Archives de catégorie : Innovation

La Suède et les start-up

Comme je l’ai indiqué dans un post récent, j’ai fait un bref voyage en Suède où j’ai découvert quelques éléments de la scène suédoise des start-up. J’y étais invité par Anders Gezelius dont le parcours est très intéressant: diplômé de KTH (Stockholm) et d’un MBA de Wharton, il a travaillé en Californie pour Intel puis a créé une start-up de logiciel de comptabilité. Après l’avoir vendue, il est retourné en Suède. Il y anime Mentor4Research et Coach & Capital.

Voici les deux présentations que j’ai eu l’occasion de faire pour:
– Stockholm Innovation & Growth: why do start-ups succeed or fail?
– Mentor4research: What we may still learn from Silicon Valley

Une des leçons que j’ai tirée aussi bien de ce voyage que de celui que j’ai aussi fait à Boston (cf le venture mentoring service du MIT), c’est que la combinaison de mentor et d’investisseur (business angel) pourrait devenir de plus en plus critique. Les deux sont nécessaires. Les mentors sont des amis des entrepreneurs et donnent des conseils basés sur leur expérience. Ils peuvent aussi devenir des business angels qui investissent très tôt dans le développement de la start-up.

Une des plus belles illustrations d’un mentor et d’un entrepreneur est la rencontre de Steve Jobs et Robert Noyce aux débuts d’Apple:

Entrepreneurs et Révolution

Nicolas Hayek, fondateur de Swatch, était hier au Forum des 100.

Il y a parlé de crise et a appelé à une internationale des entrepreneurs!

« Nous avons besoin d’une internationale des entrepreneurs. L’économie est séparée en deux parties: l’économie financière, qui n’a rien à faire avec l’économie réelle. Or, nous avons une crise de la finance. Nous avons cette crise à cause de la cupidité des hedge funds, à ces gens qui pensent à gagner de l’argent avec de l’argent. Si nous n’avons plus de libre-échange, Monsieur Todd, nous n’avons plus de créativité. Si nous disons, nous voulons faire du protectionnisme. Dans ce cas, plus personne n’est obligé de faire des produits nouveaux, d’innover. Ce que nous avons fait avec la Swatch, nous avons trouvé le moyen de faire mieux et moins cher que les Japonais, ici en Suisse. »

Ironiquement, j’avais cité dans mon livre Pitch Johnson qui avait écrit des choses similaires: « Les entrepreneurs sont les révolutionnaires de notre temps » et il s’expliquait ainsi: « La démocratie fonctionne mieux quand il y a un peu de turbulence dans la société, quand ceux qui ne sont pas encore à l’aise peuvent grimper l’échelle économique en utilisant leur intelligence, leur énergie et leur habileté pour créer de nouveaux marchés ou mieux servir les marchés existants.

Alors dois-je conclure, entrepreneurs de tous les pays, unissez vous?

La question était d’autant plus d’actualité qu’il y eut aussi un débat fort intéressant entre Emmanuel Todd et Pascal Couchepin.

Trois choses que devrait faire toute start-up

Xconomy devient un de mes sites favoris. Voici un post sur les trois choses que devrait faire toute start-up.

Focalisez-vous sur un problème. Que vous fassiez une aide à la localisation, un moteur à faible consommation ou un réseau social dédié à la recherche d’emploi, approfondissez votre expertise du marché que vous adressez. Puis rendez votre produit incontournable, en utilisant tous les avantages comptétifs dont vous disposez. Concentrez-vous sur ce que vous faites mieux que les autres, mais n’essayez pas de tout faire.
— Travaillez sur ce qui vous passionne. Toute start-up a une histoire à raconter sur le pourquoi de ce qu’elle fait. Cette histoire doit sonner juste et en accord avec le parcours et l’expérience de ses fondateurs. Les investisseurs (et les clients) verront tout de suite si une entreprise est crédible.
— Allez à l’essentiel. Que fait votre entreprise de si cpécial, de si unique? En quoi est-elle différente de ses compétiteurs? Vos interlocuteurs décideront si l’histoire semble prometteuse dans les 30 premières secondes de votre pitch, donc adressez ces questions dès le début.

