Tag Archives: Innovation

Early mornings on innovation at the Swiss National Radio

Leave a reply

I was invited this morning on RSR, the (french-speaking) Swiss National Radio, to talk about innovation and start-ups in their morning (5am to 6am!) Petits Matins. For those who know about the topic, nothing fundamentally new, with the slight exception that I learnt recently that a common feature to many entrepreneurs would be dyslexia (two studies were made in the USA and the UK). In total, a 30-minute conversation on my favorite topic, that you may listen on the RSR website if French is a language you like. Many thanks to Manuela Salvi, the talended RSR journalist.

More importantly, I could invite a guest on the phone at 5:45am (what a gift!) I was delighted to let Peter Harboe-Schmidt talk about his novel The Ultimate Cure, a beautiful thriller with a Lausanne-based biotech start-up as the background. I had already mentioned that book on this blog. Peter just announced the novel had just been translated in French.

Boulevard of Broken Dreams

Leave a reply

A colleague of mine (thanks Jean-Jacques) recently mentioned to me this book by Josh Lerner, which full title is Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed–and What to Do About It. I was all the more interested that Lerner is the author of many academic papers on high-tech entrepreneurship, and particularly of one about serial entrepreneurs: “Performance Persistence in Entrepreneurship” [pdf format here] with Paul Gompers, Anna Kovner, and David Scharfstein, Journal of Financial Economics, 62 (2007), 731-764. I will come back in the future on this topic which I am currently studying.

So what should we do about the public efforts is what Lerner is trying to help us with and his answer shows how challenging the topic is. What is beautiful about the author (my personal point of view) is that he likes history (just like me). Just like Steve Jobs! Just read again what I posted about Jobs on mentors; “You can’t really understand what is going on now unless you understand what came before”.

Lerner’s initial chapter is “A Look Backwards” He shows how entrepreneurs and investors benefited and suffered from each other in the 70s and 80s, including the excess of speculative bubbles, the PC burst of the 80s for example. He also shows how important public support was in the very early days through the funding of research (mostly the cold war militaries) and the legal actions to ease venture capital (SBIRs, Erisa Acts) so that he does not really agree with Rodgers (founder of Cypress) who wanted government out of Silicon Valley (page 32) so that he claims that “The Public sector did play a key role in shaping the evolution of Silicon Valley” (page 35).

Then, in the following chapters he shows how complex it is to find facts: “consistent information on venture-backed firms that were acquired or went out of business doesn’t exist” (page 59) which means that quantitative analysis is rare. And remember he is a respected academic, so he knows! What he tried to do then, is to show some of the obvious mistakes: incompetence in allocating public resources (page 73), capture, that is use of subsidies by the wrong groups (page 80), by “organizations that are mandated to help entrepreneurs” (page 83). “Seven of the incubators gave less than 50% of funding in cash to incubated firms” (just one example from Australia, page 84) or the SBIR program which has exhausted its usefulness (page 85).

So his advice is:
– enhancing the entrepreneurial culture (page 90) [through the right laws, the access to technologies, tax incentives and training],
– increasing the venture market’s attractiveness (page 100) [through allowing partnerships, creating local markets, accessing human capital abroad],
– avoiding common mistakes: timing [be patient], sizing [not too small, not too large], flexibility [learn by doing], create the right incentives [and here it is a complex situation as perverse effects from good ideas often occur] and evaluate [which does not happen often enough].

Indeed, his introduction (pages 12 and following ones) summarized it all: you need rules, experience, time, incentives and assessment. But with all his experience and knowledge about high-tech entrepreneurship, Lerner is very humble with the lessons: the topic is really complicated, all these advice have to be implemented together and it is really their careful interconnections which will make an ecosystem lively or not. Then it is my personal conclusion that such favorable conditions will be useful if entrepreneurs use them intelligently. So the reason why all this fails has many roots…

I cannot finish this post without comparing it to my book. It is indeed very similar in its conclusions with slightly different facts and figures. So you would learn complementary and consistent things by reading both! My thesis is we need an entrepreneurial culture and access to people from Silicon Valley who have the experience. Everything else is necessary but not sufficient.

