the hard work of their ancestors. It seems a stretch to say that only the rice farmers of Asia know the true meaning of hard work and have therefore integrated it into their culture and passed it down to subsequent generations.
So:
If I can do the Math in English in my head just as fast as any other Asian who computes in his mother tongue, if there are other cultures that have worked equally hard to succeed and have hard work ingrained in their cultural fabric, I submit that it’s a matter of sufficient practice and hard work, which is not the exclusive domain of any one culture. To generalize it in that manner might be a disservice to the individual. This is where stereotypes come from and they’re not always a convenient thing to live up to.
What is your opinion on Gladwell’s theory?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Back from a sabbatical!
I have been gone from my blog for nearly 3 months and during that time, much water has flown under the bridge. I earned my third degree and walked in one more commencement ceremony, travelled to 5 countries, 8 states and made some life decisions. Not bad for 3 months...
During the time, I have been blessed with the opportunity to see entrepreneurs in different walks of life, and expanded my vision of entrepreneurship considerably. I also came to the conclusion that my cup of tea is definitely innovation + technology and one without the other is not quite as exciting. So here are some random thoughts:
- Warning bells should sound when you’re initially recruited by people other than founders for early stage start-ups. They should sound even louder when only 1 of the founders speaks with you... either they’re not quite as interested in you as you think, or it’s an indication of internal challenges the company is working through.
- Acquisition of a start-up by a larger company inevitably results in indigestion. The question is how bad is the indigestion. It’s almost never a good idea to work for a recently acquired start-up within a big company. A lesson learned after many hours wasted doing the back-and-forth dance the past couple of months.
- Companies innovate yes, but make sure the kind of innovation is the kind you’re comfortable with! I have come across companies that innovate to lower cost (buying older machines and retooling them, innovating manufacturing techniques etc) and others that innovate and create bleeding edge products that will help them attract new customers and gain market share. I find I prefer the latter.
- Sometimes, life makes you choose between the proverbial devil and the deep sea. I came across this excellent article on how to make good decisions - some I had already learned through experience, others I was grateful to get a heads-up about. I am still puzzled though how one can apply foresight to distinguish between a big decision and a small decision. Sometimes, the things I have thought of as minor decisions have had huge implications and sometimes even changed my perception, and others that I spent hours mulling over ended up being moot points in the journey of life.
What are your thoughts on the decision making process and what lessons have you learned?
During the time, I have been blessed with the opportunity to see entrepreneurs in different walks of life, and expanded my vision of entrepreneurship considerably. I also came to the conclusion that my cup of tea is definitely innovation + technology and one without the other is not quite as exciting. So here are some random thoughts:
- Warning bells should sound when you’re initially recruited by people other than founders for early stage start-ups. They should sound even louder when only 1 of the founders speaks with you... either they’re not quite as interested in you as you think, or it’s an indication of internal challenges the company is working through.
- Acquisition of a start-up by a larger company inevitably results in indigestion. The question is how bad is the indigestion. It’s almost never a good idea to work for a recently acquired start-up within a big company. A lesson learned after many hours wasted doing the back-and-forth dance the past couple of months.
- Companies innovate yes, but make sure the kind of innovation is the kind you’re comfortable with! I have come across companies that innovate to lower cost (buying older machines and retooling them, innovating manufacturing techniques etc) and others that innovate and create bleeding edge products that will help them attract new customers and gain market share. I find I prefer the latter.
- Sometimes, life makes you choose between the proverbial devil and the deep sea. I came across this excellent article on how to make good decisions - some I had already learned through experience, others I was grateful to get a heads-up about. I am still puzzled though how one can apply foresight to distinguish between a big decision and a small decision. Sometimes, the things I have thought of as minor decisions have had huge implications and sometimes even changed my perception, and others that I spent hours mulling over ended up being moot points in the journey of life.
What are your thoughts on the decision making process and what lessons have you learned?