Je serai à Stockholm le 12 mai où je donnerai deux présentations sur les start-ups, l’une sur le succès et l’échec (Stockholm Innovation), l’autre sur les leçons à tirer de la Silicon Valley (Avslutningskonferens 2009). J’aurais sans doute pu utiliser ces trois points.

Entrepreneuriat en temps de crise et de récession.

La crise a-t-elle a un effet sur l’entrepreneuriat. C’est la question que m’a posée Manuela Salvi lors du journal de la Radio Suisse Romande (RSR) aujourd’hui. Vous pouvez retrouver ma réponse sur le document
audio en cliquant ici.

rsr.gif

Voici ma réponse développée plus en détail: la réalité est complexe et il ne semble pas y avoir tant d’études que cela sur le sujet. La fondation Kauffman a cependant publié en décembre dernier une étude fort intéressante sur le sujet: Entrepreneurs and Recessions: Do Downturns Matter?

L’analyse couvre 8464 entrées en bourse entre 1975 et 2006, de sociétés créées entre 1831 et 2006. Les auteurs recensent 9 crises sur cette période:  1907–1908, 1918–1921, 1929–1939, 1953–1954, 1957–1958, 1973–1975, 1980–1982, 1990–1991, et 2001–2003. Le graphe suivant ne semble pas montrer de différences notables. La second guerre mondiale a un impact. Plus inquiétante est sans aucun doute la chute récente. Mais il peut tout simplement être trop tôt pour juger.

Dans une autre étude intitulée Economic Crisis Survey, la fondation Kauffman indique que  71% des Américains pensent « que la crise rend plus difficile la création d’entreprises ». Pourtant les anecdotes qui indiquent le contraire sont nombreuses: Texas Instruments, Revlon pendant la Grande Dépression, Microsoft, Apple pendant la crise du pétrole furent de tels succès. Sans parler de création d’entreprises, le lancement des Pampers en 1961 et de l’iPod en 2001 sont une autre illustration que les périodes de crise n’empêchent pas l’innovation.

Sans traduire, je vous fournis un extrait de la première étude:

« At a high level we essentially are concerned with the relationship between the supply of companies (“births”) by founding period, and the outcome achieved by those date-based founding cohorts over time. To deal with this supply aspect, a few broad points can be made. The first is what we might call the scarcity argument. It says that fewer companies are founded during difficult economic times, so we can expect disproportionately fewer successful companies to emerge from that economically constrained population. Why might we expect fewer companies founded during recessions, for example?

There are several reasons. First, entrepreneurs might decide to delay creating companies until the economy into which they anticipate selling products or services is more robust. This argument applies most strongly to entrepreneurs in service industries where there is little lag time from company founding until first product/service sale. If there is a longer lag between company founding and product launch, we might not expect entrepreneurs, all else being equal, to hesitate as much in starting their new ventures. Why? Because first revenues might be anticipated to more likely coincide with a resurgent economy.

There are other reasons to expect fewer companies to be founded during economic downturns. One has to do with entrepreneurs’ unwillingness to leave their current places of employment during a weak economy. Another, and perhaps more compelling, obstacle to company founding in weak economic periods might be the limited availability of risk capital during such periods. To the extent that it is difficult to raise money for a new entrepreneurial venture, we might expect fewer companies founded during such periods.

The preceding touches mostly on supply issues—why we might (or might not) expect more companies to be founded during weaker economic periods. There also is a demand issue. Even if similar numbers of companies are founded, it is plausible that more of these companies do not achieve material financial success due to the poor economy at founding, thus leading to poorer longer-term outcomes for cohorts of companies founded during weak economic periods.

