TeckTalk 2008 on June 17th will debate the issues surrounding 'cloud' computing. How important is it for enterprises to be able to 'hug' their data? Is day when all server machines no longer belt out heat from your own rack but sit somewhere out in cyber space, maintained and upgraded by men in white coats.
The technology promises to bring the cost of application hosting, data storage and connectivity down via 'pay as you go' services and open source tools. But have may of us have already found that's not the whole story and the vendor perspective can be "when we have them by their databases, their hearts, minds and wallets will follow".
Cloud computing brings together high performance supercomputing capabilities to the masses. Is your application taking off? The promise is that you can scale processing power as your application grows. Backups? All taken care of for you. But what about security? That probably still is the Achilles heel of the cloud - are you going to entrust your precious corporate data to some outside your firewall?
And what about the green agenda? One of the companies backed by the South Yorkshire Seedcorn Fund has a novel approach to server cooling (no not locate them at the North Pole!). Full tilt computing generates a serious amount of hot air where ever the processor is located and that needs to go somewhere.
So on the 17th, let's hope the debate produces some clear thinking and we get demistify what cloud computing has to offer for the future and lets hope it not all vapourware! We have a great keynote speaker lined up from Oracle and a supporting panel to debate the issue: Cloud Computing - Is it all hot air or is there a silver lining? See you there.
Monday, 1 June 2009
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Power, Job Titles & Oxymorons
The current controversy surrounding the power residing with the Prime Minister versus parliament and the legislature has similar parallels in business. Tensions mount when shareholders and executives having misaligned interests. Surely a lot of the problems the banks have faced are linked to this disconnect. And any system of remuneration that lacks audit or control is always asking for trouble as the politicians have found. In isolation, one can justify any reward or find good reason for a payment that wouldn't stand up to external scrutiny or a wider perspective, which is why this is so important in keeping reality real.
On the subject of power bases, I am always wary of companies that have job titles that start with the 'Deputy' or 'Assistant' which implies that the person they report to believes themselves to warrant such a supporting cast. Similarly, I am not a fan of joint roles and responsibilities, which just serves to be divisive and confusing to other staff. If you have functional heads accountable for the performance of the company in that area then that focus is beneficial and good. Everyone needs to be part of the team, but in the end someone needs to do something to move things forwards in specific areas. Even more against the grain is the 'Executive Chairman' role which is surely an oxymoron, which was a subject of a previous post 'Are Two Heads Better Than One?'.
On the subject of power bases, I am always wary of companies that have job titles that start with the 'Deputy' or 'Assistant' which implies that the person they report to believes themselves to warrant such a supporting cast. Similarly, I am not a fan of joint roles and responsibilities, which just serves to be divisive and confusing to other staff. If you have functional heads accountable for the performance of the company in that area then that focus is beneficial and good. Everyone needs to be part of the team, but in the end someone needs to do something to move things forwards in specific areas. Even more against the grain is the 'Executive Chairman' role which is surely an oxymoron, which was a subject of a previous post 'Are Two Heads Better Than One?'.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Clucking About Geography
A recent Northern Way magazine article by Mark l'Anson highlighted that 70% of the fund management 'capacity' is clustered around London. Is it the quality of the company that drives the deal or does geography really matter? Business angels mare certainly more likely to stay closer to home, but professional fund managers really should be where the action is.
Is this a chicken and the egg problem or has the bird well and truly flown? The relative absence of VC money may actually damped demand is an argument the article puts forward. Is it the role of the RDA's to redress this imbalance and provide regional funding to need local business needs? The Northern Way have recently published its first recommendations report ' Realising the £25bn Potential: Stimulating the long term private venture capital markets in the regions'.
The report to my mind misses a key point - supply and demand - it's no use having regional fund managers in place twiddling their thumbs without activities to support and stimulate the innovation ecosystem. At the end of the day it is a fund managers responsibility to make money - not to redistribute wealth.
