Great Networking Events

Is networking a skill required by established entrepreneurs? Apparently it is1, even though many entrepreneurs consider themselves too busy doing exactly what they need to do to build their business for the random unplanness of networking.

There are zillions of blogs with advice for attendees on how to navigate the social and logistic challenges of networking. Here, I ponder what differentiates a great event from a mediocre one, inspired because I’ve discovered PitchitTO/York/Durham/etc 2. The Pitchits are 3 for 3, as far as I’m concerned. Being the analytical type, I need to dissect to find the ingredients that makes them so good.

I recommend networking to entrepreneurs for three reasons: learning, community, and building the business. Controlled serendipity is a rush. There’s magic when you bump into the person who:

1. can explain something you’ve been trying to figure out (or you’re the explainer and help someone else), [learning]

2. has the same challenges you do, [community]

3. wants to hire you to do a project you know exactly how to do [business].

Recent examples I experienced from each category:

1. On marketing. Do you find it hard to speak convincingly about your own abilities – key if you provide knowledge-based services? Someone said to me: ‘Consider it a natural ability that you should share.’ Wow! That sounded so much more palatable than pushing services. It turned ‘I’m selling this thing and I think you should buy it’ into ‘Let me help you because I know how’. [learning]

2. Sleepless nights. Even though I do a lot of speaking in front of (sometimes) critical audiences, it makes me nervous. Sometimes, so nervous I can’t sleep. Hearing someone else, a successful, public-speaking someone else, recount the same experience, only worse, gave me great comfort that even when it looks easy, it isn’t. [community]

3. Clients. Yes, I’ve found clients at networking events. [business]

A good networking event makes it easy for every attendee to find people to learn from, share with, and do business with. And this happens how? I won’t pretend to have the perfect recipe, but can make a few observations based on years of attending everything from the dullest events where no one moved from their front-of-the-room-facing seats, to ones that were so high energy I needed several hours to calm down afterward.

Here’s what I think makes a good event:

  1. The right physical space. Find an interesting, quirky setting. Maybe it has natural beauty, sunlight, water, or a forbidden quality. Make it somewhere people feel good. If they have to sit down, have them do it at large tables. Small ones form hard-to-enter cliques. Treat the attendees like house guests. Give them food, drink, bacon even.
  2. Invite well. We all know the marketing rules about reaching the right audience – publicize to find unconnected but like-minded people and those with a breadth of experience from seasoned to fresh out of school. Stack the deck of attendees with people you know will mingle and be inclusive. It’s a numbers thing3 – if enough of the attendees are determined to talk to everyone, then everyone will talk to everyone.
  3. Awesome leadership. It works in large corporations and small, and networking events. Good leadership – vision, coaching and walking the talk, will set the tone. The message should be loud and clear that everyone is there to help each other and learn from each other and do business together (see above three principles).
  4. The Program. Putting effort into crafting a stimulating program will get people talking. Inciting excitement gets the room riled up and ready to chatter.
  5. Fun. The culmination of all of the above, the atmosphere, the attendees, the leadership, and the event schedule, should be fun – enjoying life while making things happen.

Finding networking events that deliver all these things won’t happen all the time. And there is an element of personal fit. Not every venue, topic, or style energizes everyone in the same way. My latest find – the Pitchit events – have all the right elements – atmosphere, appropriate crowd, supportive message from the organizers, presentations every entrepreneur can related to, and serious fun.

Go find the perfect event for you. There will be people there you should know.

——

1For example, this academic study suggests so:  Morris, M., Webb, J., Fu, J., Singhal, S. (2013) A Competency-Based Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business Management 51(3), pp. 352–369.

2 Pitchit is a new GTA thing where several startups are given ten-ish minutes to present their business to the crowd which contains a variety of potential investors and fellow entrepreneurs.

3There’s a mathematic model here somewhere, but let’s settle for: if there are three people, one of whom is determined to talk to everyone, and the other two who are cliquing, everyone will talk to everyone because the outgoing one will intervene with the other two. To get the idea of how many zealous networkers you should invite: multiple by one third of the number of expected attendees after subtracting the people who look like they are networking but are really running the event. Divide the program time by the time it takes for a good networker to have a conversation. Combine these factors. Do this in hexadecimal and it should predict the logarithm of the number of new dollars invested because of the event. 🙂

Please follow and like us:

The Evolution of the Evil Scientist. Part 1: The Money

When I was a little girl, the professor from Gillian’s Island was my hero. He was smart, unassuming, and solved a lot of problems. I deduced that scientists were incredible. As clever as physicians, with the power to save lives, but much cooler, as they shunned the limelight. Later in TV history came McGuyer, who fixed an awful lot of problems with duct tape and scientific knowledge.

Nowadays, scientists1 often seem to be on the evil side of the human equation. ‘They’ have conflicts of interest, because their primary activity – research – could be supported by a commercial interest, either a large corporation or their own startup company. Everything is questioned for the agenda. This post considers the impact of a scientists’ source of funding, and a second one will examine public disclosures that scientists now are almost required to make.

A major shift over the past 60 years has occurred in the way scientific research is supported. This page shows the switch in dominance of research paid for by the government versus private industry in the US. Until the late 1970’s, most research was supported by the government. In 2012, only 30% was government funded while more than 60% is industry sponsored. The pressure on academic researchers to commercialize the findings of their research has made for more industry ties – either by licensing to an existing business or encouraging researchers to create their own startup.