In summary, we can plausibly make three broad points. First, it is reasonable to expect that fewer companies will be founded during weak economic periods. Second, companies founded during those periods might be expected to fail at higher rates than companies founded during more economically receptive periods. Third, the combination of lower birth rates and higher failure rates would conspire to deplete company cohorts founded during recessionary periods. »

Il y a donc bien un paradoxe, puisque les succès semblent équivalents. Voici donc pour terminer sans concuure, quelques arguments tirés du blog envie d’entreprendre qui expliquent pourquoi un entrepreneur aurait plus de chances de succès en temps de crise:

« Puisque les financements sont plus difficiles à obtenir, ceux qui savent opérer de façon très low cost, frugales, ont un edge évident. Et comme beaucoup de gens sont attentistes, voire carrément « frozen », prenant la crise comme excuse pour ne rien faire, ou ne peuvent pas démarrer faute de financement, il y a objectivement moins de concurrence sur la place. Effet d’une concurrence moindre également, le marché de l’emploi est bien moins tendu [et donc plus de talents sont disponibles]. A ce sujet, le fait de se retrouver parfois « out » pour une raison ou une autre, peut justement donner le coup de pouce pour se lancer dans une aventure entrepreneuriale. »

J’aime bien ces éléments,
– moins de concurrence
– plus de talents disponibles
– une meilleure efficacité due à plus de frugalité.

Les périodes de crise semblent donc créer des opportunités, mais il n’en reste pas moins vrais que les entrepreneurs essaieront toujours, quelque soit la dureté des temps.

Les business schools peuvent-elles enseigner l’entrepreneuriat?

Un post intéressant sur le site Xconmy. Il s’agit d’un sujet récurrent qui n’a évidemment pas de réponse.

Voir le lien Can Business Schools Teach Entrepreneurship?

Dans de vrais écosystèmes comme la Route 128 ou la Silicon Valley, les business schools sont une des composantes et les étudiants trouvent ou déeveloppent leurs idées plus aisèment. Mais je ne suis pas sûr que les Business Schools enseignent l’entrepreneuriat. Elles expliquent, elles exposent, et bien sûr elles enseignent la gestion.  Comme j’ai commenté sur le site xconomy:

There is a talk by Prof Byer (Stanford) about the Silicon Valley and Stanford ecosystems, where the author claims about 5% of companies are direct transfers of technology:http://spie.org/documents/Newsroom/audio/Byer.pdf. It is not clear how many companies Stanford alumni have created. At least 2′500 but probably many more. Now the role of business schools is another subject of interest. You have stories on both sides, i.e. pure engineers or scientists (Google, Yahoo, Cisco in the academia, Apple outside) or entrepreneurs from bus. schools (Sun Micro, eBay).

Le rôle entrepreneurial du MIT

En général, j’essaie de traduire intégralement mes posts en Français et en Anglais. Je n’en ai exceptionnellement pas le courage. Je vous renvoie donc au post en Anglais à propos du rôle entrepreneurial du MIT.

Vous y découvrirez l’importance des aspects culturels, comme le montre aussi la table qui suit. Bonne lecture en anglais…

Envie d’entreprendre

Vous voulez devenir un entrepreneur, mais vous n’en êtes pas tout à fait sûr? Alors vous vous dites: dois-je quitter un travail bien payé, en pleine récession, lever de l’argent avec 37 cartes de crédit, transformer mon garage en bureau, à côté de mon vieux vélo rouillé et créer ma société? Bien sûr que oui! Se jeter à l’eau apporte la liberté et fait grandir, et l’on atterrit toujours plus accompli. Peur de l’échec? Vous seriez surpris du nombre d’investisseurs qui préfèrent parier sur quelqu’un qui a goûté aux fruits amers de l’échec. En échouant, vous apprenez ce qu’il ne faut pas faire. Lancez-vous et vous découvrirez qu’il n’y a pas d’échec; vous aurez dégagé l’horizon et ouvert votre esprit et vous vous serez réinventé.