Monday, March 8, 2010
Desh Deshpande at MIT
Desh Deshpande is speaking to the Founder’s Journey class at MIT and I am blogging live. He is being interviewed by Prof. Tom Magnanti who was Dean of Engineering at MIT until 2007. He is one of 14 faculty members to carry the title "Institute Professor", the highest honor that MIT can offer. It was under Prof. Magnanti’s leadership as Dean that Desh Despande was inspired to create MIT's Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation. Many people, after being named Institute Professor and after retiring as Dean, would take a break and rest. Not Tom Magnanti. He has just taken on the task of creating a new university in Singapore, described in this press release:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/10/professor-thomas-magnanti-name.php.
With two of the most respected people at MIT on the stage before me, we are in for an incredible evening densely packed with pearls of wisdom.
The conversation kicked off with “when do you know you should persevere, and when to give up?”. The class came up with lots of interesting suggestions, including “if it’s VC money, keep on spending, if it’s personal debt, quit!” :D
Desh’s advice on this topic was as follows:
- Distinguish between what you can control and what you cannot control
- Trust your gut
- Set milestones and timelines: when you don’t meet a milestone or the expected results aren’t there, read the writing on the wall and move on.
On the topic of tensions between entrepreneurs and VCs, Desh made the following points:
- It’s not possible to achieve a big vision purely through bootstrapping. VC money is necessary.
- If the entrepreneur hits every milestone as promised, VCs will respect the entrepreneur both for their ability to set realistic milestones as well as their ability to execute.
On how he got into entrepreneurship after a PhD:
Met Peter Brackett who was working on a start-up. Joined him at his invitation. The start-up was acquired by Motorola soon after. The business eventually grew to 100s of millions of dollars. If he could do this for Motorola, why not independently? Thus the seed of entrepreneurship was sowed.
Tom Magnanti is doing a fantastic job of guiding the conversation, and seems to be a natural at this. He’s asking all the questions that are on the top of the audience’s minds as we hear Desh speak.
On the topic of luck in entrepreneurial success:
- Analogy of kids playing soccer. The kids have fun kicking the ball around. Parents get upset because the kids are not kicking the ball a certain way. Entrepreneurship is like that. When you are having fun doing what you do and are passionate about it, you will play to have fun. How many goals you shoot is a bit dependent on luck. Chances of having a huge exit as an entrepreneur is like shooting a goal. If you are not playing for the fun of it, you are going to be very unhappy like the parents who are onlookers.
How to identify big ideas:
- Big ideas are the usually the result of a shift in the market. They are very simple ideas in hind sight.
- Pick a small simple idea that’s easy to bootstrap. The bootstrapping allows for much easier course correction. Once you build credibility by tackling the simple problems successfully, you will be better prepared to tackle the big problems.
On how to build the ideal team:
- Once you get a few good people, it snowballs
- Develop an eye for good people; learn to see each individual’s strengths
- Best people to hire are the people who have the potential but haven’t achieved the peak yet
- When you hire people, you never know whether they are going to work out or not. If you made a mistake, fire them quickly.
If you make a mistake, admitting to a mistake and correcting it as a very important trait.
Qualities of an entrepreneur:
- Naive
- Wildly optimistic
- Don’t get hung up on why the world is fair/unfair.
- The mentality that “I am giving up so much to play this game” - the sacrificing mentality, instead of “I love playing this game!” is fatal. An entrepreneur should do it for the opportunity and fun of doing it, instead of getting hung up on the outcome.
Parting advice:
Entrepreneurship is about taking the leap to jump in and solve a problem. Don’t get hung up on whether you’re rewarded for it or not. Judge the quality of an opportunity by assessing the ability to make a difference. Make a bigger difference in whatever you do. You will be the CEO of your life, your family, your career - cultivating this attitude will make a difference.
Prof. Magnanti just wrapped up the conversation by asking the audience to call out the key lessons they took away from the conversation. It’s clear that the audience recognizes the privilege they have been offered, and between the 75 odd people in the room, the lessons get cemented into memory and is capped off by thundering applause.
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/10/professor-thomas-magnanti-name.php.
With two of the most respected people at MIT on the stage before me, we are in for an incredible evening densely packed with pearls of wisdom.
