Talking Innovation with Dr Kate Cornick, CEO of LaunchVic

Posted on February 14, 2017 by Content in Context

As a nice segue to last week’s blog on Techstars, I was fortunate to hear Dr Kate Cornick speak, just before the latest LaunchVic grants were announced. Organised by Innovation Bay, hosted by Deloitte, and facilitated by Ian Gardiner, the fireside chat plus Q&A was a useful insight on a key part of the Victorian Government’s innovation strategy.

At the outset, Dr Cornick stressed that LaunchVic is not an investment vehicle, and it doesn’t fund individual startups. Rather it seeks to support initiatives that help grow the local startup eco-system. (See also my blog on the consultation process that informed LaunchVic’s formation.)

Commenting on why Victoria (and Australia) has the potential to become a world-class centre for innovation, Dr Cornick pointed to a number of factors:

A collaborative culture
Positive economic conditions (comparatively speaking)
Governments (mostly) open to innovation
Strong research base

However, a few of the obstacles in our way include:

The notorious tall poppy syndrome, whereby Australians are suspicious, sceptical and even scathing of local success – except when it comes to sport and entertainment!
An inability to scale or capitalise on academic research
Insufficient entrepreneurial skills and experience to “get scrappy”
Lack of exposure for highly successful startups (c.$20m market cap) that can help attract more investment

From a startup perspective, Australia also has the wrong type of risk capital: institutional investors are more attuned to placing large bets on speculative mining assets, typically funded through public listings, and with very different financial profiles. (Or they prefer to invest in things they can see and touch – property, utilities, infrastructure, banks.)

So there is still a huge gap in investor education on startups and their requirements for early-stage funding. Part of LaunchVic’s remit is to market the local startup community, promote the success stories, and foster the right conditions to connect capital with ideas and innovation. After all, Australia does have one of the largest pool of pension fund assets in the world, and that money has to be put to work in creating economic growth opportunities.

As I have blogged before, we still see the “expensive boomerang”: Australian asset managers investing in Silicon Valley VCs, who then invest in Australian startups. Although when I raised a question about the investment preferences of our fund managers, Ian Gardiner did point out that a few enlightened institutions have invested in Australian VC funds such as SquarePeg Capital, H2 Ventures and Reinventure.

Dr Cornick also provided a reality check on startups, and added a note of caution to would-be founders:

First, it tends to be an over-glamourised sector. For one thing, founders under-estimate the relentless grind in making their business a success. And while eating pizza and pot noodles might sound like a lifestyle choice, it’s more of an economic necessity. Thus, it’s not for everyone (and not everyone should or needs to build a startup…), so aspiring entrepreneurs would be well-advised to do their homework.

Second, the success of any startup community will be reflected by industry demand. “Build it and they will come” is not a viable strategy. And I know from talking to those within the Victorian Government that unlike their inter-state counterparts, they are not willing (or able) to fund or invest in specific startups, nor in specific ventures such as a FinTech hub. Their position is that industry needs to put its money where its mouth is, and as and when that happens, the Government will look to see what support it can provide to foster and nurture such initiatives – particularly when it comes to facilitating between parties or filling in any gaps.

Third, don’t expect too many more unicorns, and don’t bank on coming up with simple but unique ideas that will conquer the world – meaning, new businesses like Facebook, Uber and Pinterest will be few and far between. Instead, drawing on her earlier comments about research, Dr Cornick predicts that it will be “back to the 90’s”, where innovation will come from “research-based, deep-tech solutions”.

If that’s the case, then the LaunchVic agenda (for the remaining 3 years of its current 4 year lifespan) will include:

Getting Victoria on the map, and positioning it as a global innovation hub
Raising the bar by educating startups and investors
Bringing more diversity to the startup sector, by providing greater access, striking better gender balance, and building a stronger entrepreneurial culture
Introducing a more transparent and interactive consultation process
Continuing to support the best accelerator programs that focus on startups
Making more frequent and smaller funding rounds, each with a specific focus

Asked what areas of innovation Victoria will be famous for, Dr Cornick’s number one pick was Healthcare, pointing to the strong research base coming out of both the Monash and Melbourne University medical precincts. Also in the running were Agriculture, and possibly Cyber-security. (Separately, there is a list of priority industries where the Government sees growth, employment and investment opportunities.)

