Getting Stuck – and how to deal with it

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve all witnessed (or even experienced) those moments when a speaker or presenter gets stuck. They stumble over their material, they offer an inappropriate response to a tricky question, or they simply go off topic and stray into verbal quicksand. And although they realise they are in difficulty, they carry on regardless, only to wade deeper and deeper into the mire. Some of our current political leaders know exactly how that feels…

Photo by Mark Roy - Licensed under Creative Commons

Photo by Mark Roy – Licensed under Creative Commons

In my experience, many small business owners do the same thing when they get stuck. They carry on doing the same as they’ve always done, even though they know they need to change course, take another approach, or try a different tactic. Which is where someone like me comes to the rescue. As a consultant, I can bring an objective, external and independent perspective that can help clients navigate away from the problem, and steer them back onto the right track.

The Inflexion Point

The typical scenario is that the business is faltering. Most often it’s about sales and business development – either not enough new customers, or too few of the “right” customers (and too many of the “wrong” ones). Sometimes it’s about an aspect of their strategy that isn’t working. It could be a problem with their operations, such as workflow, resourcing or IT systems. Or it might be that they have lost their way and are facing some sort of external challenge. Or maybe there is a disconnect between the products and services that they offer, and what their customers actually need. Or it could be a need to recast their financial information to get a better idea of how the business is really tracking.

Whatever the issue, the common feature is a point of inflexion – the business is either stuck, has hit a plateau, or come to a fork in the road.

So, how do they get help?

The 3-Step Recovery Program

First, the client has to realise that doing the same thing won’t work, doing nothing is not an option, and they have to be open to the idea of change. They recognise that bringing in some external help will relieve the log jam (even though at this stage, they don’t know what form that help will take, or where it will come from).

Second, they do some basic research, or get a referral from their networks, on where they can get help. Much of my work comes via word-of-mouth and personal contacts, and in large part this is due to the need for trust in any consulting relationship. Sometimes, a prospective client has liked something they read in my blog, or heard something in our conversation that has clicked with their own needs. There has to be a connection or match with what the business needs, and what someone like me can offer. It’s a bit like finding a GP, financial planner or personal trainer – there has to be a fit.

Third, they are able to define a specific problem that needs addressing, or at least prioritize the issues. This requires some reflection, self-awareness, and willingness to have their assumptions challenged. There is a need for honesty, and even vulnerability, if the intervention is going to succeed.

Helping clients get back on track

I will say upfront that my services are not suited to everyone. If your business is running like a well-oiled machine, I probably can’t add much value, unless you are looking to improve an area of your operations, or embark on a new initiative where you need help in getting it off the ground. Alternatively, I may be able to help if you simply want to tap into some external perspectives to challenge your current thinking, or if you require some specific expertise that draws on my knowledge and experience. Otherwise, my role is to help clients get free of what is bogging them down.

One of my clients recently said that working with me felt like “keyhole” surgery, rather than undergoing open heart surgery. I think I know what he means, and that he meant it as a compliment….. In my experience tackling “the whole” is not always practical. Rather, zooming in on a particular aspect of the business allows for incremental change, that if applied appropriately, can have a multiplier effect. Such an approach is hopefully less disruptive, and therefore less threatening, to the existing business.

As part of my consulting work, I tend to break the business down into its component parts, look at the business model, review the revenue streams, and analyse the workflow, both internal operations and customer-facing services. For example, clients often have a slightly misplaced perception of where/how they add customer value – so, if they spend a lot of time on a particular task or activity, they naturally assume that this should form the greater part of what their customers pay for. Whereas in reality, the customers may value something else the business does, but the business has not realised that value.

It’s always important to encourage clients to develop an action plan, with specific goals, responsibilities and timelines. I’m not talking about a 50-page business plan, but a more manageable working document for the next 6, 12 or 18 months (depending on their circumstances). A key outcome of this is a list of priorities, plus agreement on which activities to wind-down or discontinue. Despite limited resources, businesses often make the mistake of trying to continue doing everything they’ve always done, plus all the new stuff – the law of physics suggests that something has to give, so they need to stop doing things that are no longer relevant, or are no longer working.

Making a Difference

When it comes to more direct business coaching, I know from the client feedback I receive that the insights I offer and the way I reframe their situation are as valuable as a re-engineered business plan. By analysing the problem, taking it apart and putting it back together again, it allows me to share my observations and offer fresh thinking – which is sometimes all the client may need to get back on track.

If you feel your own business could use some external assistance in getting back on track, or if you think you may be stuck as to what to do next, please get in touch via this blog.

Next week: The David and Goliath of #Startup #Pitching

#MedTech’s Got Talent 2015

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this month, the Department of Industry announced the first successful grant applicants under the Accelerating Commercialisation element of the Entrepreneurs’ Infrastructure Programme. Not surprisingly, there were a significant number of biotech projects in the list. The news came shortly after the second round of MedTech’s Got Talent (MTGT), a startup competition organised by STC and sponsored by the Victorian Government among others. The Grand Final was held at a gala event in Melbourne’s Crown Complex, and it suggests that despite some tentative beginnings, the local biotech sector is in great shape.