While this may cause some to throw up their arms in alarm and shout invectives about the corruption of research and polarized agendas and corporations paying for the results they want, for most of history, private individuals were benefactors of scientists. In other words, someone rich, on whose favour the scientist depended, doled out the money to feed and house the scientist, while they grew hundreds of bean plans, or gazed through a telescope at the stars and then disappeared into a dank library to do endless pages of mathematics. We’ve built our understanding of countless things, like the structure of the galaxy, human anatomy, and the theory of evolution, on the basis of privately funded research. Did any of the individuals who supported the scientists try to influence the conclusions of their research? Probably, but the passage of time, and the work of other scientists differentiate between influence and true findings.

I think part of what keeps science unbiased is that there are people, scientists, that live to investigate, to answer unanswerable questions. They don’t care who makes money out of it. They want to toil in obscurity, reasoning and experimenting things out. Problem is, we all have to eat. So what’s a scientist to do? Most are not in it for the money.

I’ve lived through several rounds of precipitously declining government funding for research, where university administrators warn the faculty (where a good percentage of scientists reside) of declining grants and encourage them to make friends with business people, as a means to survive in the research style to which they have become accustomed. Heck, I’ve even put on events myself to encourage industry sponsors and researchers to chat and form alliances.

To make this discussion more complicated, there is basic scientific research, of the type that asks and answers abstract questions, say about gravitation waves or behaviour of silicon in solid state, and may one day allow better satellite tracking or microelectronics. Then there is applied science, such as new drug testing. Although basic research, or what’s call curious-based research2, is generally of less interest to industry representatives3, a significant portion of development in the pharmaceutical industry has to be done in collaboration with medical researchers. Physicians who do research as well as care for patients, are the ones with the training and opportunity to work with the relevant patients.

As a recent example of how pervasive this sort of support of medical research is, this paper discusses the number of US physicians who report some kind of payment from an industry sources, including research support, consulting fees, or just sandwiches at a conference. The study found that almost half of physicians studied received some kind of payment, with the overall average being a bit over $5000 in a year.

It’s a tricky relationship, between physician researcher and pharmaceutical company. Doctors are the best ones to know which patients need new solutions for their medical conditions. Pharmaceutical companies understand how their new drugs work. They need each other, the doctors and the drug makers, and we need them to need each other, so we can benefit from the new drugs. I can’t imagine a physician that would knowingly harm a patient, particularly to get research money, as the point to research is to discover useful new ways to make people better. It would be like a chef accepting sponsorship to make foul-tasting food. On the other side of the equation, there’s so much potential for conflict of interest, both perceived and real, and some history of abuse of the system.

For both basic and medical scientists, often the choice is to get involved with a big business and accept their backing, or stop doing research. Research on zero dollars a day doesn’t work.

Why has this reality lead many to decide scientists are evil? The scientists I know are noble people who prefer to devote themselves to finding the truth, often the truth of discovering better medicines, over capitalistic gains. Am I naive?

I’m a scientist, and I am defending my colleagues, my tribe. But I have no agenda. Except the agenda I’m suggesting is the one of most scientists: Truth.

——-

1Using a very broad, inclusive definition of scientist here which includes the natural, social and applied scientists.

2This seems like a bit of a cruel joke, because ‘curiosity-based’ research, is far from a frivolous, random or carried out by people skipping through meadows, chasing shiny butterflies, activity.

3A couple of upcoming technologies, artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things, contradict this statement, since we appear to have ideas for implementation of the technology as fast as we can understand it.

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:

What I Discovered at Discovery 2016 – Business with a Social Agenda

It’s that time of the year. Time to find out who has new ideas about turning which emerging technology into business at the annual OCE Discovery showcase.  With 3,000 other people, I spent a couple days networking, listening to keynote speakers from companies like Tesla, engaging with clever entrepreneurs, and hobnobbing with all the other folks who make innovation happen in Ontario.

I go to Discovery to learn: about what my colleagues are doing, new trends in business and technology, and new words1. There are always surprises.

Automobiles, obviously not new business but full of new technology, were big this year. In addition to a keynote speaker from Tesla, a panel with representatives from GM, Ford, Hyundai and IBM talked cars. First surprise – artificial intelligence is a driving force in the auto industry. I’ve been so focused on the philosophical aspects of how AI will impact humanity I forgot it would be soon be deployed in an everyday task. To drive cars.

A bigger surprise – the extent of the discussion on ethical issues related to electrical vehicles and autonomous driving vehicles. I can’t remember another instance at a business-focused conference where there was such thorough forethought (i.e. the opposite of afterthought) and time spent on considering the consequences to society and the environment related to a popular consumer product.

For the electric vehicles, the driving force behind the innovation is to cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming. But discussion didn’t stop there. Concern was expressed about the impact of the lithium in the batteries. This was countered by the responsible practices used in lithium mining, and the that the batteries are (almost) infinitely renewable, unlike fossil fuels that are burned and exhausted into the atmosphere. Of course, the source of energy for electric cars is electricity, the batteries are only the conduit, so the overall environmental foot print depends on the source of the electricity.

