How to spend $60m on #Innovation and #Entrepreneurship for #Startups

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Content in Context

In the recent Victorian State Budget, the government allocated $60m over 4 years to supporting startups, via innovation and entrepreneurship. While not an insignificant sum, it’s still not a huge amount in the overall scheme of things. Having made the announcement, the government hurriedly undertook some rapid community and stakeholder consultation, to figure out how to spend the money. I was fortunate enough to be invited to one of the consultation exercises, a half-day “lightning conference“ organised by Dandalo Partners, facilitated by Collabforge, and hosted by Teamsquare co-working space.

The theme of the Lightning Conference was #StartUpFuture

At the outset, there was an assumption that whatever recommendations came out of the consultation process, a new quango would be formed to oversee the implementation of the program and distribution of the funding. I don’t think I was alone when I expressed my concern that this was rather like putting the cart before the horse – the implication being, “Why seek our opinion, views and recommendations if you’ve already decided the solution?”

To their credit, the organisers took this on board – for example, rather than creating yet another entity, maybe the funding could be facilitated by an existing body such as Startup Victoria – but it felt that the consultation exercise was at risk of “going through the motions”.

Across the various topics that were discussed in the self-forming and self-directed breakout sessions, there were probably 5 key themes:

Community
Infrastructure
Funding
Sustainability and
“Picking Winners”.

Here are the main points from each of those themes:

1. Community

There was general agreement that the local startup and entrepreneurial community is well-established, reasonably well-connected (I myself knew about 10% of the participants from various networks) and growing fast.

However, there was also a common view that more could be done to bring entrepreneurs and like-minded people together. For example, how do people know what ideas or projects everyone is working on, how can people find help or make offers of help in terms of matching skills, experience, knowledge, resources? How do we connect suppliers and investors to startups?

Sure, there are numerous meetups and regular startup events, but is there a better way to leverage this potential? And there are various matching services linking entrepreneurs to mentors, but they are rather ad hoc, and in the case of connecting startups and investors, there are probably more challenges than there are opportunities (see Funding, below).

In short, how can the community come together in a more collaborative way?

2. Infrastructure

It’s quite easy to see that Victoria (mainly Melbourne) has a vibrant startup ecosystem, simply based on the number and frequency of meetup events, founder workshops and hackathons. But there still appear to be numerous obstacles to getting started – from establishment costs and bureaucratic red tape, to tax impediments and access to funding.

Some of these challenges are being addressed at Federal level (e.g., streamlining the company registration process, tax cuts for SMEs, and changes to both equity crowdfunding and employee share schemes). But that’s part of the challenge in itself – at the individual State level, there is relatively little that can be done on fiscal policy (apart from payroll tax and land tax), and all reforms relating to securities financing need Federal legislation and the involvement of market regulators.

The State government has more autonomy around local industry policy settings and planning, as well as making funding available via grants. This means, though, that government is forced to prioritize one sector over another (see “Picking Winners”, below), and a system of grants often results in a mini-industry that is created around grant applications, awards and distribution.

At a practical level, some participants took the view that more could be done to facilitate early stage startups and product prototyping – such as a continuous education and open-enrollment program for entrepreneurs, and co-working spaces for small-scale manufacturing, materials-testing, and engineering. (I am aware of at least a couple of local projects in this space – a biotech co-working lab and an “Internet of Things” open access workshop).

If the State government is looking to plug a gap, investing in R&D facilities might be one option.

3. Funding

This remains the biggie – and a topic previously covered both in this blog, and via numerous commentators and advisers. Even though there are many local pitch competitions, incubators and accelerator programs (plus Shark Tank and That Startup Show make for interesting/amusing viewing…) the elephant in the room is that there are too many startups chasing too few investors.

Competition for resources is positive, as long as it’s an efficient, transparent and accessible market, where the laws of supply and demand are equitable and the rules of engagement are clearly understood.

One industry veteran noted that the local investor community can normally provide small-scale startup funding up to $5m (via “family, friends and fools” and angel backers), and even larger, early-stage equity funding over $50m (via Venture Capital, Private Equity and Family Offices). But in the $5m-$50m range there are far fewer options.