C’est ainsi que Larry Marshall, un serial entrepreneur, commence un article écrit en 2001! Ce n’est peut-être pas aussi sexy que Paul Graham ou Guy Kawasaki, mais en tout cas tout aussi intéressant. Je viens juste de le découvrir ainsi que son blog et je trouve que cela vaut la peine de lire l’article entièrement. Le voici donc extrait intégralement de Laser Focus World.

So you want to be an entrepreneur, but you’re just not sure. And you wonder: Should I quit my well-paid job in the middle of a recession, raise money on 37 credit cards, build a lab bench in my garage next to my rusty old bike and start a photonics company? Hell yes! Leaping into the void leads to freedom and growth, which always lands you on a higher plane. Afraid of failure? You’d be amazed at how many investors prefer to back someone who has tasted the bitter fruits of failure. In failing you learn what not to do. Get your skin in the game and there is no failure—you have opened your mind to growth and yourself to reinvention.

As engineers and scientists, we have natural obstacles to overcome if we are to become entrepreneurs. We look at things from the technology perspective and forget the mantra of the marketplace. Open your mind to a market, understand your customer’s problem, then create a solution that puts more cash in his pocket. While technology can enable a new business, it is not necessary. However, knowing your market and the needs of your customers is mission-critical in starting your business.

Too early to market and you run out of money before you generate revenue to sustain your business. Too late and you’re just another « me too » scrambling for the crumbs of the pie dropped by the market leader. But if you read the market right, then you ride the crest of the market wave all the way to success.

Focus, focus, focus
As a photonics person you should understand focus. In a startup your focus must be diffraction limited—do one thing and do it better than everyone else. With limited resources, the only way to produce enough force to penetrate the market is to focus all your weight on a single point. Don’t wear blinders. You must be aware of and respond to changes in the market. But focus is the key. Pick the one product you think will sell. Talk with your customers to define your product. Make sure that your customers want to buy it. Then, when you have defined it, engineer it, produce it, and sell it fast. Pick the wrong product and you will fail quickly. But try to spread the risk and you will linger in purgatory indefinitely.

Only two things create value in a company—product development and selling (marketing is selling to groups). Research may be the key to your company’s future, but there are bills to pay between now and then. Don’t get into business to do research—find a university and give them some money to do it for you; they’ll do a better job for less money. Your mission is to satisfy a market need and make money in the process. Unfortunately, it is possible to raise money today on the promise of tomorrow’s great technology, but this is a train wreck waiting to happen.

There is another aspect to focus—the customer. Everyone in the company from the janitor to the CEO must focus on the customer. Successful hi-tech companies maximize interactions between their engineers and customers and promote peer-to-peer selling. Customers are not only the source of your revenue, they are also the wellspring of your ideas.

One more thing, answer this question: Do I want to change the world (even a little), or do I just want to get rich quick? Those who start businesses because they want to create something new and better don’t always succeed, but those who are just in it for the buck almost never do. The fire inside your belly sustains you through the ordeal, but greed alone will not.

Did I mention focus?

Raising money
After funding startups in several ways, including using credit cards (37 of them, and in a recession too), friends and family, corporate backing, and venture capitalists (VCs), I have these observations. Bootstrapping and incubation work extremely well if you are smart enough to see far ahead of the market—then you can afford to trade time for money. You can raise an « angel » round to finance your prototype development and line up some real customers before you give away half the company raising venture financing. Although a VC will want 40% to 50% of the equity in the first round of financing (regardless of how much money you raise), if you can’t see more than two years into the future, get VC money (see « Making the pitch, » this page).

Venture capitalists add value beyond mere money. Their portfolio of companies can contain your future customers, their name should greatly leverage your cash, and their networks will open doors through which you could not otherwise pass. If you are a diamond in the rough, they will polish you until you shine, but if you don’t shine they’ll find another rock that will. And whoever gives you money, be it your brother, your barber, an angel, or a VC, make sure you like each other—you’ll go through a lot together in the years to come. Remember: you always need much more money than you think.