There will never be another Silicon Valley

1 Reply

Well who am I to predict the future? In fact I do not know but I really doubt it. Famous bloggers have mentioned the topic again recently. In Techcrunch it was Can Russia Build A Silicon Valley? by Vivek Wadhwa. And in the Equity Kicker, it was Building an ecosystem to rival Silicon Valley by Nic Brisbourne. I reacted to both in the following way:

What a topic! Clearly something which has been around for… at least 35 years (I mean how to replicate SV). The fact that we still discuss it shows how complex it is. It has been my main concern in the last years and for the beauty of the debate (that’s what blogs are about, right?) let me play the devil’s advocate fully. At an extreme, I do not think there will ever be another Silicon Valley. For example, Kenney claims in his book on SV it requires 5 basic ingredients: universities of high caliber (Stanford and Berkeley in SV), a strong investor base, service providers, high-tech professionals (who accept to leave their big companies for start-ups so from Intel, Cisco, Apple, MSFT, even Google now to the next wave) and last but not least an entrepreneurial culture. All this is not easy to gather. But even worse, SV was probably an accident, a monster which was never successfully replicated. Saxenian showed in Regional Advantage how even the Boston area failed and the fact that Paul Graham moved ycombinator fully out of Boston to SV is just another sign. In Europe, Sophia Antipolis was a first experience … in 1972 so? So you need a rare combination of ingredients in the recipe and hope the oven is at the right temperature for a long, long time. Now I am playing devil’s advocate so things are not so bad. As a positive reaction, let me add my own analysis: I am not sure governments are good at innovation, they are good at stimulating research. The US federal govt has put billions through DARPA, NIH, DOE, etc, and this obviously helped Stanford, Berkeley to be the best universities worldwide (see the rankings) and the Internet to be created. Long term investment in infrastructure is what gvts are good at (education, research, transport…) Then, yes, bridges with SV are critical. It is exactly how Israel, Taiwan, then India and China have been successful with their diasporas. Countries should invite back the experienced migrants. When he has time, Brin should help Russia or Levchin Ukraine, or even Grove Hungary etc… I am less sure tax credits, admin, legal tools have been so useful in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s when SV was its in early days. As a conclusion, it is and will remain for a while a great topic.

Of course, my reaction was not as important as the source of the posts: Russia wants to be more innovative and commissioned a report to assess experiments of innovation ecosystems. The result is the following report: Yaroslavl Roadmap 10-15-20 (pdf format.)

There isn’t anything really new in this report, at least for innovation experts. But it is a very good synthesis of what the USA, Israel, Finland, India, and Taiwan have tried, be successful in, but also in what they failed.  The historical summaries are great and full of good lessons. I had the feeling the authors put too much emphasis on infrastructure vs. culture. It is my own bias again! They mention culture a lot, but they may be aware also that it’s the most difficult thing to create… If you like the topic, you should certainly download and read the pdf, and build your own opinion.

Gazelles and Gorillas – high growth startups

Leave a reply

Since I have been interested in start-ups, i.e. 1997, I have always been puzzled about the macroeconomic impact of start-ups, i.e. fast growing companies, mostly in high-tech. The famous Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Yahoo, and other Google have an impact, but what is it exactly for the economy?

Surprisingly, it is not that well-known. I have read in the past weeks some recent papers on the topic that you may download if you are interested. The Kauffman foundation which I have mentioned already is doing a great job and particularly Dane Strangler. He is the author of High-Growth Firms and the Future of the American Economy and of Exploring Firm Formation: Why is the Number of New Firms Constant? as well as Where Will The Jobs Come From?

