MicroMidas in the news

It's great news that Micromidas, a company that spun out of UC Davis and is now based in West Sacramento, just completed their series A funding of $3.6M.  The company "develops and scales
environmentally benign biological and chemical processes that produce
valuable chemical and material commodities from waste biomass."

Even better were the props handed out for their early formation in the Green Technology Entrepreneurship Academy.  Now-CEO John Bissel and three other undergrads took part in the week-long workshop, which focused on helping them turn their research into a new venture: "inspired by the UC Davis Green TEA Academy which [John] attended in
2008 at Incline Village (UCD offers multiple versions of its Entrepreneurship Academy)."

The team went on to grow their network effectively through the Ca Clean Tech Open, where they were a finalist, winning in the Air, Water and Waste group, and then working closely with SARTA's Venture Start group.

Nice news as we head into GTEA10, up in Incline Village June 28-July 2.  No telling which companies will emerge next.

A History Lesson for the Cleantech Revolution

History teaches us a little-known lesson about innovation: Ideas don’t matter. Good ideas languish all the time.

What matters? Execution. It’s everything—especially, ironically enough, with breakthrough technologies. As the world embraces and demands advances in clean technologies, it’s time to look at what past technology revolutions teach us about the best ways to move clean technology innovations forward. Continue reading

Business Development Certificate Program for Scientists and Engineers

Business Development Certificate Program
September 2010–June 2011

Designed for science + engineering Ph.D. students + postdocs who want to learn how to move ideas out of the lab and into the world.

The Business Development Certificate Program is a year-long program for science + engineering Ph.D. students and postdocs who want to develop business skills for a career in industry or explore the commercial opportunities surrounding their research.

Through a combination of coursework, clinics, networking events, and field visits, students gain a first-hand look at the entrepreneurial experience and opportunities available in industry. Fellows participate in five (5) Graduate School of Management courses in technology management, innovation and entrepreneurship, and interdisciplinary clinics under the guidance of faculty, investors, and entrepreneurs.

Why you should apply:

  • learn to communicate the broader potential impact of your research
  • explore commercial opportunities surrounding your technology
  • develop a network of professionals in the business and investment community who can help mentor and connect you as you move forward with your career or new venture.

“I am where I am today because of the amazing, life-changing experience as a Business Development Fellow.” – Riccardo LoCascio, Ph.D., Microbiology, Kauffman Postdoctoral Fellow, Business Development Fellow 2006

 APPLY ONLINE BY JUNE 18 >> entrepreneurship.ucdavis.edu

 
Find out more about the Certificate Program at an Information Session:

C4E Innovation Lab, Room 3301, Gallagher Hall, Graduate School of Management
Wednesday, May 5, 12:00–1:00 p.m.
Friday, May 21, 12:00–1:00 p.m.
RSVP to Courtney Miller, Program Manager, 530.754.5960
 

The Center for Entrepreneurship integrates science and business for social benefit, through innovation and entrepreneurship education and outreach. Since its inception, the center has supported a core set of programs and activities in innovation and entrepreneurship, bringing together scientists and engineers with the Graduate School of Management, business community and outside investors. The Center for Entrepreneurship is a Center of Excellence at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management.

Cash or Connections, Valley of Death II

On the heels of my post on the Valley of Death, Ben Horowitz of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz posted on Ron Conway
and his network (Ron Conway
Explained
) and the value of social capital (connections) more than financial capital (cash) to help startups get off the ground.

Conway is one of the Silicon Valley's uber angels, and I have often spoken about the key role he has attributed to his own social networks when evaluating the potential of new startups. In essence, anyone can invest cash in a new venture, so if cash isn't scarce, the distinctive advantage will go to those new ventures with the best networks connecting them to other future employers, lawyers, investors, and customers. 

In investing, Conway asks: "can my network make this company successful?"

If we're truly interested in understanding and supporting the emergence of new ventures we must recognize the primacy of connections.  As the story Ben related shows, connections are key to finding cash.  In theory, cash can help you find connections, but not always with the right people or for the right reasons.