Screen Shot 2015-06-11 at 5.05.17 pmBased on my participation at the recent FinTech hackathon weekend, I was invited to join a team to compete at MTGT – which was both a privilege, and a huge challenge that took me out of my comfort zone, as the medical technology sector is not one I have any direct experience of (although of course I consider it to be one of the key sectors in the digital economy).

Our team, led by the exuberant Dominic Pham was presenting a new heart rate monitoring solution that combines wearables, mobile apps and cloud-based analytics. Sadly, despite a great effort by the whole team, we did not make it to the Top 5 – but it was a great experience nonetheless.

The competing teams could be classified into 3 broad categories:

  • Diagnostic & Predictive Tools
  • Rehabilitation & Spatial Monitoring
  • Drug delivery systems (Remote & Non-Invasive solutions)

Projects ranged from the highly ambitious (an artificial placenta) to the incredibly humble (an STI diagnostic kit aimed at developing countries). Some were using cutting edge technology (such as a new form of hearing device), others were applying new mobile and cloud-based technology to existing problems (such as digital pathology).

The 5 finalists (who now go on to an intense accelerator and investor presentation program) were:

It’s fair to say that a lot of the projects are still at the pre-clinical trial stage, and as far as I am aware, none have yet been granted TGA status, and most are yet to secure final patent grants – which reflects part of the challenge in bringing new products to market.

However, the impetus behind, and interest in, the biotech sector in general and MTGT in particular (the event brought together government, academia, clinicians, industry and investors) should mean we will be hearing a lot more about these startups in the months to come.

Finally, if anyone is interested, our own project was CardiacGuard, and is likely to launch later this year, as the underlying technology has already been developed, and some early-stage trials have been conducted in Hong Kong.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My thanks to Dominic and the rest of the CardiacGuard team (Tim Liu, Celine LaTouche and Rayen Magpantay) for giving me the opportunity to experience MTGT, and to all the organisers, mentors, sponsors and supporters who made the event happen.

Next week: Getting Stuck

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

Posted on by
2

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.

LightningConference

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:

  1. Community
  2. Infrastructure
  3. Funding
  4. Sustainability and 
  5. “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 survive as #Digital Adaptors

Posted on by
3

Marc Prensky coined the phrase “Digital Natives” back in 2001. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable way to explain the gap between those who have grown up “speaking” digital, and those who have had to learn to it as a second language, and in the specific context of Prensky’s thesis, those who have to teach digital. But is the label still meaningful or helpful? Has it been reduced to a marketing tag?

Source: Charlotta Wasteson (Creative Common - some rights reserved)

Source: Charlotta Wasteson (Creative Commons – some rights reserved)

Bridging the Digital Divide

Since its inception, the term “Digital Native” has since been used to describe a key characteristic of Gen Z (otherwise known as “Generation I” or even “I-Gen”), those born since the early 1990s and who have only ever known smart phones, tablets, social media, digital music, video streaming, online search, instant chat and photo sharing.

But a generation later, I think the tag is increasingly redundant – it’s less about learning the “language of digital”, and more about engaging with the digital evolution: those who are the best “Digital Adaptors” will find it easiest to cope and survive in a constantly disruptive and disrupted world.

The key to being Digitally Adaptive is learning how to make the best use of the available technology, apps and social trends so that they work for you, and not against you. For anyone who says they have missed the digital boat, I would simply refer them to people like my parents’ generation (active retirees in their 80’s) who have had to learn to use tools such as Skype and Facebook long after their retirement.

Digital Can Be Learned

I recently asked a client of mine, a Gen Y entrepreneur, what the term “Digital Native” meant to him: “Someone born in the 1990s, who has used digital technology from early childhood.”

He did not think the description applied to him, even though there had been computers at home when he was growing up, because he had not used computers in school from day one, and because he had not really learned how to code. (In fact, given the choice, he would have probably learned computer programming instead of a mandatory foreign language.)

This is someone who prefers to use Facebook Messaging instead of e-mail or even SMS, and who is never without a smart phone and/or laptop, and works in an industry where digital technology has caused considerable disruption to the old business models, while introducing many new opportunities. So, even though he is not a “Digital Native”, he has learned to adapt and can navigate his way through the landscape.

Another acquaintance (Gen X entrepreneur) was far more bullish on digital evolution: “The only human skills required in the future that cannot be digitized or computerised are creativity and critical thinking. We won’t need to communicate via written words and numbers because machine learning will adapt to our requirements, anticipate our needs and do the calculations for us.”

His business is now part of the shared economy (one of the many “dialects” that digital natives speak) so he, too has learned to adapt.