Activities like Connect are more orientated to helping to stimulate innovation and enterprise at the grass roots level. Putting too much focus on fund management as a means of economic regeneration without regard for the health of the ecosystem is not optimal. Fund managers are tasked with plucking good opportunities out of the ecosystem and then fattening them up. If there are not enough good opportunities, they will look elsewhere. Hence the focus of regeneration should be on creating an environment where good investment opportunities develop. I can't help believing that if the opportunities are there, the fund managers will come to harvest them.
Is this a chicken and the egg problem or has the bird well and truly flown? The relative absence of VC money may actually damped demand is an argument the article puts forward. Is it the role of the RDA's to redress this imbalance and provide regional funding to need local business needs? The Northern Way have recently published its first recommendations report ' Realising the £25bn Potential: Stimulating the long term private venture capital markets in the regions'.
The report to my mind misses a key point - supply and demand - it's no use having regional fund managers in place twiddling their thumbs without activities to support and stimulate the innovation ecosystem. At the end of the day it is a fund managers responsibility to make money - not to redistribute wealth.
Activities like Connect are more orientated to helping to stimulate innovation and enterprise at the grass roots level. Putting too much focus on fund management as a means of economic regeneration without regard for the health of the ecosystem is not optimal. Fund managers are tasked with plucking good opportunities out of the ecosystem and then fattening them up. If there are not enough good opportunities, they will look elsewhere. Hence the focus of regeneration should be on creating an environment where good investment opportunities develop. I can't help believing that if the opportunities are there, the fund managers will come to harvest them.
Monday, 11 May 2009
For What It's Worth...
I will be leading a Investment Readiness Programme seminar on How To Do A Deal: Money, Valuations and Deal Structures on the 20th May. How do you value an asset? In simple terms, it is the discounted value of all future cash flows it can generate plus any comfort or benefit you might derive while owning it! But also if you think an asset will go up 20% from what someone else thinks it's worth today, then you might be seduced into buying it. Equally if you think it will be worth less tomorrow than it is today you would be hard pushed to buy it. Which is why macroeconomics and recessions cause all sorts of problems (at least in the short term). Particularly if the only cash an asset is going to generate is when you sell it (as with our fixation with houses as an 'investment' rather than as somewhere nice to live!).
There are all manner of ways of valuing a company and it it is instructive to see what each method comes up with, but in the end the value of an asset is what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Which begs the question is a company sold or bought? My experience is definitely the latter. I know investors want you to have an exit strategy, but it should be just that. Spending too much time too soon trying to sell something you haven't yet formulated can be counter productive. The key focus has to be creating value and reducing risks, both of which mean a higher valuation at whatever point this is crystalised.
And don't forget price is negotiable, so make sure you hone up these skills to maximise the price you get for you get for all your hard work. And remember if you are only selling part of the company, you have to work with whoever purchases equity from you so implicitly it can't be an overwealmingly good deal. Each side has to be reasonably happy with the outcome. If either side isn't just a little unhappy at the outcome it probably is a bad deal! Balancing risk and reward is what it is all about and remember the lower the risk and greater the future value is realised quicker the more you can expect to get if you sell something today. Do the sums can quickly shed some light on whether your business plan proposals have any chance of becoming a done deal.
To register for the workshop on the 20th May, click here!
There are all manner of ways of valuing a company and it it is instructive to see what each method comes up with, but in the end the value of an asset is what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Which begs the question is a company sold or bought? My experience is definitely the latter. I know investors want you to have an exit strategy, but it should be just that. Spending too much time too soon trying to sell something you haven't yet formulated can be counter productive. The key focus has to be creating value and reducing risks, both of which mean a higher valuation at whatever point this is crystalised.