Leaving aside the pros and cons of traditional secured and unsecured bank lending and emerging P2P lending platforms, there is a funding gap that could be filled via Australia’s superannuation scheme:

First, we need to find ways to get large retail and industry super funds along with other institutional investors to invest directly in local startups. At present, thanks to the Silicon Valley effect, these instos are more comfortable handing their money to US-based fund managers who then charge a premium to invest the assets in local startups. (I call this a very expensive boomerang….)
Second, in the absence of suitable investments for retail investors who may want to allocate part of their portfolio to startup opportunities, part of their superannuation assets could be used to invest in early-stage startups via a form of savings products or fixed income bonds. The retail bond market (such as it is) is heavily skewed towards sovereign debt (treasury bonds) and bonds issued by financial institutions (often in the form of hybrid securities, which are essentially a form of deferred equity). There have been attempts (and even regulatory reforms) to encourage the development of a deeper retail bond market in Australia, but these efforts appear to have stalled.

An enlightened approach to asset allocation could direct even a very small part of the $1.8tn superannation savings into startups that could have significant outcomes. If SMEs are seen as the backbone of future economic activity and jobs (as well as innovation and entrepreneurship), helping to accelerate startup growth will deliver multiple long-term dividends.

4. Sustainability

This wasn’t a huge topic of discussion, but it deserves an honourable mention because it surfaced in several ways:

Economic (e.g., making better use of available resources, not funding startups that go nowhere etc.)
Social impact (e.g., the growth of social enterprises)
Environmental (e.g., the conscious capitalism movement and the importance of “for purpose” enterprises such as B-Corps that want to minimize their environmental footprint)
Government (e.g., how to foster startups that want to help deliver better public services, and how to change public sector procurement policies that give startups more of a look-in)

There is also a need to reflect the changing demographics of the workplace, so that sustainable employment opportunities (in whatever form they exist) are made available to both mature-age workers and new school leavers.

So perhaps part of the $60m could be put towards (re)training initiatives.

5. “Picking Winners”

First up, let me say I always get nervous when we put our elected representatives in charge of deciding the fate of specific industries, especially when it’s taxpayers’ money at risk. Call me a cynic, but I’m not sure that picking winners is the government’s forte. I understand the need to support certain sectors that contribute to GDP growth, create employment opportunities, generate taxable revenue, instil industry innovation and develop cutting-edge technology – but the example of the domestic automotive industry is one where political ideology probably got the better of sound economics, as public subsidies eventually came to look like throwing good money after bad.

If nothing else, picking or backing winners is fraught with problems of favouritism, lobbying, murky back room deals and “jobs for the boys”. Better to create the foundations upon which broader innovation and entrepreneurship can thrive, and let the market decide. That way, the government can still claim the credit, and frame the conversation around its role as an enabler.

On the day, the discussion was more about the long lead time before anyone would know whether the program had been successful (assuming we can agree on what success should look like). In reality, re-tooling innovation and entrepreneurship is a 10-year initiative (which is difficult to manage in the face of short-term policy settings linked to 3 and 4-year election cycles).

Should we teach entrepreneurship and innovation in schools (alongside coding and STEM subjects)?
Should government use local plebiscites to determine where/when/how the funding should be allocated?
Should we use the money to directly fund startup founders (rather like the UK’s enterprise allowance scheme in the 1980s)?

There was also a suggestion that the money could be used to promote local startup success stories, in order to foster an understanding of truly viable startups, to identify and fast-track high-potential entrepreneurs, as well as define what is takes (time, money, resources, networking and connections) to build scalable and sustainable startup businesses (i.e., companies generating $250m+ in revenue, not lifestyle ventures or small family owned concerns).

If we do need to pick winners, perhaps we can easily agree which ones they are based on current trends, future needs and demographic demands:

Health, biotech and medtech
Fintech and big data analytics
Education and lifelong learning
Renewables and green technologies
High-tech engineering and manufacturing

In which case, we should simply help the State government prepare an investor profile, set an optimum portfolio performance target (based on financial returns, innovation scores and a mix of social and environmental outcomes) and give the $60m to a skilled fund manager.