As public agencies step up their funding of small technology-based businesses, they would be wise to make sure cash isn't their only contribution.  The DOE, SBA and the variety of SBIR/STTR programs that are ramping up funding of university and laboratory research commercialization should match these cash investments with their clout in convening the broad ranging networks in which they sit.

The challenge is in replicating and scaling what Conway does.  Individually, he can manage how everyone behaves in his network (including rewarding good networking behaviors and punishing bad ones). As Ben Horowitz suggests (and I abridge here), Conway is good at this because he has:

• A ridonkulous work ethic—If Ron’s awake, he’s working…
• Pure motives—Ron does what he does, because he likes helping people succeed in business…
• Super human courage—Ron fears no man and he definitely fears no phone call…Ron’s network is always on.
• A way of doing business—This is the unspoken key to Ron’s success…he acts with extreme prejudice when it comes to the proper way to conduct oneself in a relationship.

Try to imagine putting this into a job description. As a formal job the ability to own and manage in this way goes out the window. Instead, there need to be more structural approaches to achieving the same objective. This is the challenge for all of us.

Into the Valley of Death

Everybody is talking about how new breakthroughs—in energy and elsewhere—requires helping startups through the Valley of Death.  This is a well-intentioned but dangerous policy.

The valley of death refers to financial risks that start-ups face as they struggle to grow from small teams to going ventures. The dip of the valley refers to the debt—the negative balance sheets—that companies experience as they invest money now in hopes of making it back upon success (the accompanying figure provides a general description).

Nowhere is this valley of death more evident than in clean technology, where startups face a difficult combination of challenges. On the one hand, the challenge of teams seeking $50k to $5M or more in funding to begin translating their advanced science into industrial processes (moving thin-film solar or fuels from algae out of the lab and into commercial production) and, on the other hand, the challenge of funded startups trying to raise investments for the industrial-sized plants and equipment needed to utilize those emerging processes. Valley of Death Image If we want to bring these emerging ventures to market quickly and at a scale that impacts energy security and climate change, policy wonks and private investors alike are arguing, we must provide the financial support these entrepreneurs need to make it through the valley of death.

Now might be a good time to reconsider.

Saying that most startups perish in the valley of death is like saying that most patients die of cardiac or respiratory failure—the moment when the heart stops pumping or the lungs stops breathing. Indeed, doctors now take great care in noting not just the immediate cause of death but also the antecedent causes: patient died of [blank] due [antecedent cause] due to [antecedent cause].  Without looking past the obvious, few lessons can be learned.

Innovation policy must similarly take great care not to confuse the ultimate with the antecedent causes of failure. Running out of money is the ultimate cause of death for most all ventures. Without considering the antecedent causes, it’s also a dangerous basis for policy decisions.

In addition to financial capital, there are three other forms that at different times can be significantly more valuable: physical capital (the physical resources someone has already acquired and organized), intellectual capital (the knowledge and skills someone has acquired and organized), and social capital (someone’s social network, or access to the capital “stocks” of others).

While a startup’s balance sheet might clearly show where they stand with respect to their financial and physical capital, it does little to reveal their intellectual and social capital. And yet for companies to avoid their own untimely demise, they depend as much or more on knowledge, experience, and ability to manage their company’s fortunes—and on their social networks to discover, guide, and acquire the critical resources they will need to succeed.

Supporting the success of small companies advancing clean technologies requires more than financial or physical capital—it requires ensuring these companies have access to the best knowledge and experience, and the right social networks, as they get started.

The energy sector is extremely large, bureaucratic, and entrenched. The competitive landscape in which new companies hope to thrive is a product of regulatory policies and industrial coordination that takes place in places and ways that are difficult for entrepreneurs to see let alone access. Yet this is a large portion of the knowledge and networks that new companies must acquire if they are to survive and make a difference.

Institutions are emerging to provide new startups in clean technology with these resources. At UC Davis, for example, the Green Technology Entrepreneurship Academy, in coordination with the Graduate School of Management and with support from the Kauffman Foundation, brings scientists and engineers from across the country to explore the commercial potential of their research with instruction and mentorship from leading entrepreneurs, investors, and corporations. The emphasis is on combining entrepreneurial knowledge and networks—the critical intellectual and social capital that new ventures need before the financial capital can be put to best use.