And don't forget price is negotiable, so make sure you hone up these skills to maximise the price you get for you get for all your hard work. And remember if you are only selling part of the company, you have to work with whoever purchases equity from you so implicitly it can't be an overwealmingly good deal. Each side has to be reasonably happy with the outcome. If either side isn't just a little unhappy at the outcome it probably is a bad deal! Balancing risk and reward is what it is all about and remember the lower the risk and greater the future value is realised quicker the more you can expect to get if you sell something today. Do the sums can quickly shed some light on whether your business plan proposals have any chance of becoming a done deal.
To register for the workshop on the 20th May, click here!
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Laying Polished Pitches Perfectly
In the run up to our June Investment Forum we provide 'pitch' mentoring to presenting companies to help them hone idea into something non-specialists in their field can understand. The ability to talk about a technical subject in layman's terms is rarely what these companies have to do day in day out, but when it comes to raising investment it's crucial. This is also an invaluable opportunity for presenters to get feedback, share good practice and see the other side of presenting an understandable pitch. Often it is not until you have tried to explain what is so sparkling about a proposition that you realise it isn't polished enough!
These Company Assessment Groups (CAGs) are made up of the mentors that are assigned to each company that are drawn from our sponsors. The companies get high-quality feedback from people who have heard it all before. So when they present at the Forum, they have the best possible chance of winning over investors and raising the finance they need to make their dreams a reality. This mentoring and support is a key part of the Connect model. We also provide support to companies that may not looking to raise funding, but still want to benefit from this external input through our Springboard programme.
If you are interested in getting your business plan more polished or pitch perfect, do get in touch...
These Company Assessment Groups (CAGs) are made up of the mentors that are assigned to each company that are drawn from our sponsors. The companies get high-quality feedback from people who have heard it all before. So when they present at the Forum, they have the best possible chance of winning over investors and raising the finance they need to make their dreams a reality. This mentoring and support is a key part of the Connect model. We also provide support to companies that may not looking to raise funding, but still want to benefit from this external input through our Springboard programme.
If you are interested in getting your business plan more polished or pitch perfect, do get in touch...
Monday, 27 April 2009
Mixing Ingredients For Success
I think it’s important to appreciate the relationship between three key ingredients in any business: enterprise, innovation and finance. An entrepreneur is a person who operates and assumes the risk for a business venture. Innovation which is the process of making improvements by introducing something new. Every successful company needs combination of these two ingredients, plus a healthy dollop of money. And they need to be mixed!
Getting these three ingredients to work together is the key to success. Each needs better understand each other’s language, motivations and values. This is doubly important in the UK where VCs and equity funders traditionally have an accountancy background compared to their more tech savvy USA counterparts.
Initiatives like the Enterprise Fellowship Scheme funded by Yorkshire Forward is a sterling example of how researchers can get some entrepreneurial DNA spiced into them without compromising their academic integrity. Having a potential commercial outcome in mind from the outset can inform the research as much as that all important journal publication. At Connect, we are increasingly involving academics on our company assessment panels to help assess technical innovations coming from the private sector.
Great companies are built by teams that bringing together money, management and ideas. You need a critical mass of these components and the infrastructure to connect them. People are the ultimate technology transfer agent and commercialisation is a ‘Contact’ sport. And organisations like Connect can provide an important mechanism for catalyzing and promoting this reaction, linking entrepreneurs and innovators with the resources they need to succeed.
Our upcoming Connect Investment Forum provides a key platform for promoting this interaction. We also provide online introductions through MyDealMaker and publish a periodic Investor Bulletin to bring companies on our radar screen to the attention of potential investors.
Getting these three ingredients to work together is the key to success. Each needs better understand each other’s language, motivations and values. This is doubly important in the UK where VCs and equity funders traditionally have an accountancy background compared to their more tech savvy USA counterparts.
Initiatives like the Enterprise Fellowship Scheme funded by Yorkshire Forward is a sterling example of how researchers can get some entrepreneurial DNA spiced into them without compromising their academic integrity. Having a potential commercial outcome in mind from the outset can inform the research as much as that all important journal publication. At Connect, we are increasingly involving academics on our company assessment panels to help assess technical innovations coming from the private sector.