FOOTNOTE:

For further ideas, please see 10 Random Ideas…

POSTSCRIPT:

A couple of further contributions to the innovation debate from AVCAL around tax reform, and from OneVentures around superannuation allocation.

Next week: Medtech’s Got Talent

How to work with #Boards

Posted on May 26, 2015 by Content in Context

At some point in your career, you will find yourself working with Boards. In particular, if you are appointed to a CEO role, or if you are part of an executive team, there is an expectation or requirement that you will attend regular Board meetings, and you will need to develop the necessary skills and expertise to navigate the process.

Board meetings don’t have to be as daunting as this… (The SPECTRE hierarchy as portrayed in “Thunderball”)

The following comments were crowdsourced from a group of senior executives and non-executive directors who were asked to share their views on how someone in a senior management role should prepare prior to presenting at a Board meeting – in particular, where there may have been a change of Chairman, a new CEO or new appointments to the Board. It’s designed to be part “how to” guide, part coaching tool, and part insight drawn from actual experience – and in some cases, the comments answer the question “what I wish I’d known before I stepped into the Board meeting…”.

The comments have been divided into three sections:

Governance
Relationship between the Chairman and CEO
Presenting to Boards

1. Governance

How are Board meetings run?

1) From experience, working with a Board really depends on how the Chairman likes to run things. The Chairman is usually assisted by the Company Secretary (or a Secretariat), or other legal officer of the organisation, who may also form part of the senior management team.

2) The Secretary is responsible for making sure everything runs smoothly for the Board members. In addition to supporting the Chairman, the Secretary schedules the Board meeting, circulates the relevant notices and papers in advance, prepares the meeting agenda, and records the minutes. (In some organisations the CEO will be as involved in preparing for a Board meeting as the Secretary.) The Secretary will also assist the Chairman in ensuring the meeting is conducted in an orderly fashion, and in accordance with the company constitution and any other rules governing meetings.

3) If you have been asked to attend a Board meeting to report on an important project or to present a new initiative, it should be noted in the agenda. Depending upon protocol, you may only be invited into the room at the designated point in the agenda. You may find that you don’t have a vote at the meeting (and in general, your voice should only be heard when your contribution is actively invited!) and you may be asked to leave again before a formal vote is taken.

4) A good Chairman will invite comments from all attendees at the Board meeting, especially where external or specific expertise is being sought. Although other Board members will want to ask questions of senior managers and anyone else presenting, it will depend on etiquette, and they may need to direct these questions via the Chairman.

Board Induction

5) The CEO and the executive team can help the Chairman in the induction of new Board members, something that the Secretary should be able to facilitate. For new Directors, it may not be easy to understand the organisation, or what is expected of them, or what their contribution should be.

6) The transition will be harder for Board members coming from the private sector into the government sector, or vice versa. A Board Induction Manual is an invaluable tool for a new Board member to familiarise themselves with the organisation. The CEO should also ask their managers to stand in the Directors’ shoes for a minute to work out what the new Board member may need (and not assume they already have everything they require.)

7) If a relationship can be built through the induction process, then it should be easier to understand where new Board members are coming from, identify their key areas of knowledge or expertise, know what their risk appetite is and anticipate where their interests will lie.

Board Renewal – managing change

8) Most Board members are elected or appointed for fixed terms, ensuring that there is a renewal process. In some cases, there will be a full spill, and the formation of a totally new Board.

9) One of the understandable traps that the CEO and management team may fall into is assuming they have to maintain the status quo – which may or may not meet the needs and expectations of the new Chairman and a new or significantly changed Board.

10) In those circumstances, the CEO and Chairman should sit down in advance and set out their respective expectations/needs/preferences, including an early feedback process soon after the first few meetings to get things off to a firm footing and to avoid any festering dissatisfaction.

2. The relationship between Chairman and CEO

Boards vs Management

11) The pivotal connection between a Board and the Management team is the relationship between the Chairman and CEO. There has to be a level of trust, rapport and mutual respect, otherwise the organisation risks being dysfunctional.