However, the more significant developments are among baby-boomers. These are experienced entrepreneurs, business people and professionals who have embraced digital as part of their continuing personal development, and then applied the learning to create new products, services and business models that harness the power of digital. OK, so they may not be fluent in Emoji, and might not know what the coolest trending #hashtags are, but they have seen the possibilities presented by digital, and are embedding them in the way they innovate, create and manage new opportunities.

The Natives Are Restless

There have been many recent studies about the impact of “digital” on our lives – whether it is the paradox of multitasking, our shortening attention spans, the need to be constantly plugged in (and the fear of missing out…) and the gulf between our virtual and real lives.

I think the common theme is that digital has not necessarily made us smarter or cleverer – even though we have access to infinite information and a smart phone can do in seconds what might have taken several hours on a mainframe computer. Instead, digital natives (and those who have become “naturalised”, to stretch Presnky’s metaphor) are increasingly impatient, don’t appreciate that some things still take time, and are yet to realise that instant gratification not only makes us lazy but dulls our appreciation for new experiences.

Moreover, without an understanding or curiosity for how things really work (the UI/UX is all you need to know…), digital has not really empowered us to think for ourselves, nor explore the depths of what the technology might be able to do for us. Instead, we are reduced to the shallows of “Likes”, “Follows”, “Shares” and “Retweets” in the hope/expectation that someone will reciprocate. For example, I recently heard of a new business that writes on-line dating profiles for their clients. While outsourcing such tasks may be efficient for time-poor digital citizens, it suggests we are only prepared to engage in the process at a superficial level, and in doing so we risk making ourselves more digitally dependant.

This digital monomania afflicts young and old alike – witness senior citizens getting hooked on social media – and can become self-limiting, because our interactions with a touch screen and our on-line/virtual relationships are seen as ends in themselves.

Digital Survival Kit

In my own case, I would not be classified as a digital native – we certainly didn’t have computers at my school (the most high-tech we got was a language lab with reel-to-reel tape decks, cathode ray oscilloscopes in the science class, and photo screen printing in the art room). And the only coding I learned was BASIC, with the aid of a Sinclair ZX81 home computer.

Home computing circa 1980

Home computing circa 1980

But at every stage of my career, I have had to keep up with (and in some cases, be an early adopter of) digital technologies, mostly through being self-taught and by learning from experience, as well as maintaining a natural curiosity whenever something new comes along. I would not describe myself as a technologist, but more like a tourist, who tries to learn a few words and phrases before they travel abroad.

In order to survive the digital deluge, here are a few things I do to keep abreast of current developments:

  1. Beta test new apps – developers are usually looking for beta testers, and it’s a great way to get access to stuff before anyone else, and often for free. I also attend product launches and workshops where developers and product managers can showcase what they are working on.
  2. Blogging etc. – apart from this weekly blog, and in addition to my social media accounts and social networking tools, I also maintain a Bandcamp account and SoundCloud page, where I upload my own compositions (many of which are created with iOS apps)
  3. Meet-ups – I attend numerous meet-ups for startups, technology, entrepreneurship and innovation, to network, to learn about new ideas and to watch pitches in action (e.g., events organised and promoted by Startup Victoria)
  4. On-line “How To” courses – YouTube and user forums are useful sources of instructional guides on how to use new apps, software and hardware (especially music, video and graphic design tools). For more in-depth content, I sometimes dip into on-line libraries from General Assembly and SitePoint
  5. Hackathons – In recent months I participated in a FinTech weekend hackathon, and took part in a MedTech startup competition. They took me out of my comfort zone, exposed me to new ideas, introduced me to some brilliant people and provided insights on alternative perspectives which I might not otherwise have considered
  6. Newsletters – There’s loads of stuff out there, but a few industry newsletters worth scanning on a regular basis are Beta.List, Gizmag and Mantra – but no doubt you will find similar publications that serve your needs. And using aggregation tools and curation apps can help you to manage the information flow
  7. Personal development – underpinning this digital immersion (and this may sound counter-intuitive!) I participate in alternative real-world education and training communities such as the Slow School of Business. This helps to keep me grounded (theory is great, but what practical things can we do?) and also provides some context for how the digital “learning” can be applied to collaboration, co-creation and community projects.

Don’t be a Digital Dropout

I’m not saying that all things digital are wonderful – and certainly, there is much that is unhealthy in the way digital impinges on our ability to think for ourselves – but it doesn’t pay to ignore it completely. By all means, ration your use of digital tools and devices, schedule time when you go totally off-line, and learn to switch from doing task-oriented activities to purely creative or abstract “play” alongside your digital engagement. Above all, find a way to embrace digital that works for you, establish a “digital persona” that you are comfortable with, get advice from people you trust, and perhaps like a tourist, learn to blend in….

Next week: Victorian Government’s plan for Innovation & Entrepreneurship