How do VCs decide which businesses to fund? Ask yourself how you decide to lend money to a friend. Trust. A VC trusts character, experience, team, and the quality of the idea. The idea will attract them, but the team will hook them. Venture capitalists invest in people first and ideas second. The market will change after you are funded and unless the team responds with better ideas, the business will fail. Startups have a wonderful ability to respond rapidly to change, and this, I believe, makes them the new-product development engines of industry.

Building the team
So what makes a great company? A great team. Clearly, a great CEO surrounds himself with people whose skills complement his own. Technical excellence alone is insufficient justification to hire any individual. It is better to have a well-coordinated team of good players than an ungainly group of outstanding individuals. As a founder you must set the tone for your company and recruit people who share your vision, goals, and ideals. Hire the best people you can find wherever you can find them. And always be on the lookout for your own replacement—after all, don’t you want the best people running your company?

When you start hiring skilled people, many of them will want to « make the move to management. » Few of them are capable. A great manager gathers information first, and then takes decisive action. A great inventor makes leaps of faith based on intuition, and is usually a frustrating manager. A great entrepreneur is a mix of the two. Understand that many people want to be managers but few should be—management is not about ego. It is about serving your subordinates in any way that better enables them to do their job, and then getting the hell out of the way so they can do it.

Even the best team players are working for a paycheck. So, share the wealth. Pay people what they are worth, not what you can get them for. Generally, compensate those who contribute to future value—scientists and engineers—in stock, and those who generate immediate value (sales) in cash. If everyone is an owner of your business they will take pride in it, nurture it, and ensure its success.

And remember, you are the lynchpin of your team. Surround yourself with quality advisors on technology, marketing, and business. These are peers, colleagues, and friends. But most important, find an experienced startup CEO who has built companies like yours before and who is still actively doing it, and make him your mentor.

Build more than a better mousetrap
As technologists we often are fooled into thinking that if we simply create a better technology, the market will be ours. A business creates solutions for which customers pay. So if better technology creates a better solution, then the world will beat a path to your door, right? Wrong! Technologically, visible diodes were a quantum leap from HeNe lasers, yet it has taken 10 years for them to replace the HeNe. It’s much harder than you think to displace an entrenched technology. You need substantial improvements, better cost structure, or both. Cash in the pocket is the customer’s bottom line—if you keep more in theirs, they will put some in yours. There is a fixed amount of cash being spent in any given industry. If you want a portion of that cash, either you can take market share from competitors, or capture cash that is paid to others (lifecycle costs, for example), or (ideally) grow the market by adding functionality. This is the crux of any new business.

In my second business, we created a revolutionary solid-state laser technology to replace the ion laser. We could produce several watts of green laser output from an all-solid-state box the size of a cigar case. This was a big improvement over ion lasers, but only to people who worried about 3-phase power, water-cooling, portability, and lifetime. It turned out that, for many people, other benefits of ion lasers that we had never considered outweighed these problems. We persevered, though, and ultimately found a niche in the medical market creating the world’s first miniature portable photocoagulator. Customers loved it. We also replaced copper vapor lasers in dermatology. Again the customers loved it. But we forgot to grow the market. We had made a box that didn’t need a new tube every few years. It worked so well, that once we sold a unit we never saw that customer again. Your new product should not only offer greater functionality at a lower price—it also needs to grow the market.

Running your business
The marketplace is a crucible that burns away all irrelevancies and leaves one pure product—profit. If you don’t make money, your business will fail, and no amount of excuses can save you. No excuses is a core principle of business. Keep your commitments! If you tell Wall Street you will make $1/share earnings—do it. If you fail, have a recovery plan and be sure to eliminate the source of the failure. The market hates failures, but it hates excuses more.

The market rewards results, not effort. As R&D people we learn there is no such thing as failure; even a null result is valuable. Not in business. If you spend a year working on a contract that then goes south, you just wasted a year. You failed to generate revenue and you took food out of the mouths of your team. You should be shot! I hope you had a backup plan.