For autonomous or self-driving cars, there are many positives, including decreasing human suffering by eliminating human error as a cause of car accidents, and increased efficiency in route selection, leading to lower emissions (decreased driving times and less idling) and costs to maintain the roads. Cars that can drive themselves will be more convenient for human passengers, dropping them off at their destination and going to park themselves, saving fuel and decreasing human frustration.

Considerable concern lingers about the types of decisions the AI in an autonomous vehicle might make. In an emergency situation, it may be necessary to make a choice of who to protect from harm. If a collision between a pedestrian can only be averted by the car steering into a pole, which would be done? Does it matter how many people are in the car, how old each is, what their occupation, education or criminal record is? This is a truly scary thing to contemplate. But, encouragingly, auto- and AI-makers have thought about it.

Continuing on the theme of cars, Zipcar  is a company with a model for decreasing the impact to the environment of our transportation systems. Zipcar allows people to share cars owned by the company, in a very user friendly way. This should decrease the overall number of cars on the planet and therefore the energy and waste associated with manufacturing and recycling the vehicles. Robin Chase, cofounder of Zipcar, gave a keynote address where she elaborated on her idea2 that a solution to global warming lies in applying Zipcar principles to many other aspects of life: by using unused capacity we can decrease the world’s overall consumption of stuff. Her ideas are rooted in social change, but refreshingly embrace big business.

I found additional social innovation on the Discovery show floor, there were aisles dedicated to initiatives with accessibility-providing-technology, such as accessto.ca that lists restaurants, bars and cafes, describing how accessible their physical space is. There was also an area highlighting social enterprises.

Was the OCE Discovery program socially focused this year? I’m not sure I want to delve into motives. I’ll just enjoy the well-rounded perspective I discovered at Discovery on how tech business is developing.

1I learned the word fintech this year. This means new technological approaches to finance. Stuff like bitcoin.

2This is the subject of a book she is currently promoting, http://www.peersincorporated.com .

Please follow and like us:

So Close and Yet so Far: Contrast between Advanced Technology and Everyday Life.

In this era of lightening-fast technological advancement, new, astonishing developments emerge every day, like virtual reality goggles or driverless cars. With all of our awesome gadgets, apps and information, what has advanced technology done for us?

For the love of paradox, I catalogued a few instances of bleeding-edge technology and readily available solutions in similar areas. In no particular order:

Advanced Technology Current ‘State of the Art’

Medicine – Assistive Devices

Assistive and prosthetic devices that restore arm functionality by sensing the brain’s intention to move and moving the limb by brain command1. Stainless steel artificial hips to replace worn out joints and make recipients pain-free and able to carry out everyday activities like walking2 – certain models subject to recall3.
Google glass and other augmented reality visual aids. Meant to provide computing power through visual display and hand motions. Information about the visual field presented to the wearer, such as historical background, competitive pricing, communication history. (Privacy issues being worked out but the technology exists.) ‘Progressive lenses’. Corrective glasses allow distances, mid-range and close to be focused on, within a single lens. Works if you are vertical and the things you want to see close up are at chest height. Doesn’t work for close work above the head, like wiring a ceiling fixture or fixing the plumbing under the kitchen sink. Nor for reading while lying on your side.

Robots or other automation to do routine tasks.

Automation of jobs, such as taking your order at the fast food restaurant, sweeping the floor or delivering your take out order, through touch screens, robotic devices and drones. Youth unemployment. Many young people feel threatened by automation – that it will take away entry level jobs. There are many useful lessons people can learn working at a fast food restaurant or clothing store.
The super power of artificial intelligence has the capacity to control complex systems that include the power grid, water supply and energy production. Arguably will have the ability to dictate all human life support systems. (And lead to our control and possible demise.) Autocorrect is hysterical. Really – we fear the likes of this has the capability to rule the world? What is is a donkey ferris, anyway?

The Environment

Technology reduces an individual’s carbon footprint (electric cars, home lighting control, more efficient heating, more secure, faster electronic devices). Throw out the old version to become more environmentally efficient. Reduce, reuse, recycle. But the life cycle of many current consumer products has decreased, and most are unrepairable, unrefurbishable and apparently outdated. It’s cheaper and easier to buy the new. Into the landfill with the old!
Genetically engineered crops. Whatever you think about GMO’s, the purpose in their creation was to engineer plants that were more cost effective to grow, either due to insect, climate or pesticide resistance (allowing more efficient use of the land). Distrust of GMO’s. Concerns about toxins. Conspiracy theories about big business controlling the food supply. (The food supply is big business.)

Communication

Vast amounts of information is available to anyone with an internet connections. Misinformation about everything runs rampant. Massive amount of personal bandwidth is directed into subjects such as the black/blue vs gold/white dress question, cat videos, and conspiracy theories about big business.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad of the technology we have access to. If I lived in primitive times, I’d been eaten by a bear or other hungry predator before I hit puberty because I can’t see well enough to avoid things more than two feet away. I’m privileged to have a longer lifespan than my ancestors, and that I don’t have to churn my own butter, make candles or go down to the river to do the laundry, where I’d likely be eaten by alligators I couldn’t see. And I have this platform to air my views and watch videos about plumbing repair, creativity, and cats.

The moral of this post is that the time from introduction of a novel technology to when we all can use it depends on:

  • the scientists and business people getting together to decide what the technology might be useful for,
  • the business people determining where the market is and how to communicate to people who might find the technology useful,
  • the engineers figuring out how to make mass quantities of the new thingie,
  • the business people getting it into stores or similar distribution points so that people can buy the new thingie.