The conversation kicked off with “when do you know you should persevere, and when to give up?”. The class came up with lots of interesting suggestions, including “if it’s VC money, keep on spending, if it’s personal debt, quit!” :D
Desh’s advice on this topic was as follows:
- Distinguish between what you can control and what you cannot control
- Trust your gut
- Set milestones and timelines: when you don’t meet a milestone or the expected results aren’t there, read the writing on the wall and move on.
On the topic of tensions between entrepreneurs and VCs, Desh made the following points:
- It’s not possible to achieve a big vision purely through bootstrapping. VC money is necessary.
- If the entrepreneur hits every milestone as promised, VCs will respect the entrepreneur both for their ability to set realistic milestones as well as their ability to execute.
On how he got into entrepreneurship after a PhD:
Met Peter Brackett who was working on a start-up. Joined him at his invitation. The start-up was acquired by Motorola soon after. The business eventually grew to 100s of millions of dollars. If he could do this for Motorola, why not independently? Thus the seed of entrepreneurship was sowed.
Tom Magnanti is doing a fantastic job of guiding the conversation, and seems to be a natural at this. He’s asking all the questions that are on the top of the audience’s minds as we hear Desh speak.
On the topic of luck in entrepreneurial success:
- Analogy of kids playing soccer. The kids have fun kicking the ball around. Parents get upset because the kids are not kicking the ball a certain way. Entrepreneurship is like that. When you are having fun doing what you do and are passionate about it, you will play to have fun. How many goals you shoot is a bit dependent on luck. Chances of having a huge exit as an entrepreneur is like shooting a goal. If you are not playing for the fun of it, you are going to be very unhappy like the parents who are onlookers.
How to identify big ideas:
- Big ideas are the usually the result of a shift in the market. They are very simple ideas in hind sight.
- Pick a small simple idea that’s easy to bootstrap. The bootstrapping allows for much easier course correction. Once you build credibility by tackling the simple problems successfully, you will be better prepared to tackle the big problems.
On how to build the ideal team:
- Once you get a few good people, it snowballs
- Develop an eye for good people; learn to see each individual’s strengths
- Best people to hire are the people who have the potential but haven’t achieved the peak yet
- When you hire people, you never know whether they are going to work out or not. If you made a mistake, fire them quickly.
If you make a mistake, admitting to a mistake and correcting it as a very important trait.
Qualities of an entrepreneur:
- Naive
- Wildly optimistic
- Don’t get hung up on why the world is fair/unfair.
- The mentality that “I am giving up so much to play this game” - the sacrificing mentality, instead of “I love playing this game!” is fatal. An entrepreneur should do it for the opportunity and fun of doing it, instead of getting hung up on the outcome.
Parting advice:
Entrepreneurship is about taking the leap to jump in and solve a problem. Don’t get hung up on whether you’re rewarded for it or not. Judge the quality of an opportunity by assessing the ability to make a difference. Make a bigger difference in whatever you do. You will be the CEO of your life, your family, your career - cultivating this attitude will make a difference.
Prof. Magnanti just wrapped up the conversation by asking the audience to call out the key lessons they took away from the conversation. It’s clear that the audience recognizes the privilege they have been offered, and between the 75 odd people in the room, the lessons get cemented into memory and is capped off by thundering applause.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Lessons in negotiation Part 1
This semester, I am taking a class called "Power and Negotiation" at MIT. Last class was a very interesting one and I thought I would summarize the lessons learned. First, the acronyms and basic definitions:
RP = Reserve Price. The minimum price one's willing to pay to achieve desired outcome. For example, my reserve price for selling my used text book will be based upon the value of the book on half.com. Since half.com is my other option if the current negotiation does not come through, it is also my "Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement" or BATNA. Therefore, by definition, BATNA = RP. I know, complex math there.
AP = Aspiration Price. This is the price that I would like for my textbook if my negotiations are successful. For instance, if a new American edition of the textbook costs $200, half.com has an international edition for sale at $50, my aspiration price for my book maybe $100.