Thanks to his reports, I became aware of older studies such as Gazelles as Job Creators – A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence and High-Impact Firms: Gazelles Revisited both dated 2008. Finally the Brittish government has its own study, High growth firms in the UK: Lessons from an analysis of comparative UK performance.  This last report is interesting as it not only considers gazelles, the fast growing companies, but also gorillas, the young fast growing companies which reached a large size in less than 10 or 15 years.

The first answers were provided in 1981 by David Birch who showed that large firms were not the providers of job creation anymore. But even today, the answer to the question is not so clear. At least it took me longer than I would have thought to understand what all these reports claimed. So for example, here is a table of how small, mid-size and large firms create jobs in the USA. The numbers come with no real guaranty as I have compiled them from a number of sources, mostly the High-Impact Firms: Gazelles Revisited

So what does this mean? First high-impact firms contribute to most of the new job creation in the USA. What are high-impact firms? These are the firms which grow at a 20% annual rate (in jobs and sales*), the fast growing firms. As you may see, low-impact firms also create jobs but only if they are SMEs (small and mid-size). It explains why we think that fast-growing small firms are so important.

But it is an over-simplification. High-impact firms are not small and all these studies also show that:

– they are not young. On average, they are 25-years old.

– they are not necessarily high-tech, they can be found in all sectors of the economy.

– a minority is VC-backed. This is obvious as we have here about 300’000 gazelles and probably only a few thousand companies are VC-backed each year in the US.

More on gazelles here. Now, what about Gorillas? Gorillas are extremely fast growing and young companies. The UK report above defines them as less than 15 years old, with the same growth as gazelles. I remember that Geoffrey Moore defines them as leaders in their market. Well, not much is known about them. The UK report mentions there was no Gorilla in the UK whereas Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, Yahoo and Google were Gorillas in the USA.

Dane Strangler in his report is providing more interesting data. They are not the gorillas per se, but probably quite close:

– In any given year, the top-performing 1 percent of young firms generate roughly 40 percent of new job creation.
– Fast-growing young firms, comprising less than 1 percent of all companies, generate roughly 10 percent of new jobs in any given year.

Qiote impressive! Well, I still do not have all the answers I would like to have, but I now know gazelles are important, and gorillas maybe even more. And at the end, what is the impact of high-tech, of venture capital is just another but interesting story!

*: Growth in terms of jobs is more complex than 20%… experts use the Employment Growth Quantifier (EGQ), that is the product of the absolute and percent change in employment over a four-year period of time and take it as bigger than 2 for “high-impact”… A 20% increase in sales is also a factor 2 over the same period of time.

The crisis and the American model

1 Reply

I seldom do it this way. I will not translate my French post about a personal analysis of the crisis and the American model. A crisis which is much more general than the financial and economic crisis. It is also a crisis of creativity, invention and innovation at least in Europe. So we look at the USA for a model and solutions. This creates tensions. Many of my friends and colleagues disagree with my fascination for the USA, which by the way, is limited to a very small number of things!

So I give a few directions including a previous post on the book by Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics. Go to French or if you do not, at least go and watch No One Knows About Persian Cats. Where’s the link? I think our crisis is about individuals and society, the inability of the university, of the school, of the family, of the society in general to let people express their dreams, their self-confidence, their creativity and their inventiveness. The pressure is so high that (self-)censorhsip and fraud prevail sometimes.

You may think I am out of my mind. So let me finish with the way I finished my book by quoting Wilhelm Reich from “Listen, Little Man”. A small essay by the number of pages, a big one in the impact it creates. “I want to tell you something, Little Man; you lost the meaning of what is best inside yourself. You strangled it. You kill it wherever you find it inside others, inside your children, inside your wife, inside your husband, inside your father and inside your mother. You are little and you want to remain little.” The Little Man, it’s you, it’s me. The Little Man is afraid, he only dreams of normality; it is inside all of us. We hide under the umbrella of authority and do not see our freedom anymore. Nothing comes without effort, without risk, without failure sometimes. “You look for happiness, but you prefer security, even at the cost of your spinal cord, even at the cost of your life”.