Similarly, the Energy Efficiency Center supports promising new ventures advancing energy efficiency by providing access to their established network of university researchers, manufacturers, venture and corporate investors, electric utilities, energy service companies, and major energy customers such as the state of California and Walmart.

As the Department of Energy begins funding it’s new Energy Hubs with an eye toward commercializing new research breakthroughs, it should seriously consider how it will provide these emerging ventures with the right capital to succeed.

Indeed, the valley of death may be an apt description for other, less valiant reasons. The term came from Lord Alfred Tennyson’s famous poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” describing the tragic british cavalry charge over open terrain in the Battle of Balaclava, in the Crimean War, in which 278 of 607 were killed or wounded within moments.

To those who witnessed it, the charge of the light brigade demonstrated both the courage of the British soldier and the incompetence of their command. The soldiers died because they rode directly into withering crossfire from three sides. Wrote the war correspondent William Russell:

“At 11:00 our Light Cavalry Brigade rushed to the front… The Russians opened on them with guns from the redoubts on the right, with volleys of musketry and rifles.

They swept proudly past, glittering in the morning sun in all the pride and splendor of war. We could hardly believe the evidence of our senses. Surely that handful of men were not going to charge an army in position? Alas! It was but too true — their desperate valor knew no bounds, and far indeed was it removed from its so-called better part — discretion. They advanced in two lines, quickening the pace as they closed towards the enemy. A more fearful spectacle was never witnessed than by those who, without the power to aid, beheld their heroic countrymen rushing to the arms of sudden death.”

Poor intelligence, miscommunication, and unthinking obedience on the part of their commanders were the antecedent causes of the Light Brigade’s valley of death. Companies run out of money for all sorts of reasons—including perfectly good ones: the market wasn’t ready, the technology couldn’t scale, or the economy tanked.  But some of those reasons might have been avoided.

Public financing of new ventures can prolong a company’s life, but it won’t fix poor planning, miscommunication, or blind faith. Money hides more bad decisions than it cures. To ensure companies make the transition from small venture to a sustaining business, financial capital may be the last form of capital startups need.

Public finance is an attractive tool for federal policy makers—it is easily wielded and often well-publicized. But it alone will not save clean tech entrepreneurs from riding bravely into their own valleys of death. Investing in the infrastructures that invest intellectual and social capital in these emerging ventures may be a more valuable and more critical intervention.

Supporting innovation, not just research

Uncle-sam
Tom Katsouleas, dean of Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering, has a nice article, How Uncle Sam Can Support Innovation, on the Chronicle of Higher Education website about the need for an investment in translational-research education that is equivalent to the national investment in scientific research (roughly $43B per year).

Don’t mistake equivalence, in this regard, for equal financial investments but rather for investments in creating the capability to bring the fruits of $43B-worth of research all the way to the market.  In our experience, the training and support needed to get ideas moving out of research labs is a fraction of the costs of the original research.

Katsouleas’s point: “For research universities to realize their full potential in tackling global grand challenges and engaging society, revolutionary changes are needed in federal policy, educational programs, and the treatment of intellectual property.”

Perhaps most relevant is how we balance research-discovery efforts with research-translation efforts.  This is not something to be left to technology transfer offices, but rather needs to be taught to the researchers themselves.

Such an education should include performing an impact or market analysis of the student’s field; minicourses tailored to Ph.D.’s in business skills, finance and accounting, science policy, entrepreneurship, etc.; and mentoring from successful entrepreneurs and from faculty members outside the sciences on how their work is informed by and affects society at large. If one out of every five to 10 Ph.D. students were to take on that extra dimension in their training, and if start-up resources were provided for the top 20 percent, the total cost would be on the order of 1 percent of the federal basic research budget. But the multiplier of the benefits to the economy and for society would be far greater.

Obviously, I agree with what Katsouleas calls for, as UC Davis and its partnering sponsors have been providing this training to PhDs and postdocs (and faculty) for the past four years through our Entrepreneurship Academies and one-year Business Development Fellows program.