With the definitions out of the way, these were my takeaways from the class for successful negotiations:
1. If the value of the deal is clear to both parties, be the first person to make an offer. In my example of textbooks, the buyer had access to the same market price information I did. In this case, it's to my advantage to name the asking price.
2. If the value is unclear, allow the other party to name the price. For instance, if buying an antique car which can't be priced easily, have the other party name a price first.
I am not completely clear on the rationale behind this advice, and is something I am hoping will become clear in future classes.
3. When going into a negotiation, do your homework and know your RP and AP going in.
4. Don't let yourself be anchored to a price named by the counter-party or by your own BATNA.
5. Don't let your reservation price determine the aspiration price or your negotiation strategy. The aspiration price should strictly be determined by market research only.
6. Don't fall into the "happiness trap". People who get anchored by their RP are happier because they set low thresholds and allow this to determine the success of their negotiations. Don't fall into the trap!
RP = Reserve Price. The minimum price one's willing to pay to achieve desired outcome. For example, my reserve price for selling my used text book will be based upon the value of the book on half.com. Since half.com is my other option if the current negotiation does not come through, it is also my "Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement" or BATNA. Therefore, by definition, BATNA = RP. I know, complex math there.
AP = Aspiration Price. This is the price that I would like for my textbook if my negotiations are successful. For instance, if a new American edition of the textbook costs $200, half.com has an international edition for sale at $50, my aspiration price for my book maybe $100.
With the definitions out of the way, these were my takeaways from the class for successful negotiations:
1. If the value of the deal is clear to both parties, be the first person to make an offer. In my example of textbooks, the buyer had access to the same market price information I did. In this case, it's to my advantage to name the asking price.
2. If the value is unclear, allow the other party to name the price. For instance, if buying an antique car which can't be priced easily, have the other party name a price first.
I am not completely clear on the rationale behind this advice, and is something I am hoping will become clear in future classes.
3. When going into a negotiation, do your homework and know your RP and AP going in.
4. Don't let yourself be anchored to a price named by the counter-party or by your own BATNA.
5. Don't let your reservation price determine the aspiration price or your negotiation strategy. The aspiration price should strictly be determined by market research only.
6. Don't fall into the "happiness trap". People who get anchored by their RP are happier because they set low thresholds and allow this to determine the success of their negotiations. Don't fall into the trap!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Dearth of women entrepreneurs in Technology
Vivek Wadhwa authored an excellent article in Business Week today titled "Addressing the dearth of female entrepreneurs"
While I do agree that one explanation for the phenomenon is that it's a supply issue, I am not convinced that it's the sole explanation. As an engineer, an entrepreneur and a woman, this is a topic very close to my heart and therefore also happens to be the topic of my thesis. I am working on collecting data about how many technology companies with female founders or CEO/CTO/COOs were funded in the last 4 years, and how that number compares to the number of companies which were founded by male entrepreneurs.
I am also speaking with a number of VCs who have been pitched by both men and women and taking notes about their observations. Some of what I heard took me by surprise. For instance, some women who pitch a VC do not get funded because they come across as being over-confident and not genuine! I was under the impression that many women suffered from the opposite - not as assertive or outspoken, and erring on the side of caution! I am not sure if this is a function of the fact that women who do found tech. start-ups have a different mindset and self-select into entrepreneurship, or if there's an observer bias, or if there is a stereotype bias here! What do you think?
I expect to finish my thesis in May 2010, and will write a follow-up post describing my findings. Stay tuned!
While I do agree that one explanation for the phenomenon is that it's a supply issue, I am not convinced that it's the sole explanation. As an engineer, an entrepreneur and a woman, this is a topic very close to my heart and therefore also happens to be the topic of my thesis. I am working on collecting data about how many technology companies with female founders or CEO/CTO/COOs were funded in the last 4 years, and how that number compares to the number of companies which were founded by male entrepreneurs.