I am quite convinced that our crisis at least in Europe is about self-confidence, trust, creativity, inventiveness and innovation. It has not much to do with the technology, the economy and a lot to do with how individuals can grow in the society. If you followed me until now, thanks! Please, please, react!

What Have VCs Really Done for Innovation?

Leave a reply

“What Have VCs Really Done for Innovation?” This is the title of a post by Vivek Wadhwa dated September 20. You can find the full account on Techcrunch. I have to admit I was not happy with the content. Instead of saying immediatly why, I will let you read comments made by others as I shared their point of view. You can also read the post and all the comments, but they are numerous!

So, for example, I agreed with the following three comments:

by Ashok
It is true that the claims made by VCs are not realistic and vastly exaggerated. But, at the same time, we cannot forget that they have played key role in many innovative fields. By its very nature, a Venture Capitalist will invest only in a new promising project where he can hope to earn a handsome profit. There is nothing wrong in a VC selectively investing in projects. After all, we have to appreciate that for every one grand success, a VC may have seen 9 failures losing his money invested in projects which could not lead to big money. So, you have to judge the role of VCs also by their failed projects. Who would like to invest in a project which is likely to fail? Yet, it is a fact that a big percentage of projected financed by VCs fail. Does it not show the high risk involved in what VCs do? This being the position, what is wrong if they are selective in financing the projects? Therefore, the author’s observations “The fact is that VC’s follow innovation, they don’t lead. They go where they smell blood.” are not fully justified.
What about their failed projects? Did they not smell blood? Then why did they invest? Why did they fail then?
Unfortunately, the author has tried to present one-sided story without taking into consideration the problems which VCs might be facing.
Of course, at the cost of repetition, I would say that the tall claims made by the VCs are also not correct. To conclude, it is neither black nor white; it is some shade of grey. Truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes

then by Chris Yeh
This is one of the most dangerous and wrong-headed posts that I have read all year. And I’m flabbergasted by the lack of critical thinking displayed in the comments section.
There is definite truth to some of what Vivek has to say. The NVCA’s estimates are bogus, because they equate investing in a company with being responsible for its success. This is an egregiously egotistical assumption.
It may very well be true that the venture industry as a whole trails index investing. It’s hard to pick winners. But so does the entire actively managed mutual fund industry.
But the statement that “VCs at best have little to no impact on these companies and at worst have a negative impact” is absurd.
First, there is a major survivorship bias problem with the data. By interviewing successful companies, the study fails to prove whether VC makes success more or less likely. All it says is that the majority of successful new businesses in the US do not rely on VC.
A number of commentators seem to be of the impression that VCs make easy money by investing in companies after all the risk has been removed by the entrepreneur. This is talking out of both sides of one’s mouth. If the VCs aren’t taking risks, then how can they be delivering sub-par returns? By definition, they must be taking risks.
Venture capital plays an important role in the startup ecosystem. It provides high-risk equity capital to startup companies. Not every company can be a bootstrapped consumer Internet company. Many important businesses (semiconductors, hardware, biotech) require significant up-front capital. If VCs went away, would there be enough funding for these business? Do you seriously think banks would start lending to these companies?
I also wager that most of the commentators pooh-poohing VC would be glad to accept funding for their startups.

finally by ethanboss
… Of course there are VCs that don’t add value. As there are entrepreneurs who fail.: most of them. How ridiculous to claim that Sergey and Brin had already succeeded when KP and Sequoia invested. That shows a total lack of understanding of what it takes to build companies.
Also, I suppose capital would also grow on the trees for these “innovative” companies to go and harvest, so there is no need for VCs…
In the old days, when capital was hard to access there were some great entrepreneurs (few) that could get to profits without much help and capital. Some still do it but are the exception. The real world is a little different. You need capital and help with networks and other things to build a LARGE innovative company. Those things don’t grow on trees.

so here is the comment I made on September 25.

