Still not quite convinced

Understanding motivation can be key. My friend Fred Patterson, the SBIR Coach, calls it WIIFM: What's in it for me?

Only... we're sold a bill of goods by common assumption, that it's we, the entrepreneurs, the inventors, the scientists, the researchers, who must go as supplicants to the trough of Investors, tripping over ourselves to convince the moneyed that we are worthy of their largess.

I'm still not quite convinced. Turning the tables, I wonder "what's in it for me"? See, I'm a lone researcher, a radical, an oddball, who after several years as supplicant at the trough of Academia, after 150 faculty applications, and a miserable stint of Adjunct Servitude, decided to shirk the bonds I had willingly taken on, and head out on my own.

I stumbled into SBIR. And, now, little more than a year and a half later, my firm is growing from one, to a staff of six (four full-time). We're patent pending, about to start our first Phase II, and our second Phase I with a different agency on a related but distinct project.

I believe in the mission of SBIR to support innovation wherever it lurks. I believe in SBIR as an open competition of ideas, not as earmarks. I believe in the wise use of public funds to spur and stimulate and foster and fertilize the fragile seeds of innovation. What a wonderful idea: small pots of money for outstanding ideas, to support a short path to proof-of-concept.

What's in it for me? I have learned. A spare six months to delve whole heartedly into the realm of my passions, to test the mettle of my ideas, to drive those naked thoughts into evidence. Yes, indeed, this will work, and it will solve your problem. Then, the chance to compete for Phase II funding, to support a full-scale R&D effort for a couple years, creating high-quality jobs along the way. Finally, the chance to make those dreams a reality by commercializing the results of those ideas and that passion, solving real-world problems, paying back the largess of public coffers. That's a win for everyone.

But what's in it for me to (possibly prematurely) sell off parts of my firm to investors, whose interest may more likely begin and end with dollar signs, not passion, or ideas, or public interest? I'm not much for knocking on doors, beating the bushes, and doing a song and dance for investment.

I'm not much for paper entrepreneurship, writing dazzling business plans. Sure, I can project millions in profits like the best of them. Only, it's far more interesting (and difficult) to actually achieve it. Do I need private investment to get there? Will private investment ensure I get there? Will it help?

Those are the important questions. I can't say I know the answer just yet. I'll answer a knock at the door, and listen in earnest to the pitch. But for now, I think I prefer if they work to convince me. I always enjoy a good song and dance.

Separation of State & Science

The November 28, 2009 issue of The Economist includes a pithy opinion piece, ostensibly addressing the need for allowing the voice of a skeptical minority of climate scientists to be heard in the midst of political wrangling over climate change. More significant than the specifics of the context however is the broad-reaching argument regarding the necessity of separating scientific debate from political maneuvering. Here is a concise formulation from the end of the article:

There are no certainties in science. Prevailing theories must be constantly tested against evidence, and refined, and more evidence collected, and the theories tested again. That is the job of the scientists. When they stop questioning orthodoxy, mankind will have given up the search for truth. The sceptics should not be silenced.

Well said, indeed!

Tax break on profits again in jeopardy - The Boston Globe

Interesting headline on the front page of today's Boston Globe (Tax break on profits again in jeapordy). What reasonable justification is there for treating the investments by some few in the potential of someone else's ideas to provide a handsome return-on-investment as different and better than the investments of entrepreneurs in their own creations? Why is that tax incentives go to hedge fund managers, and venture capitalists, and angel investors, but not directly to the entrepreneurs themselves who invest not only sweat equity but often stake their own savings and the safety of their families?

What is the motivation behind such tax incentives? The argument in their favor is that "raising taxes on investment" will "weaken the economy". But how? Look at yesterday's post, and the opinion piece by Josh Kosman. Are hedge fund and VC investments really benefiting the economy at large? That's quite a debatable point.

Perhaps we should look at the sustainable and broad benefits of an entrepreneurial economy, about the benefits that accrue from seeding innovation at the earliest stages, and supporting research entrepreneurs in pursuing and maintaining their passions for bettering society. Perhaps by focusing our energies and tax incentives on these individuals themselves instead, we'll more likely strenghten the economy!

Posted using ShareThis

A case study in profits and job losses - The Boston Globe

Josh Kosman, author of a new book predicting the impact of private equity in the next financial meltdown, has penned an interesting opinion piece in today's Boston Globe. He uses a local political debate as a jumping off point to discuss how a certain approach to equity investment has proven quite adept at creating profits for a very few, at the expense of both investors and the firms whose takeover they have financed. Notable is his presentation of how gutting a firm's R&D has negatively impacted its competitiveness and profitability.

Yet another argument for keeping a firm in the hands of those who believe in its mission, rather than those whose sole motive is to exit, with paper profits, at all costs.

Posted using ShareThis