If one of the biggest hurdles is commercializing research, Dr Cornick suggested that Universities have to re-think current IP practices, including ownership and licensing models, developing better career options in research, and doing more to re-calibrate the effort/reward equation in building research assets compared to building companies and commercial assets.

Finally, Dr Cornick offered an interesting metaphor to describe the current state of Victoria’s innovation potential:

“We have everything we need for baking a cake, but the missing ingredient is the baking powder to make it rise.”

Next week: Gigster is coming to town….

Life Lessons from the Techstars founders

Posted on February 7, 2017 by Content in Context

Melbourne’s startup community is very fortunate to host some of the leading names in the startup world, who are more than willing to share their experiences and insights in front of packed, eager (even adulatory) audiences. The most recent visitors were Brad Feld and David Cohen, renowned entrepreneurs, and co-founders of the global Techstars accelerator and startup programmes. By the sounds of David’s recent blog, they really liked Melbourne (may have something to do with tennis…). But aside from talking about startups and the local eco-system, they had plenty to say about “startup life” as well.

During a fireside chat and Q&A facilitated by Leni Mayo, hosted at inspire9, with the support of Innovation in the Wild in conjunction with Startup Victoria, we learned a lot about what it takes to build a startup community, the role of government, limitations of current VC funding models, plus lots of personal tips on work/life balance etc.

First, based on the so-called “Boulder thesis”, there are four key elements to building a successful startup community:

Entrepreneurs must act like leaders
There has to be a long-term perspective (20 year horizon)
The community has to be inclusive of anyone who wants to participate, and
The leaders have to create activities for everyone to engage

There was also a discussion on why they chose Boulder as their base – which was slightly harder to explain. There was mention of the size of the population, the critical mass of wealthy investors and successful entrepreneurs, the liberal attitudes and culture, and the proximity to Denver (but at the same time, it’s not Denver?). Perhaps it’s something in the water?

Second, the community must rely on network effects, and not attempt to impose structure. That can be particularly hard when trying to co-ordinate scarce resources, attract potential investors, and win the ear of government. But I understand that a community should be capable of being a self-organising entity, as long as there is a clear and shared purpose?

Third, the role of government should be to get engaged (but stay out of the way?). The best thing our elected representatives and their bureaucrats can do is “shine a light on success”. This was particularly pertinent when our guests talked about some of the startups based in the same building where we were meeting: despite being very familiar with these companies in the USA, they had little idea that they were based in Melbourne.

Fourth, the community members have to “act what you want to be” (sort of, “be the change you want to see”?). I take this to be about being authentic, acting with integrity, giving back, and affording people due respect and recognition. Part of this is about having the right settings on culture, and taking responsibility for setting the tone of the community.

Fifth, given that some aspects of the current VC funding model are broken (fewer unicorns, fewer simple but big ideas emerging, too many short-term investment horizons, over-ambitious expectations on returns?), and if we want investors to behave in a certain way (especially if we need them to take a longer-term perspective), we have to educate them, engage them, bring them on the journey.

Finally, it was with remarkable candour that both guests spoke about achieving work/life balance, maintaining healthy relationships with their spouses, families and friends, and learning how/when to switch off. Mostly, they make specific time to take breaks, schedule date nights, compensate for the quality family time when they will be on the road, reflect on what is and isn’t working in all aspects of their lives, and continue to question/challenge themselves. The use of personal coaches and business mentors was also discussed, and it was refreshing to hear that such successful people acknowledge that sometimes they need help, and they certainly don’t have all the answers themselves.