I am also speaking with a number of VCs who have been pitched by both men and women and taking notes about their observations. Some of what I heard took me by surprise. For instance, some women who pitch a VC do not get funded because they come across as being over-confident and not genuine! I was under the impression that many women suffered from the opposite - not as assertive or outspoken, and erring on the side of caution! I am not sure if this is a function of the fact that women who do found tech. start-ups have a different mindset and self-select into entrepreneurship, or if there's an observer bias, or if there is a stereotype bias here! What do you think?
I expect to finish my thesis in May 2010, and will write a follow-up post describing my findings. Stay tuned!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Knowing when to quit...
I came across an excellent post today that analyzes the “how do you know when to quit” question from the lean perspective.
I found myself nodding in complete agreement to this especially:
"If your acquisition efforts are failing, there need to be signs from other places in the model (conversion, upsell, retention) that the business is on the right path. If you’ve been at it for a long time and acquisition is poor and everything else is muddling along, then it’s time to quit. However, if you have found that you can either convert, upsell or retain customers well, then keep plugging away. The feedback from users is that your startup is on the right path…. now it’s time for incremental improvements in the other areas of the model to allow the business to reach the next level.
The original post is here.
I found myself nodding in complete agreement to this especially:
"If your acquisition efforts are failing, there need to be signs from other places in the model (conversion, upsell, retention) that the business is on the right path. If you’ve been at it for a long time and acquisition is poor and everything else is muddling along, then it’s time to quit. However, if you have found that you can either convert, upsell or retain customers well, then keep plugging away. The feedback from users is that your startup is on the right path…. now it’s time for incremental improvements in the other areas of the model to allow the business to reach the next level.
The original post is here.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Dr. Jack Gill at MIT - Day 2: Start-up dynamics
I have the privilege of being a TA for Dr. Jack Gill's short course at MIT titled "High Tech start-ups". Today, the topic was "Start-up Dynamics" and the guest speaker was Luca Erceg, founder and CEO of Simbol Mining. They spoke to a packed house with standing room only about 30 minutes into the talk.
Simbol won the 2008 Cleantech Group's Most Promising Technology Award. They are commercializing zero waste, zero carbon footprint production processes for lithium, EMD, and zinc battery chemicals sourced from geothermal brines.
Dr. Gill first characterized the elements of high-tech start-ups as follows:
- 1 to 3 driven founders
- Proprietary product technology
- Sizeable market
- Satisfies an unmet need
- A R&D team to create the product
- A mission, vision and milestones for the company
- Sufficient capital to execute
- Tenacity and,
- Lots of luck.
He shared with the group a template that Vanguard Ventures uses to analyze and investment when they are pitched by entrepreneurs. It was a lot of what an entrepreneur expects to be assessed on, no surprises there. Since most of the audience was comprised of engineers and scientists, he went into the nuts and bolts of how to access venture capital and what to expect. He pointed to www.NVCA.org and the Western Association of Venture Capitalists as resources. I didn't know about WAVC, it was good to learn. He then went on to speak about common stock and preferred stock, the differences, pricing differential between the two and also touched upon convertibles and warrants. It was a terrific preview to the entrepreneurial finance class I am signed up for this coming semester!
One of the most useful pieces of advice I took away from his talk was the importance of being able to learn very quickly and adjust the game plan on the fly. When pitching an investor, if the pitch doesn't go so well, use that as a learning opportunity. Understand why the investor declined to invest, and when you leave the meeting, go to the closest coffee shop with your team and do a post-mortem analysis of what worked and what did not, and what needs to be refined for the next pitch. Sounds very similar to customer development for start-ups, perhaps this should be called "investor development for start-ups"!
He then went on talk about what a typical term sheet looks like and explained some of the jargon - what's pre-money valuation, option pools, vesting, and board size and composition.
Another topic I found very interesting that he touched upon is frequent start-up problems. He listed:
- Competence of CEO
- Inadequate capitalization
- IP issues
- Poor cash management
- Lack of focus
- Over optimistic forecasts
- Underestimating competition and,
- Mediocre drive and commitment
Having been a victim to IP issues with my first start-up, it was particularly interesting to me to hear about other traps I might fall into if I don't watch out.