As your company grows, it will change. Businesses tend to excel at only one thing, but that thing evolves over the life of a business. A typical cycle would be technology, then execution, then manufacturing. JDS Uniphase (JDSU; San Jose, CA) is a great example—it penetrated the market with a great technology, gaining knowledge and experience that enabled the company to execute better than everyone else, and ultimately developed a world-class automated manufacturing system that produce long-lived quality products at a lower price. Now JDSU has fine-tuned a process that allows it to buy new technologies and quickly integrate them into that finely tuned manufacturing machine—that’s an ability that’s hard to beat.

Are you the CEO?
I’ve been lucky enough to report directly to several different types of CEOs whose backgrounds were technical, sales, marketing, and engineering. The two best were technical and marketing. The latter person had a natural advantage over the others in that he valued technology for its ability to reach the customer, not as something of intrinsic worth. He was customer-focused and hired great technology people (I like to think I was one of them) to create his vision.

The technology person was a truly visionary CEO. He immersed himself in his customers’ market. He spent a lot of time working alongside his customers to understand their needs, and thereby won both their trust and their business. He understood their problems and solved them. If you can do this too, you will win! So what are you waiting for?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have been fortunate enough to learn from some outstanding people and I thank them here: Josh Mackower, Milton Chang, Ted Boutacoff, Don Hammond, Bill Lanfri, Walter Koechener, Paul Davis, Bob Anderson, Robert Haddad, Bob Byer, and Dan Hogan.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Larry Marshall is the CEO of Lightbit Corp, a next-generation telecommunications components startup. He has angel-invested in three startups, and personally done three others, including Light Solutions Corporation, which merged with Iris medical, and went public as Iridex, in February 1996 (Nasdaq:IRIX; Mountain View, CA). Marshall is an active inventor, holds nine patents protecting 16 commercial products, and has over 100 publications and presentations. He is chairman of the OSA Conference on Advanced Solid State Lasers, is an editorial advisory board member to Laser Focus World, and is on the board of directors of two telecommunications startups. Larry Marshall is founder and CEO of Lightbit Corp. P.O. Box 20453, Stanford, CA 94309; e-mail: larry@lightbit.com.

_______________________________

Making the pitch
When you write your business plan and pitch to a venture capitalist, you only need to answer seven basic questions:

  1. What problem or need will you solve or serve?
  2. Who are your customers?
  3. How much will they pay?
  4. What is your product?
  5. How much will it cost to build and sell?
  6. Who are your competitors and how will you beat them (barriers to entry or exit)?
  7. How big is the payoff and when will it happen?

Your single-page executive summary should answer these questions and is likely to be the only part of your plan an investor actually reads. Write concisely and honestly.

When you write your business plan remember that a little bit of « hype » goes a very long way—the wrong way. And don’t believe your own hype. If you claim, for example, that « there are no competitors » or that « they are inferior, » you are actually telling investors that you are either a genius or a fool (and they will assume the latter). It’s actually pretty easy to sell a story and there have been some great cons. But if you do sell a story you’ll spend the next several years building a business doomed to fail—and who wants to do that?

It is hard to be honest with your own ideas, so take them for a test drive with friends. Surround yourself with quality business advisors who are not afraid to tell you the truth and you can quickly separate the lemons from the gems.