Next week: Talking Innovation with Dr Kate Cornick, CEO of LaunchVic

The Maker Culture

Posted on January 31, 2017 by Content in Context

London’s newly re-opened Design Museum welcomes visitors with a bold defining statement of intent. According to the curators, there are only designers, makers and users. To me, this speaks volumes about how the “makers” are now at the forefront of economic activity, and how they are challenging key post-industrial notions of mass-production, mass-consumption and even mass-employment. Above all, as users, we are becoming far more engaged with why, how and where something is designed, made and distributed. And as consumers we are being encouraged to think about and take some responsibility for our choices in terms of environmental impact and sustainability.

Design Museum, London (Photo: Rory Manchee)

There are several social, economic, technological and environmental movements that have helped to define “maker culture”, so there isn’t really a single, neat theory sitting behind it all. Here is a (highly selective) list of the key elements that have directly or indirectly contributed to this trend:

Hacking – this is not about cracking network security systems, but about learning how to make fixes when things that don’t work the way that we want them to, or for creating new solutions to existing problems – see also “life hacks”, hackathons or something like BBC’s Big Life Fix. Sort of “necessity is the mother of invention”.

Open source – providing easier access to coding tools, software programs, computing components and data sources has helped to reduce setup costs for new businesses and tech startups, and deconstructed/demystified traditional development processes. Encompasses everything from Linux to Arduino; from Github to public APIs; from AI bots to widget libraries; from Touch Board to F.A.T. Lab; from SaaS to small-scale 3-D printers.

Getting Sh*t Done – from the Fitzroy Academy, to Andrea de Chirico’s SUPERLOCAL projects, maker culture can be characterised by those who want: to make things happen; to make a difference; to create (social) impact; to get their hands dirty; to connect with the materials, people, communities and cultures they work with; to disrupt the status quo; to embrace DIY solutions; to learn by doing.

The Etsy Effect – just part of the response to a widespread consumer demand for personalised, customised, hand-made, individual, artisan, crafted, unique and bespoke products. In turn, platforms like the Etsy and Craftsy market places have sparked a whole raft of self-help video guides and online tutorials, where people can not only learn new skills to make things, they can also learn how to patch, repair, re-use, recycle and re-purpose. Also loosely linked to the recent publishing phenomena for new magazines that combine lifestyle, new age culture, philosophy, sustainability, mindfulness, and entrepreneurism with a social conscience.

Startups, Meetups and Co-working Spaces – if the data is to be believed, more and more people want to start their own ventures rather than find employment with an existing organisation. (Under the gig economy, around 40% of the workforce will be self-employed, freelance or contractors within 5 years, so naturally people are having to consider their employment options more carefully.) While starting your own business is not for everyone, the expanding ecosystem of meetups and co-working spaces is enabling would-be entrepreneurs to experiment and explore what’s possible, and to network with like-minded people.

Maker Spaces – also known as fabrication labs (“FabLabs”), they offer direct access to tools and equipment, mostly for things like 3-D printing, laser-cutting and circuit-board assembly, but some commercial facilities have the capacity to support new product prototyping, test manufacturing processes or short-run production lines. (I see this interface between “cottage industry” digital studios and full-blown production plants as being critical to the development of high-end, niche and specialist engineering and manufacturing services to replace the declining, traditional manufacturing sectors.) Some of the activity is formed around local communities of independent makers, some offer shared workshop spaces and resources. Elsewhere, they are also run as innovation hubs and learning labs.

Analogue Warmth – I’ve written before about my appreciation for all things analogue, and the increased sales of vinyl records and even music cassettes demonstrate that among audiophiles, digital is not always better, that there is something to be said for the tangible format. This preference for analogue, combined with a love of tactile objects and a spirit of DIY has probably reached its apotheosis (in photography at least) through Kelli Anderson’s “This Book Is A Camera”.