12) A common view is that Boards are expected to be “eyes on, hands off” – that is, they are there to view what is going on, but not to get involved with operational matters which are the responsibility of Management.

13) Equally, the Board is responsible for setting and directing the overall strategy, and holding the CEO and executive team accountable for achieving the agreed objectives.

Who can help you?

14) The CEO has a key role in facilitating the interaction between the Board and senior managers. If you don’t have direct access to the CEO in advance, then find out if your own manager or another member of the senior executive team can help forge an introduction. While the term “patronage” might seem outdated, your attendance at and participation in the Board meeting will usually depend on someone advocating on your behalf, or lobbying for you to be there in person.

15) If managers are attending a Board meeting to present or speak on a particular topic, then this should be noted in the agenda or notice of meeting. The CEO will also need to work with managers to ensure they are prepared and “worded up” on what they will be presenting. Getting the balance right between reporting facts, offering opinions, making a recommendation or seeking a decision is important, especially on a packed agenda!

16) As mentioned above, the role of Secretary is also very important in getting people prepared to engage with the Board – not just deciding the agenda but also briefing presenters on what to expect, and ensuring papers are not too long, cover the issues and have clear recommendations for a decision.

17) The Secretary also wields considerable influence as they get to minute the decision (which is not always as clear as it should be). Managers who are not Board members should receive a copy of the relevant minutes of any meeting they have attended.

Lobbying and briefings in advance

18) For some big issues you may be asked to present on, briefing and lobbying often happens outside of the Board meeting. You shouldn’t assume that a Board will make a good decision when all they get is a Board paper and a few days’ notice – especially around complex issues. Offering advance briefings to Board members (especially new directors) can help them get up to speed on major issues.

19) Even though your item is on the agenda, you should assume that the meeting will not have sufficient time to allow a full presentation or discussion of the issues. Hence the importance of advance briefings, especially where you are seeking a decision based on your recommendation.

3. Presenting to the Board

Why are you there?

20) Maybe you’ve been asked to make a presentation on a new strategic initiative, or to provide an update on a major project. Or perhaps it’s part of a regular program where managers and team leaders get to interact with the Board members. Whatever the case, you should establish in advance why you have been invited to attend, as this will frame the context for your contribution to the meeting.

Preparation, Preparation, Preparation

21) As with any presentation or public speaking, be comfortable with your material and try to know your audience in advance. Find out who will be attending, and if possible, identify if they have previously expressed any views on the topic under discussion. Equally, Board members should be provided with a brief bio of new managers presenting at the meeting, especially if it’s their first time to attend.

22) If you have also had an opportunity to provide Board members with an advance briefing, the preparation will help you to focus on the important and critical information, so you can establish the level of knowledge in the room and make sure the discussion does not waste valuable time going over the known facts or revisiting agreed positions.

23) While your expertise will be sought, more importantly, if you are seeking a decision of the Board, it is essential to be clear about the decision relates to, and you should offer a specific recommendation or preferred course of action.

Protocols and Etiquette

24) As mentioned above, Board meetings will be conducted in accordance with the constitution or other rules of the organisation. Meetings will also follow the Chairman’s preferences, with the support of the Company Secretary.

25) There are some basic “Do’s and Don’ts” you should consider, especially if you are attending or presenting for the first time:

Board members are not your friend – they have a governance role to perform
The CEO owns the relationship with the Board, and must know and in most cases approve all interactions between Board members and managers (as a manager, you should notify the CEO of any unsolicited approaches you receive from Directors, or in exceptional circumstances, you should notify the Chairman)
In the meeting, the Chairman of the Board (or Sub-committee meeting) is usually addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair (but check with the CEO or Company Secretary in advance!)
Boards require a structured agenda, well-thought out papers, clear recommendations, proper minutes and agreed actions or decisions (make sure you are clear about what you are asking for)
Board meetings are formal affairs, and while social banter is fine before and after the meeting, keep it business-like during the meeting itself

26) The Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Governance Institute of Australia, other professional bodies as well as NFP organisations (e.g., Leadership Victoria) often run courses and publish articles on these topics.

