Those That Could Go Either Way

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that the strength of the regional economy is particularly dependent on loading the dice in favour of success for technology companies that maybe could 'go either way' or operate in a niche. Some contribute high-quality jobs to the economy, such as media companies and those dependent on individual creativity, but will never scale beyond a certain size. Many and often is the key to success for these boutiques, not trying to distort their business model.

Simon Hill, director of enterprise at Yorkshire Forward, emphasised at Vikingar (see previous post) that government intervention is best targeted at companies that have the potential for high growth. The key point here is that we want growth of high-quality jobs and more successful companies. Government support and invention is best targeted, not at the beacons of success (although I can understand the wish to dwell in their shadow), but more the small bonfires that are in danger of just smoldering, unless some help and support in their early stages of development. Getting more reluctant entrepreneurs to try starting a business, or giving high-quality advice and support to fledgling enterprises that could go either way is where the difference needs to be made.

Vikingar

Some highlights from the Vikingar event organised by the Viking Fund. Charles Arthur, technology editor of the Guardian, emphasised the importance of Blogs and RSS push technology in alerting him to stories of interest. Ian Weatherhog from Standford Technology raved about Web 2.0 and how inclusion and community is what its all about. Jotted down “swarm” and “flock” as sites to check out.

Interesting debate about the importance of good management versus good technology. One view I heard expressed by a university spin-out was that if the technology is innovative and a market opportunity exists, everything else, including the management, can be fixed (and probably has to be in that context!). However, the overwhelming view of the audience was that good management was of paramount importance. The key point is that navigating from anything like a good idea to an addressable market through the innovation minefield requires a blend of management skill and experience.

And that relates to my view that too much money can be a bad thing, as it takes the pressure off the management to validate their value proposition in the market. Far too many young technology companies fail to embrace potential early adopters and sell something however badly! As ever the alternative also occurs as many of the propositions we see are being just too precious with their equity and should be raising far more money to make the most of their opportunity. A small slice of a bigger pie is invariably better than 100% of nothing! Also a valid point made by Andrew Burton was that invariably these companies need a second round of financing and multiple fund raising rounds diverts management attention from growing the business.

As I let the audience retire to the bar in good time in return for some Blog comments, I look forward to seeing this site race up the Google rankings. Who knows we may even end up on Charles Arthur’s news feed!

Points Win Prizes

Funding comes in all shapes and sizes. Maybe one for the adventurous, but the Genomics X Prize has just been announced that promises $10M for the first successful sequencing of 100 human genomes in 10 days. This kind of high-throughput (low cost) genetic profiling is a prerequisit to usher in the era of personalised medicines.

More bite-size prize challenges can be found on the Innocentive web site that seeks to match up scientific problems of commercial worth with 'solvers'. Only problem is that if you solve one of the challenges you have to sign over the IP rights...like any fund raising you have to give some to get some!