The Entrepreneurship Academies are 5-day workshops in which researchers learn to identify, develop, and share the commercial potential of their particular research. The curriculum has been developed over 4 years of these workshops, and brings researchers together with venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, IP and new venture law firms, and others in the entrepreneurial networks they will need access to if they decide to move their ideas forward.  The Business Development Fellowships support PhD candidates and Postdocs to spend a year at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management, where they take classes on commercialization and work alongside business students to develop university technologies (their own and others).

And Katsouleas is right, every scientist should be exposed to this curriculum because without the active involvement of the researcher there is little hope that their findings will reach beyond the published paper.  This training should not be seen as avarice on the part of universities hoping to cash in on scientific “inventions,” but rather as a commitment to seeing their research efforts through to their ultimate goal: the benefit of our benefactors—society.

While we were waiting for the google of electric cars…

 

While the DOE was out investing in startups like electric car manufacturers Tesla ($465M) and Fisker ($528M)—or rather guaranteeing loans, the equivalent of investing minus the equity—the regular old car companies were not sitting on their hands. In fact, while Tesla has ramped up production of its $109,000 Roadster to roughly 100 units per month, Nissan has announced its new $25,000 electric car, which will go on sale in the U.S. in December.

Continue reading

CHE Article on teaching entrepreneurship

A brief post to mention an article out now in Chronicle of Higher Education in which I talk about the need to teach entrepreneurship broadly—and what needs to be taught:  

7 Ways to Make Students More Entrepreneurial 

The article is available for non-subscribers for 5 days here, then available to subscribers here

A global innovation challenge

The Malcolm Baldridge Award has, since 1988, recognized performance excellence among U.S. organizations.  More importantly, though, the many companies that compete for this award do so not only to win (certainly not the first year) but to use the process as a means for setting a clear priority for performance, learning the tools and language of performance excellence, and benchmarking themselves against others. Having worked with firms that went through the process, the benefits were clear.  What’s needed is a similar program on innovation.

I’m involved with one such opportunity, the Katerva Challenge, that is launching as a yearly competition aimed at “inspiring and applauding world-changing innovation.” The focus this year is on reducing greenhouse gases—in other years those topics will change.

Like the Baldridge Award, this competition focuses on providing organizations with the tools they need to strengthen their innovative capabilities.

Unlike the Baldridge Award, the Katerva Challenge also recognizes and supports the networks that bring truly revolutionary innovations to market.  Competing teams don’t come from a single company but rather from a set of partners who bring a range of skills, resources, and perspectives to the problem at hand.

In this way, the teams learn, develop, and demonstrate the essential role that networks play in turning ideas into realities.

Katerva

Green Technology Entrepreneurship Academy 2010 (GTEA)

Green Technology Entrepreneurship Academy
June 28 – July 2, 2010 @ the Tahoe Center for Environmental Science
Lake Tahoe, Nevada

GTEA10_email
Moving Sustainable Technologies Out of the Lab and into the World

The one-week intensive academy is open to science and engineering faculty, graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, and senior undergraduates working on research in green technologies. The academy combines seminars and networking sessions in an innovative format to help you learn how to commercialize your technology.

Why You Should Attend:

  • learn to communicate the broader potential impact of your research
  • explore commercial opportunities surrounding your technology
  • develop a network of professionals in clean tech who can help mentor and connect you as you move forward with your career or new venture.

Accepted applicants receive fellowships to cover room, board and tuition. Open to applicants from national and international universities.

The workshop is taught by venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, faculty, industry executives and angel investors from across the country that serve as mentors as well as guest faculty, providing participants with the knowledge and networks needed for taking the next steps toward commercialization.

Previous GTEA mentors and faculty included leaders from DFJ Frontier, Element, Mohr Davidow Ventures, DMC, Nth Power, Sierra Angels, Morrison and Foerster, Pillsbury, NIEHS, USDA, National Instruments, NIREC, Pacific Gas & Electric, Sempra Utilities, Edison International, CalCEF Angel Fund, and Chevron Energy Solutions.

Apply online by May 14, 2010 >> http://entrepreneurship.ucdavis.edu/green

Sponsored by Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy (NIREC), Chevron, PG&E and Superfund Research Program. Presented by the UC Davis Center for Entrepreneurship.