Vivek

I agree with many other people that you are too single-minded. I do not fully disagree with some elements of your analysis, which explains why you have so much support, BUT…

I was once a venture capitalist and I have neither an MBA nor a law degree but engineering degrees including a PhD and more importantly two years spent in Silicon Valley where I developed a passion for innovation and start-ups which I translated in becoming a VC.

One more fact in addition to the other contributions:

Surprisingly, Bill Gates had venture capitalists: this is taken from Microsoft IPO prospectus: “Mr. Marquardt has been a director of the Company since 1981. Since 1980, Mr. Marquardt has been a general partner of TVI Management. He has been with TVI Management since 1980. He is also a director of Archive Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc.” TVI had about 6% of Microsoft shares before the IPO.

Now what have VCs really done for innovation? You would have been more credible by saying what are they doing. But if you use the past, let me put some historical perspective:

– If investors (VC was not developed yet) had not funded Fairchild in 1957, Intel in 1968, Silicon Valley may not exist as it is. Your friend Vinod is maybe an exception, but there were many others. Arthur Rock helped in funding or funded directly Fairchild, Intel, Apple Computers.

– The story of Genentech is well-known (go on my blog for more if you wish): when Bob Swanson, a former VC at KP became convinced biotech had a future, he first convinced Boyer, the researcher, then his former colleague Tom Perkins to try. Both were skeptical, so you are right Entrepreneurs are in the driving seat, but without the inventor and the investor, Genentech and then the biotech industry may not have existed. The innovation did not exist yet and the VCs contributed a lot.

– Who do you think were the first VCs such as Gene Kleiner and Don Valentine and many others? They were former entrepreneurs who had the vision that funding the next generation would fuel innovation.

I am also doing an analysis of startups created with Stanford technology or by Stanford Alumini. The surprising fact is that so far about 30% of the companies (I have a total of 2’700) were funded by VCs. It does not mean VCs were responsible for their success, but they had their contribution (in the group are companies such as Cisco, Yahoo, eBay, Google, Rambus, Atheros and so many others)

Paul Graham says that for innovation, you just need nerds and rich people. I agree with him. The nerd is the brain and the investor is the blood. And then both will need a team, managers, employees which will constitute the full body. VCs do not contribute to inventions, but they help in their commercialization, which is I think the definition of innovation.

You are not only singled minded but I think you are hurting the innovation ecosystem. I see too many entrepreneurs and future entrepreneurs scared with investors because they focus on your point of view. Of course, there have been terrible stories. But do not forget entrepreneurs need resources to succeed. Repeat entrepreneurs may bypass investors, business angels may help when resources are not too huge (maybe like in software though this is not even always true). But what about young people who develop semiconductors, biotechnologies, green technologies and have no money.

Money is never cheap or fun. But you need it. Let me finish with two quotes which show that I support some of your views but I still disagree with your overall vision.

In the book Founders at Work, one entrepreneur says about investors: “You can’t live with them, you can’t live without them” and even better Robert Noyce, Intel’s founders: “Look around who the heroes are. They aren’t lawyers, nor are they even so much the financiers. They’re the guys who start companies”

cheers

Herve

Entrepreneurial Impact: The Role of MIT

1 Reply

A new report has been published about the Entrepreneurial Impact of MIT

It is full of data and even if obviously self-serving, it remains very interesting. Let me just quote what I noticed:

– Growth: the number of “first-time” firms has increased from about 2’000 in the 70s to 6’000 in the 80s and 10’000 in the 90s.

– Origin: Non-US founders had slight visibility in the 40s, grow to 12% in the 90s and 17% in the 00s. 30% of MIT foreign students founded a company at some point.

– Age: Before and during the 70s, 24% of first-time entrepreneurs were under 30, growing to 31% in the 80s and 36% in the 90s. There is no real difference between industry segments.

– Serial entrepreneurs: I have a small disagreement on that point as I am not sure serial matters, but… about 40% are serial entrepreneurs so 60% are not…

– Engineering vs. business degrees: EE/CS degrees is 22%, management is 16% for the 90s. Clearly science and technology matter.