Learning experience

27) Whether you are General Manager reporting to a Committee of Management or a team leader presenting to senior executives, these comments should provide are some useful ground rules for how to prepare, what to expect, and how to conduct yourself at those meetings. In any event, the experience should be seen as a learning opportunity, and a chance to gain some professional exposure – but it’s not a license to show-off or grandstand!

Note:

This article incorporates comments from my former colleagues Fabienne Michaux, Marianne Matin, Louise Griffiths and Carol Benson, who were each contributing in a personal capacity.

Next week: Digital Adaptors

How to Survive a #Startup Weekend

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Content in Context

A rite of passage for any startup founder or budding entrepreneur is a weekend hackathon, and a Startup Weekend is probably the best way to throw yourself in at the deep end. As part of Startup Week, the York Butter Factory hosted Melbourne’s first fintech event. Here’s how I managed to survive the ordeal….

Your correspondent in full flow at the Final Pitch…

Rather than provide an hour-by-hour account of my experience (the schedule is on the website and you can read the Twitter feed), here’s my thoughts on what it takes to participate and get the most out of the experience:

Courage

Take a leap of faith, step up and pitch an idea at the open mike session on the first night. Not only does this force you to craft your message, it also helps overcome any nervousness or awkwardness in joining a room full of total strangers with whom you will be working for the next 54 hours. My idea didn’t get enough votes, but it did spark several interesting conversations with other participants, such that I will probably take it further.

Stamina

Pace yourself. Yes, you could spend every available hour on finishing that customer validation, or refining the pitch, or making sure your demo site is up and running – all of which are important – but you also need to make time for rest, sleep, eating (all catering is laid on) and exercise. Again, 54 hours is a long time to spend on a single activity.

Open Mindedness

I had some idea from the program notes what to expect, but I still didn’t really know what it would it be like. So it was great to just go with the flow, to see what would happen. The format, structure and schedule (as well as the rules and requirements for the Final Pitch competition), pretty much define what goes on. But your attitude and willingness to be open to new ideas determine how much you get out of the experience.

I should also mention the value in having direct access to so many experienced mentors throughout the weekend – although I know from the experience, it’s hard not to get too defensive when mentors find fault with your project, and difficult to remain true to the idea when some of the feedback is contradictory.

Teamwork

Building teams to collaborate on a startup idea forms the basis of the hackathon model. As my own idea did not get enough votes at the open pitch, I looked to join a team that was a good fit in terms of the idea, the mix of skills to complement my own, and the ability to execute. As a “non technical” participant, I was extremely fortunate to be part of team that had a great balance of back-end and front developers, design skills and mobile deployment. Plus, given the theme was fintech, it was fantastic working with people from a banking IT background. (It also helped that several team members were veterans of Startup Weekend.)

Defining Roles

Although we didn’t spend a great deal of time creating or defining roles within the team, each of us played to our strengths, by self-determining what we would work on, and what our contribution would be. The only tricky decision was choosing who would present the Final Pitch to the panel of judges – but a process of elimination, preference and negotiation resulted in yours truly taking on the role.

Tools

In addition to the various software, hosting and domain name resources provided to each team, I was impressed by how many other tools the team plugged into – such as Trello, GoogleForms, Hangouts, ThemeForest, CanvasModel Design and Launchrock – most of which were free. We also spent some time reviewing competing and complementary products as part our MVP validation.

Less Is More

We could have spent a lot of time on customer validation – but we chose instead to talk to 3 or 4 key target customers for the MVP (qualitative), and run an on-line survey (quantitative) which generated around 100 responses overnight (not bad considering it was a weekend…). We also had more content than we actually used: the lean canvas business model was used sparingly, as was a competitor heat map; but it also meant that when we came to developing our pitch presentation, we had the luxury of being able to take stuff out and only focus on the important and most relevant points. Thanks, also, to a presentation template that one of the team had just used at a recent management course!