Finally, a positive knock-on effect of maker culture is the growing number of educational resources for learning coding, computing, maths and robotics: Raspberry PI, Kano and Tech Will Save Us; KidsLogic, Creative Coding HK and Machinam; Robogals, Techcamp and robokids. We can all understand the importance of learning these skills as part of a well-rounded education, because as Mark Pascall, founder of 3months.com, recently commented:

“I’m not going to advise my kids to embark on careers that have long expensive training programs (e.g. doctors/lawyer etc). AI is already starting to give better results.”

Better to learn how things work, how to design and make them, how to repair them etc., so that we have core skills that can adapt as technology changes.

Next week: Life Lessons from the Techstars founders

The FF17 Semi Finals in Melbourne

Posted on January 17, 2017 by Content in Context

As part of the recent Melbourne Startup Week, Next Money hosted the Melbourne heat of the FF17 pitch contest, to decide which local FinTech startup will compete at the FF17 finals in Hong Kong later this week.

At the outset, I should declare an interest, as I myself was one of the pitch contestants, but hopefully that doesn’t preclude me from commenting on the event. The competing startups were as follows (as listed on the event Meetup page):

AirWallex

This payments solutions provider has featured in my blog before. Since the last time I saw AirWallex pitch, the market for cross-border remittance and payment solutions has drawn a lot of attention. First, the growing opportunity for exporters to market products and services to Chinese consumers and tourists means that payment platforms like AirWallex (and others like Novatti, LatiPay and Flo2Cash) are partnering with Chinese payment gateways such as WeChat Pay, AliPay, JDPay and Union Pay). Second, cross-border remittance services has become a key use case for Bitcoin and other digital currencies (as evidenced by the recent partnership between Novatti and Flexepin).

Analyst Web

Still in private beta, Analyst Web is aiming to disrupt the market structure (and payment model) for equity research. By enlisting qualified CFAs to write bespoke investment reports on listed companies, then distribute them via subscription services, Analyst Web claims to be bringing quality, objectivity and value for money to this investor service. Currently, investors have to rely on either brokers (who may offer “free” reports to their clients under soft dollar arrangements) to provide research on individual stocks; or subscribe to independent research houses (such as Morningstar). Typically, neither brokers nor the research houses cover the full market – tending to focus on the bigger stocks and those included in benchmark indices. Of course, companies themselves use investor relations services to issue commentary on their market performance and prospects, but these communications perhaps lack objectivity. There are also other models, such as the ASX Equity Research Service, whereby research providers are “sponsored” by the stock exchange to provide reports on qualifying companies to boost market coverage. Some of the challenges Analyst Web will need to overcome are: investor willingness to pay for research; market credibility and acceptance of their reports; and sustainable financial models that appropriately compensate the analysts without compromising independence and objectivity.

Proviso

Proviso has also been mentioned in my blog before, and they continue to impress with their solution to take friction out of the documentation processes for loan origination, and their ability to secure more financial institutions as clients. In my previous commentary, I noted that Proviso risked being disintermediated by an industry-owned utility. While I still think that is a possibility, I also see that the combination of Blockchain solutions (for distributed ledgers and bank data feeds) and more open APIs for financial data and account information may mean that customers themselves may be empowered to drive the process, since it will be easier for them to demonstrate their creditworthiness and establish their cashflow status, but also have better control over the disclosure of their data.

DragonBill

DragonBill, an invoicing solution for SMEs, is yet another of the FF17 contestants to appear in my blog, most recently when they presented at Startup Victoria’s regular pitch night. In addition to offering both direct payment and escrow options for micro-businesses and sole traders, DragonBill continues to mine an interesting niche market among sports clubs and associations – the reason being that many club members are themselves sole traders. As part of its future developments, the business is scoping a solution to help clients manage their superannuation obligations, and to provide informed advice on cashflow management.

BreezeDocs

Similar to Proviso, BreezeDocs is a document automation solution for lenders, although currently focusing on mortgage origination. And like Proviso, at the heart of the solution is the ability to streamline the extraction and processing of data from customer documents. On top of a core OCR capability, BreezeDocs also claims to be using machine learning to train their systems on different document types, formats, structure and content. Despite the use of ETL processes within financial institutions, the disparate nature of financial products and documentation; the way customer, product and transaction data is often maintained in different systems; and the fact that customers will often have accounts and products with different providers can undermine the need for standardised processes.