This assumes that the business people made the price reasonable and the engineers and scientists got the thingie right so it does what it’s supposed to.

I didn’t mean to make this an infomercial for the commercialization process. Technology is advancing in quantum leaps and bounds, but it takes time to make it work consistently and safely. Maybe our children will put going into space on their bucket list, along with 3D printing their dream home.

1for example http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/technology/a-bionic-approach-to-prosthetics-controlled-by-thought.html?_r=0

2http://www.niams.nih.gov/health_info/hip_replacement/hip_replacement_ff.asp

3http://www.depuysynthes.com/asrrecall/asrcanadaenglish.html

Please follow and like us:

Look at Tech, It’s Growing Up.

I don’t like being called a geek, but being thrilled to attend the Toronto Tech Summit where I was titillated by the frontiers of new technology is pretty geeky, isn’t it?

Friday’s event (April 8, 2106) was a well organized and thought out conference, with high quality speakers and good breadth to the program. The event claims a focus on customer experience or ‘crafting experiences through technology’¹. Not too long into the first session, it hit me:

Tech² is growing up. Leaving that awkward teenage phrase of ‘no, I’m totally different’, to resemble a young adult who want to make good in the world, but have their own ideas about how to achieve it.

One of the speakers³ asked ‘how do we business in Canada?’. Business as a verb. Yes. The conference was about the business made possible by technology, not how to turn technology into business.

Maybe everything I see looks like a business strategy lesson right now, but I was blown away how each talk could illustrate a concept from a quintessential strategic management textbook.

Tech has grown into an enabling component of every product and service, so it’s not surprising that I imagined writing a different chapter of a strategy manual with each presentation at the Tech Summit. All the better because every story was about a cutting edge business. How exciting… tech is no longer separate, it’s integral. Not renegade and unruly, but maverick and enlightened. Less Sex Pistols and more U2.

Here are the business lessons I took from some of the presentations at the Toronto Tech Summit:

No business conference is complete without a presentation about the Internet of Things. Sachin Mahajan from Telus eloquently laid out evidence that this is an industry entering the growth phase following its introduction. Large companies, like Google, IBM and Apple are investing heavily in the area, as are venture capitalists. The business is nascent, so there are few industry standards – another hallmark of an early growth stage industry, as is knowing little about the verticals that will serve the industry.

FreshBooks – a general audience pause while we all roll our eyes because its accounting software – is in a more mature industry – enterprise software. Avrum Laurie described their process for agile design. Process innovation, the textbook says, is a hallmark of a maturing industry. Yup, integrating real-time design innovation and customer feedback may be new tech, but process innovation, to decrease waste and remain competitive, is old school, cost-focused strategy.

Classic diversification strategy was presented by Bowie Cheung of UberEats. Lots of great strategic moves here. Uber’s mission is to deliver everything to people – I’m paraphrasing and may not have got the words exactly right but clearly she was talking about new business units. What does a company do to grow? Build on its existing knowledge base. Use what it knows in new ways. In Uber’s case, deliver food to people instead of giving them a ride using essentially the same driver and car base they’ve established. Makes sense, so far. But delivering food from restaurants isn’t a new thing. Can Uber make it better? The roster of restaurants is UberEats’ differentiating factor, allowing them to realize economies of scale in making their dishes for a wider customer base, with distribution enabled by the Uber app and quick delivery. I particularly liked the idea of being able to track delivery through the app. How many times have you paced, ravenous, wondering where the heck your pizza was? Uber answers. This could be a key success factor.

The customer experience/care panel asked traditional questions about client demographics. I had to wonder when the talk turned to the use of chatbots in retail. The essence of the concept was that instead of lifting a finger to click on opinions or pull down menus, the AI would ask which option the customer preferred. Could we all become so lazy? But I can see it being the new normal or industry standard.

Other delicious morsels of business strategy I heard:

  • The requirement for organizational structure, especially as a startup grows, was attest to by Paul Grey of KiK. KiK is a social media platform used by a particular demographic.
  • Differences in new entry costs between hardware and software was a theme from Wesley Yun from GroPro.
  • Diversity in all businesses has value for the organization and is not just good corporate social responsibility, said Nada Basir from the U of Waterloo business school.
  • Another example of cost focus strategy from the mature business of online auctions, methods to reduce costs by changing currency offering.
  • And the importance of corporate culture for delivering anything in business.

As an old person, always excited about new technology, I felt right at home with the new generation. Because they’re practicing business just the way we did when I was young.

——

¹ http://www.torontotechsummit.com

²I’ve always defined technology as inclusively as possible, encompassing software, hardware and the combination, and newly engineered physical and biological things. I was glad to hear one of the speakers say the same.

³here http://www.torontotechsummit.com is the list of speakers. apologies in advance if I don’t attribute every phrase I heard correctly.

 

Please follow and like us:

Big Data – So Glad I’m not Alone

How many businesses are based on the collection of user data? Could be all of them, soon.

Having done just enough reading about the Internet of Things to be dangerous, I’ve surmised the time is coming when we’ll have the capacity to collect and store a ridiculous amount of information, perhaps down to a level of minutiae (does that word rhyme with nausea?) whereby we could track each step the family pet takes, every day, as it wanders around the house. I have to admit, I’m curious what my cats do while I’m not home, but suspect that information would interest me for 0.8 minutes. And I’d pay less than what a cup of coffee costs to know.