– Location: in the 50s and 60s, majority of companies were in Massachusetts, but thereafter Silicon Valley has become a critical locus. In the 00s, 26% are in MA and 22% in CA.

Then the report talks about the culture and the ecosystem. It is also very interesting. We should always remember that:

– Tons of money went to research from the militaries and space agencies.

– MIT had more of a tacit and hands-off role, but much encouraging.

– Role models: “entrepreneurs could name about ten other new companies before they started their own”. Authors compare to another study where “Few of the Swedish entrepreneurs could name even one or two others like them”. They quote Schumpeter: “The greater the number of people who have already successfully founded new businesses, the less difficult it becomes to act as an entrepreneur. It is a matter of experience that successes in this sphere, as in all others, draw an ever-increasing number of people in their wake”

– Feedback loop: there is a positive impact of such examples and this may be the main reason of the creation to tech. clusters.

– Culture: the best is a quote by Bob Metcalfe, Ethernet inventor, founder of 3Com and now a partner at Polaris Ventures: “It’s not just that MIT’s entrepreneurial environment flourishes under its institutional commitment to technology transfer,” he said. “It’s also that MIT includes both ‘nerds’ and ‘suits.’ Divergent life forms, yes, but necessary to and working together at MIT on entrepreneurial innovation. And what keeps MIT’s entrepreneurial ecosystem accelerating is that nobody is in charge. There are at least twenty groups at MIT competing to be the group on entrepreneurship. All of them are winning.”

… Nobody is in charge…

– Tech. transfer: the majority of the exclusive licenses go to startup companies. The TLO’s strategic dependence on startup companies has been the reluctance of large companies to invest in “university-stage” technologies, because the risk and cost of development is high and the time to market is long.

– License deals: For startups, instead of cash up front and in lieu of some of the royalties, the TLO usually takes a small equity ownership that is less than 5 percent of the new firm.

And some conclusions:

– Universities that are strong in research and technology are at the forefront of knowledge creation and potential application. When the university is able to couple this capability with the inclination and resources needed to connect ideas and markets, impressive possibilities exist for generating entrepreneurship-based economic impact at the local, as well as national and global levels.

– Numerous changes are needed in most universities over an extended period of time in rules, regulations and, more important, attitudes and institutional culture.

– Until quite recently, MIT had followed a “hands-off” approach toward entrepreneurial engagement, in contrast with many other universities in the United States and abroad. MIT has neither created an internal incubator for ventures nor a venture capital fund to make life easier for prospective startups.

– Instead, MIT has relied internally on growing faculty, student, and alumni initiatives, especially during the most recent thirty years, to build a vibrant ecosystem that helps foster formation and growth of new and young companies.

– Educational programs require investment in and acquisition of faculty to develop and teach such programs. Effective and well-trained academics are, unfortunately, still scarce in most entrepreneurship related disciplines. Fortunately, successful practitioners are available everyplace and the MIT history indicates that they are quite willing and enthusiastic about sharing their time and experiences with novice and would-be entrepreneurs.

For those who have been so far, first you should read the full report and second I aggregate below a few tables from the report:

Born to Grow

Leave a reply

I just finished reading an interesting report entitled “Born to Grow – How to Harness Europe’s most innovative entrepreneurs”

Nothing really new but a very good synthesis of recommendations and I emphasize in bold the ones I consider really critical:

  • 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

    • Even better are the features of a high-growth entrepreneur (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.

    Innovation in Europe

    1 Reply

    I just read two reports about innovation. The one in French is very deep (see my post on the French part of the blog). The one in English is also full of interesting lessons and learning. “What is the right strategy for more innovation in Europe? Drivers and challenges for innovation performance at the sector level” was published last June by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research. (Direct link to pdf file)


     

     innova.jpg

     

    The authors try to differentiate innovation with sectors and geography (economic advancement.) For example “The data show that firms in economically less advanced member states are less likely to be innovators than firms in countries with more developed economies such as Germany or Sweden, and if they are innovators they are more likely to be technology users.” and “It has also proposed a new classification of industries that is based on the characteristics of entrepreneurship and a broad concept of innovation that transcends the conventional R&D-based classifications.”