Vestabyte

As I commented in my previous blog, equity crowding may be about to come into its own as a way to connect investors with entrepreneurs and startups. Vestabyte are certainly enthusiastic exponents of this method for raising capital, but legal constraints mean that their platform still has to operate under a unit trust model, rather than offering access to investments in the form of direct shares in specific assets, companies or ventures. This may change if the proposed legislation can get through Parliament, although it’s far from being a done deal. But in the absence of formal legislation, it sounds like a great opportunity for a FinTech startup seeking funding to test ASIC’s first licensing exemption under its sandbox regime….

coHome

By their own admission, coHome is very much a nascent business – one that is still defining its customer offering. At its heart, this shared ownership service provides a matching service for aspiring property owners, along with some standard documentation for a co-ownership agreement, known legally as a tenancy in common. With multiple parties to the property transaction and mortgage application, coHome aims to streamline the process, make it easier for buyers to connect with other interested parties, and provide customers with appropriate legal safeguards. It’s clearly an admirable objective, and one that deserves to gain attention. But monetizing the service may prove challenging, unless coHome takes a commission from the mortgage providers, lawyers and conveyancers?

BugWolf

Not strictly speaking confined to the FinTech sector, nevertheless BugWolf, a tool for managing user-acceptance testing, has managed to gain traction with at least one of Australia’s Big 4 banks. Using gamification, competitions and other techniques to recruit, engage and manage teams of testers, BugWolf claims to support all aspects of functionality testing across software, websites and mobile apps. Combined with robust reporting and analytics, BugWolf can also help clients achieve shorter product development cycles.

Brave New Coin

I joined the team at Brave New Coin (BNC), a provider of market data for digital assets, in early 2016. So, it was the first time I have pitched, outside of hackathons, client presentations and sales conferences. And the fact that BNC was a last-minute confirmation for this event made it an even more interesting experience. Established about 3 years ago by a team of founders with an interesting mix of publishing, Bitcoin and full stack development experience, BNC has built a suite of data APIs (market prices, indices, exchange rates and analytics) for Bitcoin and most other crypto-currencies and Blockchain assets. While the APIs are typically used by developers, the growing interest in digital assets among brokers, investors and asset managers means that market data on these new asset classes is in demand, and BNC is busily building distribution partnerships and subscription deals with traditional brokers, market data vendors and exchanges. Recent price fluctuations for Bitcoin may suggest continued speculation in this currency, but the launch of investable and tradeable products such as CFDs, futures, ETFs and other derivatives also suggest that digital assets are starting to achieve broader market acceptance.

BankVault

Unlike other solutions to defeat hackers and hoaxers (e.g., anti-virus software, spam-filters, VPNs and proxy servers), BankVault uses virtual machine technology to protect customers’ bank details when they transact online. This means a “new and instant” machine is created for one-time use only, each time a customer launches the BankVault service. Offering both individual subscriptions and enterprise solutions, the business is in the process of launching in the USA.

Conclusion

The winner, based on the judges’ votes, was BugWolf, which came as something of a surprise to a number of the other contestants, myself included. Without wishing to sound churlish, this event was supposed to be about the future of finance (hence FF17…), so it would seem reasonable that the winner would be based in FinTech (as opposed to TechTech?). The result (although highly deserved and based on an impressive pitch), also reinforced my sense that this event did not draw the “usual” FinTech or startup audience in Melbourne, based on the many pitch nights and meetups I have attended over the past few years. From my perspective, neither was it an investor audience, nor a capital markets audience, meaning I wasn’t really sure who I was pitching to. I’m hoping that the organisers will reflect on this event, and look to make some changes for next year.

Next week: A few rules on pitching

Content in Context

Exploring the information age…

Category Archives: Digital Economy