Great companies are built by teams that bringing together money, management and ideas. You need a critical mass of these components and the infrastructure to connect them. People are the ultimate technology transfer agent and commercialisation is a ‘Contact’ sport. And organisations like Connect can provide an important mechanism for catalyzing and promoting this reaction, linking entrepreneurs and innovators with the resources they need to succeed.
Our upcoming Connect Investment Forum provides a key platform for promoting this interaction. We also provide online introductions through MyDealMaker and publish a periodic Investor Bulletin to bring companies on our radar screen to the attention of potential investors.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
It's a Jungle Out There
I spoke at a recent Insider Spark event on the subject of 'What Education Can Do For Business'
In my experiences partnerships only work when both sides get something out of the relationship and ideally this happens when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, creating a virtuous circle of success.
Mary Walshaw, the founder of Connect San Diego, talks about Shared Risk and Reward, and a collective sense of ‘ownership’. Community over individual institution or company. She also talks about creating an innovation ecosystem that is more rainforest than plantation. New ideas form at the intersection between disciplines, where cross fertilization occur, serendipity plays it part and diversity thrives in some chaos.
Now I am not saying orderly process and a commercialisation pipeline do not have a part to play, but innovation is non-linear and trying to select the winners and losers at too early a stage is not necessarily useful or doable. A vibrant innovation ecosystem gives new commercial concepts and ideas a fighting chance. Yes, if they do have the right DNA to thrive then the plantation analogy takes hold and that is where real VC funding comes into play. Once something emerges from the 'forest' that looks promising, then the emphasis needs to shift towards control, replication and development with a 'plantation' mentality to leverage value. These stages of a companies development are very different and the people that revelled in the early-stage anarchy may not be best suited to raising things in straight lines to regimented schedules.
But at the Proof Of Concept and Seedcorn stage you have to accept failure is necessarily omnipresent with success. There is a tendency to want to wait until something is proven before wanting to invest in it. We all want to make managed stepwise progress that avoids the risk of failure. The fact of life is that no matter how carefully you plan, you can't avoid making mistakes as part of the journey. Being too focused on the certain winners can be counter productive to the health of the overall ecosystem.
The key question is whether this early stage funding and support is seen as being focused on maintaining the diversity and health of the innovation jungle or is it to grow good ideas in plantations?
In my experiences partnerships only work when both sides get something out of the relationship and ideally this happens when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, creating a virtuous circle of success.
Mary Walshaw, the founder of Connect San Diego, talks about Shared Risk and Reward, and a collective sense of ‘ownership’. Community over individual institution or company. She also talks about creating an innovation ecosystem that is more rainforest than plantation. New ideas form at the intersection between disciplines, where cross fertilization occur, serendipity plays it part and diversity thrives in some chaos.
Now I am not saying orderly process and a commercialisation pipeline do not have a part to play, but innovation is non-linear and trying to select the winners and losers at too early a stage is not necessarily useful or doable. A vibrant innovation ecosystem gives new commercial concepts and ideas a fighting chance. Yes, if they do have the right DNA to thrive then the plantation analogy takes hold and that is where real VC funding comes into play. Once something emerges from the 'forest' that looks promising, then the emphasis needs to shift towards control, replication and development with a 'plantation' mentality to leverage value. These stages of a companies development are very different and the people that revelled in the early-stage anarchy may not be best suited to raising things in straight lines to regimented schedules.
But at the Proof Of Concept and Seedcorn stage you have to accept failure is necessarily omnipresent with success. There is a tendency to want to wait until something is proven before wanting to invest in it. We all want to make managed stepwise progress that avoids the risk of failure. The fact of life is that no matter how carefully you plan, you can't avoid making mistakes as part of the journey. Being too focused on the certain winners can be counter productive to the health of the overall ecosystem.
The key question is whether this early stage funding and support is seen as being focused on maintaining the diversity and health of the innovation jungle or is it to grow good ideas in plantations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