Practise

Having been chosen to make the Final Pitch on behalf of the team, and despite quite a lot of experience in making business presentations and in public speaking, I was extremely grateful for the coaching, feedback and rehearsals the team put me through. Getting to know the material, understanding the anchor points and how to navigate from topic to topic, helped me to give a presentation that flowed logically and hopefully demonstrated that the team had met the competition brief.

The Result?

Unfortunately our team did not win, nor did it place in the top 3. The judges pinged our presentation for being “too confident”, and for not demoing our prototype (we did briefly put up our beta website) – but given the working prototype mostly comprised some backend coding, it wouldn’t have been that interesting from a visual perspective.

Notwithstanding our disappointment on the night, the team is planning to get together to see how far we can take the idea, and separately I’ve been asked to join a new team at an upcoming hackathon.

(If anyone is interested, we designed a P2P payments tool called PayMee)

Next week: 3 Ways to Fund Your #Startup

Update: Health, AusPost, eTaskr and Slow School

Posted on April 7, 2015 by Content in Context

Over recent months, I have blogged about health and the digital economy, the challenges facing AusPost, the progress of eTaskr and the birth of Slow School of Business. Here are some updates on each of these topics:

Apple launches developer platform for health apps

On top of launching “Health” with iOS8, Apple has released a software tool called ResearchKit designed to help researchers and developers build and test new health apps.

I think that while we hear a lot about the Internet of Things (#IoT), health is one area where the connection of the physical and the digital will really deliver tangible benefits (not just a fridge with a screen…).

Australia Post plans to raise the cost of sending letters

In the wake of declining letter volumes (and poorer financial performance), AusPost is considering jacking up the price of letter postage, and introducing a 2-speed letter service.

While this is not a surprising move, it does seem shortsighted. Given the increase in parcel volumes, especially from e-commerce and small online purchases, I reckon AusPost would be better off with more refined domestic parcel rates. For example, using exactly the same dimensions and weight, I can either send an item as a “large letter” for $2.10 (which is perhaps too cheap?), or as a “small parcel” for $7.45 (which is incredibly expensive for an item that might cost no more than $25). Maybe different band rates of 50g, from 100g up to 500g (the current weight limit for a small parcel/large letter) or even 1kg might be a better option, coupled with improved payment and lodgment automation? Just saying…

etaskr secures seed funding

Described as a “private label elance”, etaskr is a graduate of the AngelCube accelerator program, and was a finalist at last year’s Big Pitch organised by Oxygen Ventures.

Following their appearance at the Big Pitch, etaskr have recently closed $1.3m in seed funding from Oxygen Ventures. As mentioned in an earlier blog, etaskr is starting to see traction among corporate clients, including overseas markets, but the nature of the B2B sales cycle has meant that investors, incubators and accelerators are traditionally wary of such startups. Hopefully, this latest development will start to change market perception.

Slow School founder in the news

Finally, Carolyn Tate, the founder of Slow School of Business has been busy launching a new program of short courses (including Three of the Best) a new website and a new book. Oh, and she’s also become a B Corp. (Declaration of interest: I am a participant in, and adviser to, Slow School.)

Previously featured in Slow Living (required reading for the Slow Movement), Carolyn has taken a simple idea based on collaborative and peer-to-peer learning, and created a potentially disruptive platform for professional development and corporate training. Slow School is also tapping into the growing trend for people to work as independent contractors, freelancers and consultants (rather than permanent employees), and the dynamics of the digital economy where participants are also looking to make deep, personal connections rather than just online “friends”.

The new normal?

Post GFC, we’ve been told to expect a low/slow/no growth environment – that this is the “new normal”. I would add to that digital disruption, non-traditional commercial models and emergent ecosystems as being the other key influences on how we do business in this new environment. From what I have skim-read of the latest Intergenerational Report, the language is still couched in traditional terms of “jobs”, “productivity” and “industries”. Yes, there is mention of innovation, demographics, technology and flexible workplaces (i.e., deferring retirement?), but nothing that inspires me to think our political leaders understand what is really going on within the startup economy and the broader digital movement.

Next week: How to survive a Startup Weekend