If I won’t pay, maybe a maker of veterinary products will. And discover a cause to displaced aggression, an increasingly common syndrome whereby cats get all snarly because they can see another cat outside their home, making them uber-aggressive to anything inside their home. Perhaps a new line of pet-food would counteract the cause. Depending on what the cause is, maybe the manufacture of air-fresheners, refiners of natural gas or growers of gourds should get involved.

It may seem I’m being silly but that is the potential of big data. Everything may be connected to everything else in previously unsuspected ways. A world where every object (including people) sends frequent signals about its position, temperature, or movement isn’t so far away. And while that may seems like an innocuous set of variables, much can be determined. Knowing where a person is at all times says a lot about their habits and interests. Go to the corner store each night? – there’s some kind of habit brewing – smokes, junk food, lottery or maybe just an attraction to the clerk. Already sounds like too much person information.

Add a little more, like your purchasing habits, co-location with other objects (people) provides much information about your relationships. A speedometer, GPS and accelerometer is enough to reveal your driving habits – do you break quickly or a lot? Knowing your speed and where you are tells if you are a habitual speeder. Aggressive driving can be spotted by proximity to other vehicles.

So there’s another rub. Things we are buying now come with embedded information gathers. Never mind the electronic device (mobile phone/tablet) we use to communicate that snarfs down a mountain of information about us – there are others, such as cars. Appliances will soon want to be in constant contact with retailers (or maybe the other way around) so the fridge will refill itself with all your favourite foods (at your expense). The washer and dryer will order refills of detergent and fabric softener if you don’t stop them.

The electric utility monitors my consumption of power by the minute but also may soon link that information to all the appliances in my house to suggest which are being left on too long or could otherwise be used more wisely. That’s information I can use to decrease my power bill, or may be the information will be used in another way.

Oops.The pessimist woke up.

What about personal privacy and associated rights that various businesses may want to stick their nose into? Like say, Insurance. There’s a data loving industry. Wouldn’t my home insurance provider like to know if I was in the habit of leaving electrical appliances unattended, risking a fire. Or maybe they’d be more interested to know there was no power drawn from a home security system even though I ensured them I installed one.

And this is just one example that sprung to mind. There’s cars and driving habits. Food and eating habits. How hot I heat my home compared to everyone else in the neighbourhood. How many fruits and vegetables my family buys each week and how many end up in the compose bin. The household consumption of entertainment – bringing a blush to everyone’s cheeks. You get the idea. Personal privacy is at stake.

Many businesses assure us that our information will not be used except to ‘provide us with service’ – that sounds like a can of worms.

When I saw the title ‘The Need to Embed Big Privacy in a World of Big Data – by Design’ a talk by Ann Cavoukian, I was thrilled because it seemed to echo my sentiments exactly. Dr. Cavoukian is the former privacy commissioner for Ontario who has created a system called Privacy by Design to protect privacy (all kinds, individual, corporate, organizational).

I went to the talk. I liked what I heard. The key principles. Privacy should be:

  • Proactive
  • By default
  • Embedded into design
  • Positive sum – not a trade off with security, we get privacy and security
  • Full life cycle protection
  • Visible and transparent
  • Respect for user choice – no service denial because you decline to provide information

The last one won me over completely. Too many online sites are binary (yes, the irony is intentional). If you don’t agree to provide information required, you can’t get in. After all, it’s a web interface and not capable of understanding explanations.

Hence my love of the privacy by default idea. If I don’t want to provide my birthdate, I can still get an account. This is where privacy by design is important. Yes, it you need to ensure users are above a certain age. Currently, you build the user account system to verify this by asking for their date of birth, then of course they are rejected if you refuse to provide that information. But if you did it differently from the beginning, asking people to warrant they were of age and sending an email to confirm, you might design a system that protected the provider and the consumer equally. Squeee.

One of the suggestions was that we should be routinely reminded that data was being collected. I’d love it if Facebook popped a window to tell me I’d watched 65 cat videos in a month and they were escalating my profile to ‘cat lady’. Or Twitter said I was following enough grunge-rock bands to qualify as a metal-head groupie. It might be fun.

I applaud the Privacy by Design initiative, to boldly embrace privacy and see how easy it is to incorporate it if it’s done from the beginning. I can see it as a competitive advantage, providing customers the option of how much of their data is used and what kind of information they get back from sharing. Sigh. Oh for the day when we’re secure in what we communicate freely, without fear of our messages being used against us.

Please follow and like us:

On Drugs: Creative Business Models

Stories have flown around the internet on wings of outrage and indignation at the profiteering of entrepreneurs who increase the cost of life-saving drugs astronomically overnight. Is this capitalism gone wrong? Obviously, many would answer. While I understand such a visceral reaction, I want to explore why it might have looked like a good idea at the time, even though the public outcry doesn’t make it look very attractive now.

What started the furor: Reports of two examples of small companies (Turing Pharmaceutical and Rodelis Therapeutics1) abruptly increasing the price of certain drugs by factors of 50 or more. These drugs are for serious illnesses (toxoplasmosis or drug-resistant tuberculous, respectively) where there is little choice in therapy, although only a small fraction of the population needs treatment. Both medicines had been around long enough that any patents would have expired so generics could be made if there was interest from another manufacturer. A primer on the intricacies of the business of drugs is in this2 footnote.