I was intrigued to notice the similarities between what Dr. Gill and Dr. Bob Langer (who visited Founder's Journey last semester) said about creating a real company versus a product line. A real company is built on a technology platform, not on a single product.
Luca was a great speaker who responded to the questions addressed to him with very frank answers. As a first time CEO and founder, his observations were particularly relevant and timely. I enjoyed hearing about the importance of the CEO actively managing his relationship with his board of directors, and how an ideal relationship with will result in a two-way flow of information and will get the CEO the feedback and advice he needs to effectively run the company.
I also enjoyed his description of how he was approached by VCs after winning the Cleantech most promising technology award, and how he chose to raise an angel round first to have results before approaching VCs. He offered sage advice on the importance of selling oneself effectively to investors - the importance of having a really crisp elevator pitch, and revealing enough information to be intriguing and land a follow-up meeting with investors, but not too much information that will allow for snap judgements and no room for clarification or rebuttals.
In all, an excellent morning spent hearing start-up wisdom.
Simbol won the 2008 Cleantech Group's Most Promising Technology Award. They are commercializing zero waste, zero carbon footprint production processes for lithium, EMD, and zinc battery chemicals sourced from geothermal brines.
Dr. Gill first characterized the elements of high-tech start-ups as follows:
- 1 to 3 driven founders
- Proprietary product technology
- Sizeable market
- Satisfies an unmet need
- A R&D team to create the product
- A mission, vision and milestones for the company
- Sufficient capital to execute
- Tenacity and,
- Lots of luck.
He shared with the group a template that Vanguard Ventures uses to analyze and investment when they are pitched by entrepreneurs. It was a lot of what an entrepreneur expects to be assessed on, no surprises there. Since most of the audience was comprised of engineers and scientists, he went into the nuts and bolts of how to access venture capital and what to expect. He pointed to www.NVCA.org and the Western Association of Venture Capitalists as resources. I didn't know about WAVC, it was good to learn. He then went on to speak about common stock and preferred stock, the differences, pricing differential between the two and also touched upon convertibles and warrants. It was a terrific preview to the entrepreneurial finance class I am signed up for this coming semester!
One of the most useful pieces of advice I took away from his talk was the importance of being able to learn very quickly and adjust the game plan on the fly. When pitching an investor, if the pitch doesn't go so well, use that as a learning opportunity. Understand why the investor declined to invest, and when you leave the meeting, go to the closest coffee shop with your team and do a post-mortem analysis of what worked and what did not, and what needs to be refined for the next pitch. Sounds very similar to customer development for start-ups, perhaps this should be called "investor development for start-ups"!
He then went on talk about what a typical term sheet looks like and explained some of the jargon - what's pre-money valuation, option pools, vesting, and board size and composition.
Another topic I found very interesting that he touched upon is frequent start-up problems. He listed:
- Competence of CEO
- Inadequate capitalization
- IP issues
- Poor cash management
- Lack of focus
- Over optimistic forecasts
- Underestimating competition and,
- Mediocre drive and commitment
Having been a victim to IP issues with my first start-up, it was particularly interesting to me to hear about other traps I might fall into if I don't watch out.
I was intrigued to notice the similarities between what Dr. Gill and Dr. Bob Langer (who visited Founder's Journey last semester) said about creating a real company versus a product line. A real company is built on a technology platform, not on a single product.
Luca was a great speaker who responded to the questions addressed to him with very frank answers. As a first time CEO and founder, his observations were particularly relevant and timely. I enjoyed hearing about the importance of the CEO actively managing his relationship with his board of directors, and how an ideal relationship with will result in a two-way flow of information and will get the CEO the feedback and advice he needs to effectively run the company.
I also enjoyed his description of how he was approached by VCs after winning the Cleantech most promising technology award, and how he chose to raise an angel round first to have results before approaching VCs. He offered sage advice on the importance of selling oneself effectively to investors - the importance of having a really crisp elevator pitch, and revealing enough information to be intriguing and land a follow-up meeting with investors, but not too much information that will allow for snap judgements and no room for clarification or rebuttals.
In all, an excellent morning spent hearing start-up wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)