Né pour grandir

Je viens de lire un rapport intitulé « Born to Grow – How to Harness Europe’s most innovative entrepreneurs »

Rien de fondamentalement nouveau, mais il représente une excellente synthèse de recommandations à direction de l’Europe et j’ai mis en gras celles qui me semblent essentielles. Je ne fais pas l’effort de les traduire…

  • Teach the values of innovation and entrepreneurship in our schools
  • Celebrate successful entrepreneurs – in prizes and the media
  • Break the barrier between business and technical universities
  • Organise researchers to work across scientific disciplines
  • Train young researchers and managers for global growth – and flexibility
  • Adopt policies to encourage innovation clusters around universities
  • Create “free innovation zones” to speed growth in selected clusters
  • Support the role of large companies in cluster-development
  • Give priority to creating “lead markets” for innovation
  • Free information flows – with online portals, benchmarking and patents
  • Target tax incentives and other financing aids to growth companies
  • Tout aussi importantes, voici les caractéristiques des entrepreneurs de croissance (page 11):

    Originality. The greatest entrepreneurs have a better idea: a novel product, service or process that fills a need.

    Adventurousness. In the generally risk-averse culture of Europe, it’s rare to find an entrepreneur with the will to quit a cushy job and gamble the future on an idea.

    Dedication. Rigor and determination are hotwired into the best entrepreneurs – and that comes naturally to many scientists and engineers.

    Ambition. International business success comes easier if the entrepreneur’s plan is global from the
    start.

    Humility. Perhaps the rarest, but most important, trait in a high-growth entrepreneur is the ability to recognise one’s personal limitations – and seek help from others, rather than try to
    run the whole show.

    In the nurture of a high-growth entrepreneur:

    A thriving ecosystem. Businesses don’t grow in vacuums; they need networks of suppliers, researchers and customers.

    Financial backing. It takes money for a start-up to grow from minnow to whale; and deeppocketed, deeply engaged investors are critically important.

    A big, open market. A company needs plenty of room for manoeuvre – and some of the brightest entrepreneurial stars have profited when old, regulated markets started to open up.

    Big brothers. For many start-ups, it helps to grow in the shelter of big corporations that create their
    own ecosystems. Examples: Risto Siilasmaa, whose F-Secure antivirus company thrived in the 3,500-company world created around mobilephone giant Nokia; and Peter Bang and Jesper Balser, whose Danish business-process software firm Navision grew up in Microsoft’s programming environment – and was later bought by it.

    Biotech UK et US

    Une autre illustration des différences entre Etats-Unis et Europe : la croissance des biotech US et UK. Le texte intégral se trouve sur Nature Biotechnology et mon ami André m’a mentionné le blog Corante où il a découvert l’information.

    corante.gif

    Et voici la conclusion du blogger (en Anglais) :

    « What I found interesting about the editorial, though, wasn’t these conclusions per se – after all, as the piece goes on to say, they aren’t really a surprise […] No, the surprise was the recommendation at the end: while the government agency that ran this study is suggesting tax changes, entrepreneur training, various investment initiatives, and so on, the Nature Biotechnology writers ask whether it might not be simpler just to send promising UK ideas to America. 

    Do the science in Great Britain, they say, and spin off your discovery in the US, where they know how to fund these things. You’ll benefit patients faster, for sure. They’re probably right about that, although it’s not something that the UK government is going to endorse. (After all, that means that the resulting jobs will be created in the US, too). But that illustrates something I’ve said here before, about how far ahead the VC and start-up infrastructure is here in America. There’s no other place in the world that does a better job of funding wild ideas and giving them a chance to succeed in the market. »

    La Silicon Valley est-elle en danger?

    Voici une interview vidéo sur la Silicon Valley. Elle est inquiétante et je ne peux pas être en total désaccord: l’industrie high-tech murit si bien que l’innovation pourrait y être moins critique. Les VCs sont en crise même s’ils l’admettront pas ouvertement. La prise de risque disparait. « Engineers are gun shy of start-ups ». Quel terrible message…

    Bien sûr on peut aussi réagir car ceci n’est pas nouveau. : Silicon Valley Fever est un livre de 1984 qui décrivait déjà très bien les ennuis des start-ups et des ingénieurs. On a régulièrement entendu la complainte « trop d’argent pour trop peu d’opportunités ».

    Quoi qu’il en soit, je vous laisse découvrir, apprécier, voire commenter.

    PS: merci à Andre M. pour avoir attirer mon attention sur ce document.