I can imagine how the reasoning might go in a decision to jack up the drug price (I’m not defending the decision, just trying to imagine a credible strategy). In order to keep the drugs in the company’s inventory, to make them a product that contributes to the bottom line in the way that investors like to see, the price could be increased. By ensuring the drugs remained on the company’s product list, the price increase would ensure the drugs were available when people needed them. Another rationale is the purely economic perspective: if the price is increased and people still buy the product then there is additional value in the product and the increased price is justified. Good old fashion capitalism.

Something about this argument doesn’t feel right, perhaps because of the nature of the business of healthcare. In many cases, it’s possible the price increase will be paid by insurance or government programs, so there’s ethical impunity for the company. People will still get the medicine they require regardless of the price. Drug prices skyrocket, because they can.

Certainly there are a number of drugs for rare conditions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, that are approved and paid for by insurance companies3, a model the small pharmas may have been trying to imitate.

Are recent events merely a symptom of the business of medicine? At first glance, drug development looks like a business with the potential to bring much good to many. Consider:

  • A tremendous effort is required to develop and test drugs to be sure they are effective.
  • Testing new drugs is risky business: Risk that all of the investment will evaporate into proving the drug is not useful and risk for the patients and their loved ones (that the drug will not improve their health or make it worse). There is the potential for greater good too, as a new cure, or better treatment, may be discovered which helps many more people.
  • Approved drugs improve the lives of many, but some cause serious side effects in a fraction of those who take the drug. The regulatory bodies (such as the FDA and HPFB) endeavour to weigh the benefits with the risks and ensure there is full disclosure of the potential side effects. Most of us have benefited from prescription drugs at some point in our lives, heaving a big sigh of relief when the antibiotics overthrow a bladder infection or a painkiller make a nasty broken ankle bearable.Unfortunately, drug development sometimes unintentionally violates the ‘do no harm’ principle, because it investigates the unknown. Some might argue that this is unacceptable, no one should be subject to the potential of such danger. However, look into the eyes of someone with an incurable disease, and suggest there is an untried drug that might bring relief, and tell me ‘no harm’ is being done by denying hope.

Is the pharmaceutical industry really for the greater good?

  • Do they profit from people’s misfortune or provide relief from suffering?
  • Do they over-promise on the benefits of their products? We have laws and regulations on disclosure of efficacy and side effects. Few medicines are 100% effective or without side effects.
  • Side effects happen, sometimes very severe side effects, like death, occur in a very small segment of the population that takes the drug. Is it acceptable to offer someone a potential cure with a small chance of mortality? The philosopher Kant might say no.

Am I off topic? The controversy was, after all, about the price of the drugs. How do we determine an appropriate price?

  • Some countries do price drugs on pharmaco-economic grounds – the price must be justified by indirect indicators of the suffering it relieves.
  • Orphan drug prices are justified by costs, an argument that might be applied in the current cases. The price is required to make a good business case for continuing to provide the drug. Full rigorous disclosure of all the costs of testing, manufacturing, selling, and distributing the drugs might make it easier to swallow the pricey pills.
  • Selling drugs is business, so it should be measured up against the same standards as any business.

The drug-selling business is fraught with controversy, because it combines two ingredients that often don’t mix well: capitalism and human well-being. The complexity of the healthcare system, with disconnected consumers, providers and payers, makes any analysis of the rightness or wrongness of a situation difficult. In a moral world, each person would get the best care modern medicine could provide, but never at the expense of anyone’s well being. A fantastic ideal, a hard thing to provide.

1 For example http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/turing-clinton-prescription-drugs-1.3238202 (Turing) and http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tb-drug-price-cycloserine-1.3237868 (Rodelis). From the reports I’ve seen, since the news stories broke on Sept 22, Rodelis rescinded most of the cost increase and may no longer sell the drug, while Turing has announced a price decrease.

2 Prescription drugs are complicated from a business perspective. Some general concepts:

  • The right to sell a drug may be protected by patent, but even with the patent, approval to sell the drug is needed.
  • Approval comes from a regulatory board on a country by country basis, and requires significant clinical testing to prove the drug does what it is supposed to and is safe.
  • In addition, the drug may have a trademarked brandname (e.g. Viagra) initiatlly owned by whoever registered the trademark.
  • None of these three rights to a drug need to be held by the same entity. They aren’t very useful one without the other, but each right can be sold or licensed. When the patent expires the other two rights remain.
  • Generic drugs have the same active ingredient as a name brand, and are sold without the name brand after the original period of exclusivity has expired. Generic drugs must be proven equivalent to the approved name-brand but aren’t required to go through the testing again to prove effectiveness because they are the same active ingredient as the name brand. Once patent protection on the name brand drug expires, other drug makers can apply to sell generics. If multiple generics enter the market, the price comes crashing down.
  • Then there’s the ‘buying’ decision – it isn’t the consumer (the patient), nor is it usually the payer (insurance or government), it’s the physician who decides which drug to prescribe, although often insurance companies and government formularies limit what they pay for.
  • A single prescription drug, such as Lipitor to control blood cholesterol, brings in annual revenues of billions of dollars. This is the sort of business the pharmaceutical companies deal in typically.
  • In order to encourage companies to make drugs for rare conditions, there are programs like the FDA’s which offer tax breaks and waive fees. However, many orphan drugs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for one patient.
Please follow and like us:

Innovation without Technology

Can a new product, a new service or application, be commercialized without new technology, without inventing a widget or writing new code? It can, when it’s based on knowledge, know-how, or understanding an old thing in a new way.