     

    I like some of the conclusions such as “Knowledge acquisition from external sources is of particular importance in sectors with large shares of technology users, whereas R&D activities are important in sectors where firms that are technology producers prevail. […] For firms based in countries that are at a distance from the world technological frontier, technology transfer and non-R&D related innovation activities are extremely important to promote innovation. […] On the other hand, for firms located in countries on or close to the technological frontier, intensive innovation activity is a driver of competitiveness. In order to maintain a competitive edge firms need to invest in R&D, acquire and adapt new technologies.

     

    Of course all this is not obvious and may be counterintuitive. Look at Cisco in the USA, which does A&D more than R&D (they acquire start-ups and then develop). Is Cisco at the Frontier or not?

     

    In terms of national policies, an interesting lesson: “The results show that the impact and the magnitude of these factors vary greatly across industries and countries. In fact, most variables can have either a positive or a negative influence depending on the sector. For the energy sector, the ICT industries and the aerospace industry public R&D subsidies have a positive effect, whereas R&D spending by the government seems to crowd out R&D investment in the textile, chemical and ICT industries.” I see a slight contradiction here but…

     

    Then the authors address the issue of human capital: “Engineering and science skills contribute directly to international competitiveness” and “the returns to higher education will be higher for countries farther away from the technological frontier due to the greater importance of technology transfer and absorptive capacities […] On the other hand, in countries that are on or close to the technological frontier accumulated knowledge and experience are a precondition for sustained innovation performance and growth.”

     

    On the competition side, they explain: “Competition is based on the interplay between the creation of novelty and imitation, i.e. between exploration and exploitation of opportunity. […] Firms that compete mostly with less advanced firms, have an incentive to reduce their risky R&D investments, as they are easily able to keep a competitive advantage over their rivals without incurring the cost of R&D investments. On the other hand, if they compete with firms with similar technological capabilities, they have an incentive to invest more in R&D, as this is a means to explore new opportunities and market niches and therefore set themselves apart from their competitors.

     

    About the gazelles, the fast growing companies: “… a count reveals a significantly higher number of gazelles in the new member states of the European Union than in other EU countries. […] Statistical analyses show that in the more advanced economies of the European Union (continental and northern countries) fast growing firms are mostly of the creative entrepreneurship type and they also have a significantly larger share of turnover from product innovations. For gazelles in the southern European countries and the new member states innovation is much less important.”

     

    Among the challenges for Europe, here are some scary elements:

    –          There is the danger that firms will increasingly relocate their research activities to countries where conditions concerning human resources and scientific infrastructure are better.

    –          For technology intensive sectors the problem is that they are not able to hire enough top level science and engineering graduates or attract the best-qualified engineers, scientists and specialists from abroad to their industry. These problems are particularly severe for new and fast growing firms that cannot rely on a long-standing reputation to attract people with top level qualifications and skills.

    –          For firms carrying out high-risk research, for young and small start-up firms and for firms facing extraordinary growth opportunities the lack of financial resources constitutes a serious problem. New financial instruments tailored to the needs of emerging firms remain underdeveloped in most EU countries.

     

     

    Inside Steve’s Brain

    Leave a reply

    Inside Steve’s Brain

    The book by Leander Kahney is interesting as it shows how Steve Jobs is unique in the high-tech world. Let me just mention a single example: “But unlike a lot of people in product marketing those days who would go out and do customer testing, asking people what they wanted, Steve didn’t believe in that. He said ‘How can I possibly ask someone what a graphics-based computer ought to be when they have no idea what a graphics-based computer is? No one has ever seen one before’.” …and… “Like Henry Ford once said: ‘If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse’. ” (pages 63-64).

    If you like this, you’ll enjoy the book. Thanks to Jacques for recommending it.