Remember the phrase – all the buzz ten years ago: ‘the knowledge economy’? While it certainly seems like machines are getting smarter ( but that’s another story), new knowledge has been translated into ICT, social media and the emerging IoT (internet of things). Billions of burgeoning new businesses (ok I’m exaggerating) became because people invented new hardware or software. Which is good. And of course, based on knowledge.

And while some of us were busy creating the new knowledge all those electronic, interconnected, disruptive technologies are based on, many others were discovering other new knowledge. In the past week, I’ve come across five new useful products, businesses or services or practices, that are based on knowledge. Not new technology. Just people being able to help more people because we’ve learned some stuff. And this too is what comes of research and translating research into a form that can be used to benefit society.

In no particular order, this is what I’ve learned about:

1. Understanding Childhood Behaviour. A medical condition can effect children – ODD1 – oppositional defiant disorder. Sometimes, putting a name on worrying behaviour makes it easier to deal with. This disorder is associated with excessive anger and vindictiveness in children towards authority figures, including their parents. Recognition helps people get coaching to facilitate positive ways for children and parents to interact. New ideas. New perspectives.

2. How the Body Changes in Pregnancy. The hormone relaxin2 is secreted, making all joints more flexible. There is a growing hypothesis that some women will secrete more than others and that the excess flexibility throughout the body can cause long term complications like arthritis. Awareness of the possibility can help woman take care, through exercise programs, to strengthen their msucles in such a way to protect their joints.

The other things I’ve learned about recently were at a wonderful event put on by Durham Sustain Ability on indoor air quality.

3. Knowing What’s Harmful in Indoor Air. Caroline Barakat-Haddad, a professor from UOIT, reviewed the scientific literature on indoor air quality, pointing out what had been found to be the most harmful types of indoor air pollution. Our bodies have adapted to deal with some particles in our environment but not others. It’s important to know what to guard against and to pinpoint causes and effects. And use this knowledge to create better indoor spaces.

4. Practical Approaches to Improving Indoor Air. Gail Lawlor presented us ideas for addressing common indoor air problems based on standards for air circulation in buildings. Such a nebulous concept – when is the air in a building good? Such a practical definition. If 80% of the people are comfortable, it a good start. Mould Get rid of the moisture. Old homes have a variety of benefits because they are built of materials that don’t interest mould But they aren’t air tight, which is both good and bad. While it avoids ‘sick building syndrome’ because there is natural air circulation, they lack optimum circulation to clear away the inevitable byproducts of our material things.

5. Living Walls – more than just a beautiful facade. Anyone who has seen one of these knows they are awesome. Alan Darlington, from Nedlaw Living Walls gave us an overview of how these storeys high, vertical displays of lush greenery are constructed and function. Something about an expanse of plants rising into the sky, dominating a foyer or other indoor open space evokes the feeling of calm, like you’re in the sunshine, in a forest or jungle, yet going about your daily business. Really, these wall are feats of engineering, horticulture, microbiology, and artistry. A serious combination to make a light-hearted atmosphere. And while there may be proprietary technology in the construction, what I heard was primarily a new way of putting together existing technology. The genius is in the creation of the whole.

There’s nothing I like better than learning new things. My recent experiences are a reminder that new knowledge, useful knowledge that can be delivered by business to make all of our lives better, comes in many forms, not just new gizmos or apps (although those are good too).

1http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-defiant-disorder/basics/definition/con-20024559

2http://www.yourhormones.info/hormones/relaxin.aspx

Please follow and like us:

When is a Smart Vehicle too Smart?

I recently heard a story about a novel technology for the car. A logical approach to safer driving. It scared me silly.

An excellent presentation by Ron Dicarlantonio of iNAGO blew my mind, and in one of those rare, tectonic upheavals of comprehension, I saw where smart automobiles/interconnected machines/autonomous applications, could go. And it made me shudder. The presentation is here (at about the 20 minute mark).

Ron introduced me to the concept of cognitive load which I later found is a well established in psychology. Cognitive load relates to how much of your attention something requires. For some of us, a call from mother may demand a lot of attention, others less so. Think about how hard it is to input your PIN on the credit card machine while discussing plans for next week with a colleague.

iNAGO and Vocolage are collaborating to engineer ‘Safe Driver Notifications’ – an interface between humans and computers in the car. Makes all kinds of sense to try and design a dashboard interface that extracts useful information from traffic reports, along with info about how the car is running, weather and road conditions. And since many of us now communicate, via voice, text and other means, while driving, why not make it even safer to do so through the car interface? This sounds like a wonderful product.

Will there be a day when all news, email, text, social media posts are delivered to us while we drive? That is quite the arsenal of distraction. One possible approach to making cars safe while delivering this information is to modulate the delivery of messages by balancing the cognitive load of the messages with the driving requirements. Light traffic, freshly paved straight-away on a sunny day, the driver receives the message from the kid’s teacher about their unruly behaviour. Driving in rush hours in a blizzard? – no communications get through. This sounds like censorship. Does it make it any better that it will be personalized censorship, since the factors that create cognitive load are different for each person? On the other hand, public safety is at stake if a car goes off the road while the driver watches the latest kitten video.

A related emerging issue for the data-capturing and analyzing automobile, is the ownership of the data.

Who owns the data related to an individual’s driving? If someone routinely travels 20km/hr above the speed limit, will this information eventually make it to his or her insurance rates, to the police, to a potential employer who wants to know how law-abiding the person is? Or will it make it to a dating profile, to select appropriate mates for the risk-taking?

I think this is an area ripe for a lot of discussion and legislation. According to this article from 2014, the answer was a firm ‘don’t know’: “It is not clear, certainly under German law, whether the drivers, the owners or the manufacturers of vehicles can be said to own the data generated by them” .

From my very unscientific survey of one person who recently bought a car, car owners currently are not signing agreements to use their data.
More substantially, this report titled ‘The Connected Car: who is in the driver’s seat’ which seems comprehensive in its look at the privacy perspective states:

 ‘It is not known what proportion of dealerships address the issue of customer data in their dealing with customers. The website of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association (“CADA”), had no privacy policy or related information when accessed on Feb.7, 2015, and the CADA Code of Ethics does not address protection of customer data. A survey of three dealerships in Whitehorse, Yukon in February 2014 found that none of them had privacy policies nor did their standard purchase agreements include any term about collection, retention, use or disclosure of the customer’s personal data.’

Another issue is reliability. When it’s cool and damp outside, my 2006 vehicle flashes dashboard fault lights, which I have learned through trial aren’t accurate. I believe moisture gets into a sensor and causes false signals to be sent. Having read of similar experiences with my brand of vehicle by others, I know repair isn’t cost-effective, since there are no mechanical faults, just one in an ancient computer system. Extrapolate to a much smarter car, with more control over the system. My creative mind can imagine random possible faults, such as: the car refusing to operate on a road if there is another vehicle within 500 meters, or if it’s Tuesday, or maybe it will block all messages from the boss because the driver mutters something about ‘when hell freezes over’ in response to a message from her.

Designers are aiming for fewer traffic accidents, through less distraction in the vehicle, which is fantastic. There are lots of emerging questions to keep entrepreneurs busy developing people-friendly versions. One simple solution to ensuring that the driver’s cognitive load isn’t over-taxed by personal messages is to leave the driving to the car. Auto-manufacturers are working towards bringing us new technology in a way that helps us to adapt¹ which I think is what we need to embrace self driving cars.

¹ ‘the industry’s slow-and-steady approach — using computers to help the driver at the wheel rather than replace him or her’ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/dce10162-b5f1-11e4-a577-00144feab7de.html#axzz3i4uHx22l

Please follow and like us:

To Business Plan or Not to Business Plan

This should never be the question. I have come across many folks in the innovation space who denounce business plans, suggest writing a business plan inhibits forward motion and the entrepreneurial spirit. Bah-humbug. This blog is in defence of business planning.

What I am definitely NOT saying:

1. Months should be dedicated to carefully writing a document, with perfect grammar and prose, to described the business plan.

2. A consultant needs to be hired to do something like #1.

3. An entrepreneur should stop all other activities until the business plan is written.

4. The plan needs to be written at all.

5. A business plan should be created and then followed rigidly for the next several years.

An important distinction is:

Every entrepreneur should have a well thought out business plan.

Every entrepreneur needs to write a business plan.

 

Many people dread the idea of writing a large document. Although I recommend writing things down because it generally results in a new level of thought about the subject, if it turns your stomach, find a creative way to get the same result. Video tape it. Make story boards. Put it in a series of tweets (as long as you are ok with it being public). Use one of many templates available on the web, with fill in the blanks. Another benefit to some kind of record of the plan is the ability to review the original goals and modify either the goals or the direction the business is taking at a later date when you’ve learned more.

Business planning is not the opposite of the Lean Startup method, or the enemy of innovation or entrepreneurship. In fact, a good business plan encompasses the lean startup method, because it has at its core plenty of research. And it’s fluid.

What is important: The elements of the business plan.

Can you answer the questions:

  • What is unique about your business?
  • What is the competitive environment for your product?
  • Is there a market for your product (who is going to buy it and how much will they pay because you are solving a problem/fulfilling a need/relieving their pain)?
  • How are you going to finance your business?
  • Can you make enough money to support the investment required?

Most importantly: Are you being honest with yourself that you’ve answered these questions to the best of your ability? Not asked three of your friends and going with your gut. Or asked questions in such a way that you are sure to get an affirmative answer. For example, if you asked people if they would like a more fuel efficient vehicle, most would say yes. Fewer of them would be enthusiastic if it mean they had to pay twice as much for their car or double the insurance premiums.

There are times when there isn’t much data to draw on to validate your assumptions but even then there are potential customers to ask. This is the essence of the lean startup method. Get the minimum viable product into customers/users hands and see how they like it. Incorporate your findings into the business plan. But the principles of business planning still remain. As you learn from more potential customers, your plan will mature, you will be better able to answer what need your product fulfills and therefore be better able to define the market and financial plan.

Be innovative in how you determine and articulate your business plan but planning it has advantages:

  • makes you think through your assumptions about the business
  • brings perspective about the external environment
  • helps to foresee challenges
  • helps focus activities and spending
  • required to seek funding from all sorts of investors: government, angel, venture capital, traditional lenders
Please follow and like us: