What's a BOPreneur?

"I See Dead People"

2012-01-10T22:06:00.000-07:00

A famous line from the movie "Sixth Sense."

Some people thrive on trusting their intuition. Despite what the behavioral psychologists and neuroscientists say, many believe they can predict the future, or at least bits of it. When good things (or bad things) happen, we remember our wanting them to be so, and say "I could see it coming." Of course, our mind doesn't bring up all the things we thought might happen, but didn't.

I think there is something to intuition, even if we can't predict the future. As Steven Johnson notes in his book "Where Good Ideas Come From," slow hunches play a big role in innovation. Ideas don't really happen as light bulbs. They emerge, as one's mind reassembles puzzle pieces and learns new things.

For innovators, having problems to wrestle with is important. It provides the soil from which the slow hunches can grow. [for my bleeps, we could say that most innovations are rooted in suckage]. That gnawing problem gives one a perspective from which one views the world. It is a lens of unique creativity. It is where our intuition lurks. As we assemble many combinations in our mind, are we tapping our sixth sense?

Today, I heard the story* behind CeaseFire, a program aimed at stopping gang violence that was started by an epidemiologist, Gary Slutkin. Dr. Slutkin had been working in Africa on the HIV epidemic. Upon returning to Chicago, he saw that violence was similar to an infectious disease in the way it was spread between people in a community. Millions of people have lived in Chicago without noticing that. It was Slutkin's experience that gave him a different way to see a gnawing problem. And come up with the idea that violence could be treated as a public health problem.

How are you applying your unique perspective? What problems need your experience thrown at them? What can you prevent? Where can you see live people, that might have otherwise been dead?
___________________
*Thank you to Andrew Zolli for the story. To find out more about Ceasefire, look here, and here. It is not a new story, although it was new to me. There is also a documentary, The Interrupters.

This is what disruption looks like

2012-01-04T22:20:00.004-07:00

My wife says Sal Khan is one of the best teachers she has ever had. She went to Boulder High, Smith College, Colorado College and University of Colorado, and has taken classes at Front Range Community College. Until Sal, she thought she had had some wonderful teachers. She also likes that she can learn from Sal whenever she wants (try that with Mrs. Maple, or Professor Hudnut). And she can learn at her own pace.

Now, my wife has a wifi connection (at least most of the time... don't get me going on Comcast). And through such connections, Khan Academy can reach 1/3 of English speaking world (the connected). Several hundred million people.

But this is Khan on a stick. Without a wifi connection. So you can learn on a plane, or in a jungle, or base camp... from a great teacher. Or in a school without internet, or great teachers. And a lot of people can learn from Sal at the same time, yet they all feel like they are getting one-on-one attention.

Next step... a low bandwidth mobile app? Downloading classes to a cellphone? To get away with those pretentious computers, and reach those rapidly growing smartphone users? And Khan is working on a translation project, so other languages will soon be available. And then there is streaming... Khan isn't on Spotify yet, but he does have a number of free lectures in iTunes.

Coming soon... School of (N)one? Cost approaching zero? Is human knowledge like media storage in the end? You see, beside the cost of the thumb drive, Khan on a Stick is free. Of course, there is opportunity cost, your time listening to it, but it is likely to be lower than actually attending a class.

In my 9 years of teaching, I have learned that teaching and learning are different, and that they are not always related (unfortunately). A recent NPR story covered the ineffectiveness of lectures for learning, despite their broad acceptance for teaching in schools around the world. They form the basis of the business (as usual) model for education. More and more, the learners of the world are saying they want something different, and Khan Academy and Classroom of One are beginning to deliver real options. Are the teachers, and the institutions that employ them, listening to the learners? Can we learn?
_____________________
Note:
Mr. Disruptive Innovation himself, Clayton Christensen, wrote a book in 2008 on the ripeness of education for disruption- "Disrupting Class". Sir Kenneth Robinson has made the case that schooling kills creativity. And none other than Mark Twain observed that schooling can interfere with one's education. Bringing up the bottom of this class, I have blogged about Disruptive Education and Educational Arsonists. And a hack you can do if you are accepted at an Ivy League school.
Caveat:
I believe that one learns a lot by attending school- about others, about yourself, about how to light a match off your tooth. It isn't just about the 3 R's. But I think that for schools to stay relevant and useful, a lot more innovation is needed. And, not everyone gets to go to school. Yet everyone, even Sal Khan, has something to learn.
Question to ponder:
If you provide a service... can it be put on a stick? It's not just a problem for food anymore.

Charity 2011

2012-01-03T21:01:00.000-07:00

For the past two years, I have shared our family's giving in a year end post. This year, while I made the year end deadline for giving, I did not make it for blogging.

As in past years, we have tried to spread our giving somewhat equally between 5 categories, and various members of the family have proposed organizations they would like to fund. We have also continued to use Peter Singer's pledge to set a target for our giving as a percentage of our income.

New from past years, we set up a family fund with the our local Community Foundation. We intend to do our giving from this fund each year, which will also allow us to make our contributions on a more regular basis. We also decided to institute a minimum gift, so we would stay more concentrated in our giving. And as with past year's, we increased our total giving.

The last big change is that this was the first year that I had worked (part time) as a "professional" philanthropist (in that someone paid me to help them with their philanthropy). I don't think this changed what we did a great deal, but it did result in some pruning and in reinforcing a few of our decisions from prior years.

I continue to work on the idea that charity is putting your money where your hopes are. Checking results and following up are important. I am also aware that too often, charity is more about making the giver feel good, than achieving real benefit for those in need. There is nothing wrong with the former, as long as the latter is accomplished. I have to say that we feel very good about the accomplishments of some of the groups we have been supporting for several years.

We also dropped a few for various reasons. Until the situation becomes clearer, Greg Mortenson's Central Asia Institute is not receiving more money from us. For others, it was a matter of prioritizing, as we were giving larger amounts to fewer organizations. So, for example, we chose to support Akili Dada over Pratham in education, not because Pratham isn't doing great work, but because they are much larger, and we felt our money would have a bigger impact with Akili. This is not entirely rational, I understand, but it is a family decision (need I say more?)

I hope this is useful to others as they decide how they would like to help others. I believe their is a need for philanthropy, and hope that this remains an area where individual giving, by people of ordinary means, continues to be important. There is a lot of talk about how the big foundations are changing the face of philanthropy... but the local homeless shelter, youth group, food bank or radio station? They all still rely on donations from people like you. They can all do more if you chip in. And it isn't just money, many of these organizations could benefit from your time and expertise.

I think it is would be hard to overestimate how important charity is in building strong communities. Imagine what yours would be without it.

OK, enough about approach and philosophy. Here are the organizations we supported in 2011:

Environment: Nature Conservancy; IdeaWild*; Trust for Public Land*; Property & Environment Research Center

Health: Doctors Without Borders; VisionSpring

International Development: One Acre Fund; IDE; Nepal Youth Foundation

Education: National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship; Akili Dada; Engineers Without Borders*

Local: Colorado Combined Campaign; KUNC; Food Family Farm*; Growing Gardens*; SAME Cafe; Matthews House*; Larimer County Food Bank.
____________________
* denotes organizations we began supporting in 2011.

"Non Profits Can't Scale"

2011-12-15T08:03:00.001-07:00

The next time you hear someone say this, confront them. Confront them with One Acre Fund, or Envirofit, or Root Capital, or Doctors Without Borders, or VisionSpring, or Aravind Eye Care.

Successful non-profits can scale, and some of them are doing it. It is time to study what they are doing right, and stop the silly talk.

Last year, there was good news about progress on maternal mortality. In the past few weeks, there has been good news about malaria mortality. Non- profits played a big role in both of these. Certainly, neither of these problems are past, and I am sure non-profits will continue to play a role in building on these gains.

Yes, there are unique challenges for non-profits, but some of these organizations are solving them. And yes, of course, we need for profit enterprises working in these fields as well. If you are working on a BOP start up, I still suggest you try to find a for profit business model first. But if that doesn't work (as it did not with Envirofit), you don't need to give up. Non profits can scale. The organizations listed above are a good place to start if you want to study how.
____________________________
NOTE: this picture is from a recent article about One Acre Fund in Good Magazine.

"Market Creation Is Hard Work" - Seth Godin

2011-12-14T09:35:00.002-07:00

I was fortunate to hear this talk at the Acumen Investor Gathering in November. Nice perspective on the hard work required to create markets in BOP- for the first time in their history, people are "buying something for the first time."

Carrots & Sticks

2011-12-05T10:00:00.001-07:00

I was impressed by this open letter to Occupy Wall Street from the founder of Carrotmob which asks:

"Would you rather punish businesses and get the same old results, or show love to businesses and gain unprecedented power and influence over how our economy works?"

I think a similar approach could be helpful in getting companies to consider products and services to serve BOP markets. Altruistic arbitrage, if you will.

Design Challenge: Inventions That Matter

2011-12-03T10:39:00.001-07:00

I am a technology nerd. I think it goes with being an unrepentant optimist. One thing I like to do is read through popular magazines about new technologies, and think about how they might change our collective future for the better.

This morning, I was looking through Time Magazine's recent list of the 50 Best Inventions (sorry, if you aren't a subscriber, you won't get much from this link). It was depressing. Only one, a malaria vaccine in late stage trials by GSK, was really targeted at the BOP and had a chance of making lives better for millions of people. A second invention, a solar charged rural information system housed in an oil drum and promoted by UNICEF had application to the BOP. But it seems to me that just providing a solar charger for mobile phones would probably be a lower cost approach.

Perhaps I live in a bubble (OK, not perhaps). But I know of many inventors working on technologies that are aimed squarely at the other 99% of the people who do not have iPads and Priae (my attempt at the plural of Prius).

Paul Polak has been working on "Design for the Other 90%" for decades. Groups like MIT's D-Lab, Catapult Design, International Development Enterprises, CSU's Engines Lab, Haddock Invention, Design that Matters, IDEO.org and D-Rev work in the field. Communities like Appropedia collect and test concepts. Companies like d.light, Envirofit, Vestergaard Frandsen and cell phone providers are bringing new products to these markets. And accelerators like the Unreasonable Institute and Village Capital are providing services to BOP inventors to help form companies to disseminate inventions that matter.

Am I am being too sensitive in my disappointment? I know inventions are the ideas, and innovations are what actually get used in the real world, and this list was of the former. But what I would like is for my readers to list the inventions that they are excited about in the comments below.

So... what are exciting inventions could make a difference for the other 6 billion people in the world that don't care about hummingbird drones or electric mood indicating bunny ears? What are the inventions that matter?

When Minimal Viable Product Doesn't Work (Part 2)

2011-11-05T11:03:00.000-06:00

Today, Seth Godin had an interesting post on "When Minimum Viable Product Doesn't Work"- suggesting that the MVP approach suggested by Lean Start Up proponents has some limits.

I am in the midst of reading Lean Start Up by Eric Ries, and agree with Seth that it is a cool idea, but that it works best in some industries. I don't think Eric buys that, as he argues for very broad applicability of the lean start up approach. Since meeting Steve Blank a few years ago (dare I say he is the father of the lean start up movment?) I have been working on applying these concepts to social enterprises and BOP businesses.

So... is MVP a good idea for social entrepreneurs or BOPreneurs?

To me, the issue is one of "who bears the risk"? Too often, well intentioned designers come up with a new product idea to help others, without a clear understanding of the context. In the well known example of the PlayPump, there was great excitement. However, the pumps, which had a habit of breaking down, often replaced more rudimentary (but longer lasting) hand pumps. In the end, some villages in Mozambique lost their source of drinking water. The company had put the risk of testing their product on the user, not the company.

I think MVP is still a good concept for BOPreneurs, as long as they pay close attention to "minimal" in their design. Don't make it so minimal that you have shifted risks of failure to your users or their communities. Too often, we fall in love with our ideas and only picture how much better off people will be with our new technology. But you must ask- "if this doesn't work, will our users be worse off than before?" Don't proceed until you can answer this question in the negative.

What happens if your solar powered light stops working? Does someone end up stepping on a cobra in the middle of the night? That is so much worse than a bad web link, isn't it? What happens if someone has spent a week's income on the light? Where do they exchange if for a new one (assuming they side stepped the cobra)? At Envirofit, we bought motorcycles from our early testers before doing retrofits. Did we distort the price signal a little? Probably, but if their bikes didn't work, the risk needed to be on us.

Unfortunately, you may also be working in a place that has had other well intentioned visitors trying things out on them. The cumulative impact of broken technologies should be understood; what can you do to minimize or eliminate the mistrust that results? And what about the reputation of any local partners that are helping you out? When you fly off, they still live there. What can you do to leave things better than you found them, not worse? I'd encourage you to look at Amy Smith's work on creative capacity building, which involves the community in the design of products and their dissemination. It is human nature to look at the benefits, but it is the entrepreneur's responsibility to look at the costs.

The insight behind MVP is validated learning, and using innovation accounting to measure what you learn. The motivation of the lean startup approach is to avoid "achieving failure," as Eric puts it, "successfully, faithfully and rigorously executing a plan that turned out to be utterly flawed." I believe the lean start up approach can be applied to social enterprises, as long as the venture has a deep understanding of, and undertaking to bear, the risks that the product is not viable.

The Art and Science of Building a Board

2011-11-03T20:03:00.002-06:00

Yesterday, our GSSE MBA students were fortunate to have Anne Marie Burgoyne do a guest workshop on governance and capacity building. I had some lame title for her talk, but what I should have called it (and what this post is about) is: "What Boards Do and Why it's Important." The subtitle might be, as Anne Marie put it, "The Art and Science of Building a Board."It is one of those under-taught and under-thought areas of new ventures.

First, a bit more about Anne Marie. She works for the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation in San Francisco. Basically, she helped Bill Draper*, Robin Richards and Jenny Shilling set up a foundation that took the disciplined approach they had used in the venture capital business over to the social sector. As with traditional investors, they sought to "Find, Fund & Support" social enterprises. Their portfolio is impressive, a who's who of changemakers: Kiva, Living Goods, Room to Read, Vision Spring and The Mission Continues. When you talk to DRKF entrepreneurs, they will tell you the foundation provides much more value than the money. And it is in these conversations that Anne Marie's name often comes up. She is, to put it bluntly, a world class non-profit board member.

As with any venture investor, Anne Marie can only be on a few boards (eight these days). And to get her on your board, you need to win a fellowship from DRKF, which is no easy feat. Fortunately, she is willing to share how DRKF works with portfolio companies. And I am going to try to share what she shared with us yesterday.

She started with a story of how Andrew Youn, founder of One Acre Fund, began with a board that came from a sign up sheet he had posted. Over just a few years, just as he went from 30 to 30,000 farmers served, he also built a strong board. There were some gaps in his early board (no one else had been to Africa), but they all were very passionate, and a number were hands on, willing to help do what was needed. She compared boards to chapters in a book, with different boards performing different functions as a start up grows up.

Anne Marie also told a few cautionary tales. The general theme was that social entrepreneurs often wish to exercise strong control over the organization's mission, and are often afraid to give over this control to a board. This behavior may end up reducing the organization's impact in the long run. Cautionary tale #1 involved an entrepreneur that decided a board wasn't needed. Over time, funding dried up, because funders perceived that no one had a fiduciary duty toward their donations. Cautionary tale #2 was of a talented board member who resigned because the board didn't grow with the organization. The board member grew tired of being the lead on everything, and wanted other talented people to join and share the load. But the founder wouldn't support growing the board.

Anne Marie discussed that there is often an explicit "Give or Get" role for non-profit board members. You either need to personally donate $X or be able to go get it from your network. Her advice is that if this is expected, it needs to be explicit, and is best led by the board chair.

She went on to discuss that successful organizations can have different types of boards, such as "kitchen cabinet" boards that were brought together for their perspective and ideas, but not funding (here the founder was very good at fundraising) to "fundraising boards" where board members are expected to bring $25k/year to the organization.

Most of the workshop was breaking down what boards do into 4 core functions:

1) Composition (Members and Logistics). Key takeaways: explicit job descriptions for board members, true north alignment with mission, regular meetings, set board meeting calendar.

2) Governance (Policies and Financials). Key takeaways: maintain 501c3 status, identify key policies and risks, quarterly financial reports (if you don't get these, points to a systemic problem); calendared budget planning process.

3) Planning (Strategy Development). This is the function most people think boards do. She is a fan of dashboards for financial issues and impact.

4) Execution (Staff Support and Fundraising). Key takeaways: Executive Director reviews key, support (not do) top management searches, help executive set compensation philosophy, set fundraising targets (and board members should be willing to support these by opening their personal network).

She also suggested that once boards start functioning well with the basics they begin to set their agenda based on Bill Ryan's 3 areas of governance: 1) fiduciary- do these in committees and have these on a "consent agenda" where they get approved rapidly without much discussion at the beginning of the meeting, 2) strategic- these are the dashboard items, and if information is distributed prior to meetings, less information sharing is required, and focus can be on discussion and decisions, 3) generative- these are items are for the "big questions" facing the organization, and where broader longer discussions can occur. As Anne Marie said, "you may only get your board to have 10 hours of discussion a year- it is your job as a leader to make sure you prioritize these hours. If a topic gets an hour, then it should be a 'top 10' issue."

I know Anne Marie helped our students think differently about building a board. And I hope this post helps you to creatively think about how to begin to build (or rebuild) your board. If you have more questions about this topic, post a comment, and I will see if I can get Anne Marie to provide some answers.

________________

*It is hard to briefly label someone like Bill Draper... how's this for a bio: "In 1965, Mr. Draper founded Sutter Hill Ventures. From 1981 to 1986, he was President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Thereafter, Mr. Draper was the head of the United Nations Development Program from 1986 to 1993...." Brief. Modest. Weighty. If you want to read more about the how and why of DRKF, I'd encourage you to read Mr. Draper's book "The Start Up Game"- Chapter 8 is about the foundation's founding and work, as well as case studies of some of the organizations mentioned above.

Completely Unreasonable

2011-10-30T09:26:00.000-06:00

Guest blogger Teju (and his partners Tyler and Daniel) live, eat and breath social entrepreneurship in their tireless work for the Unreasonable Institute. I think they are completely unreasonable... and a very special part of Colorado's start up scene.

It Takes a Village to Raise an Entrepreneur

A lot of people say thatone person can change the world. I don’t believe that.

History is filled with storiesof individuals who changed the world—Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Gandhi,Martin Luther King. But what history ignores is that none of these boldvisionaries achieved anything without exceptional teams and without thehundreds of people who mobilized to provide them support.

My team and I believe thatto change the world, it takes a village.

That’s exactly why we’vebuilt the Unreasonable Institute. It’s a place where we bring together 25 world-class entrepreneursfrom every walk of life and put them in one house for six weeks in Boulder,Colorado with mentors and funders—literally a village of entrepreneurialsupport.

[Dinner- fellows from Netherlands, Canada, India & China]

The entrepreneurs who showup come from many sectors and from all over the world. They range from aformer child soldier from Liberia to a McKinsey consultant from India to MITgraduates in Pakistan. They’ve secured US Navy contracts, partnerships withWal-Mart, HP, and the Indian Government. They’ve landed $1.5 million in fundingfrom the European Union and recognition from the World Health Organization.

But the chance to live with and work with our 50 mentors helps theseentrepreneurs move faster than ever before. Mentors range from PaulPolak, whose leadership at International Development Enterprises has enabledover 19 million farmers out of poverty, to Phil McKinney, the CTO of HP. Theentrepreneurs also live with and build relationships with portfolio managersfrom 20 investment funds, including Acumen Fund, First Light, and E+Co, withthe hopes of securing capital.

As Unreasonable 2011 Fellow Nat Koloc said, “I’ve been waiting forthis community for a long time.” It’sthanks to this convergence of peer support, mentors, and funders, that he says,“I got more done in six weeks here than I would have in a year.”

We believe that changingthe world is not about entrepreneurs or pioneers working in isolation. It’sabout their aggressive participation in a global movement. In a family ofpeople who are just unreasonable enough to take on the world’s greatestchallenges!

If you’re an entrepreneurwho believes this, join us. Apply by November 10 to attend our2012 Institute. Reasonableentrepreneurs need not apply.

________________________________

Teju Ravilochan is co-founder of the Unreasonable Institute, an acceleration program for entrepreneurs tackling social and environmental problems. Each year, it unites 25 world-class entrepreneurs from across the globe in Boulder for 6 weeks. They live under the same roof, work with 50 mentors, pitch to 100 investors, and build relationships with portfolio managers from 20 investment firms.

Hacking The Financial System

2011-10-06T12:24:00.004-06:00

There is a lot of attention now on #occupywallstreet - and I find it interesting to see a movement grow, and try to frame a meaningful goal from its "lets start something and see where it goes" genesis. To me, they have identified a "what sucks" but haven't articulated "what we are going to do about it." It is one thing to sit in, and another to stand up and take action. It is also interesting that some movements build, and some attack. The nature of movements is it is hard to define who is in and who is out. Yesterday, the infamous hackers at Anonymous targeted Wall Street for cyber attack- have they joined the movement? is their offer of "help" helpful? I offer this post as an alternative. I see entrepreneurs as society's hackers (in a good way, I hope).

This post is about some thoughts and conversations I have been having about the early steps of impact investing's journey. My concern? That the impact investing field is borrowing heavily from traditional start up finance- private equity (PE), venture capital (VC), angels, and yes, even Wall St. Will packing up these established concepts help impact investing speed towards its destination, or will they instead be a heavy load, or a false destination? Will they be useful, useless or harmful?

The basis of my concern is twofold: 1) this financial system got us to where we are, and has created some of the problems that entrepreneurs, activists and communities now must solve; and 2) the assumptions underlying the processes of this financial system may be antithetical to, or at least misaligned with, the goals of impact investing. Let me try to explain.

At the core of this concern is that financial capital relentlessly seeks returns. And we have built (or evolved) a finance system that satisfies financial capital's needs. The way private investors source deals, negotiate terms, conduct due diligence and monitor their investments is all premised on the idea that the entrepreneur will build a venture that creates (and captures) financial value. This is done through reducing risk, scaling the venture, and pursuing profits. Social and environmental impacts are largely external, in either positive or negative ways.*

But impact investing turns that on its head. And, I believe, calls into question the entire system of financing start ups. At each step, impact investors need to ask "why?" If maximizing social and environmental impact (rather than financial return) is what you want your capital to relentlessly pursue, then how does that happen? If instead it is financial return that is "largely external, in either positive or negative ways," then what needs to change?

At this point, I don't have answers, but I want to encourage founders and funders to think about it.

Let me provide two examples to illustrate my quandary:

1) Liquidity & Exit- early stage financing is premised on repayment. A funder provides money to a start up with an expectation of repayment of a greater amount in the future. This return on investment is, in the end, how success is measured. The longer the start up keeps the money, the greater the expected return. Investors have many opportunities, and an entire system has evolved to track and evaluate investment performance. But why does an impact investor seek liquidity? What if you find the perfect enterprise- one that is flawlessly executing a plan of scaling a solution to a global challenge? Then it seems to me that you wouldn't want to exit until the global challenge was solved. It would be inconsistent to take money from this enterprise to reinvest in a less effective (by definition) enterprise. So the reasons an impact investor would seek exit would be for investments in the less effective enterprises, where they felt they could redeploy their funds to achieve higher impact elsewhere. But it seems to me they should let investments in successful enterprises ride indefinitely, as liquidity would be counter productive for both the funder and the enterprise. Wouldn't this drive a different approach to portfolio design, evaluation and management? (Leslie Christensen and RSF have asked another set of provocative questions on portfolios, as well as provided a suggested approach.)

2) Crowdfunding- one challenge for the impact investing space is its emergent nature. As I wrote a few weeks ago, things that are emergent are "small, weak and hard to predict." There is a tension between many early stage enterprises seeking funding, and impact investors who are looking to help scale proven approaches to achieve impact. Our very own "valley of death". And no established bridges over that valley. The way traditional start up funding has dealt with this challenge has been through keeping investments local, working in syndicates to spread risk early, and tying funding to milestones. But the costs of doing financial deals for funders are often too high for small, dispersed, emergent companies, so these deals are left to universities, angel investors and government agencies (for instance, NIH and NSF research funding, or SBIR/STTR programs). This drives a "funnel-triage" approach. Investors screen hundreds of opportunities to fund a deal. Because they are looking for financial returns, they are looking for the best deals and want to concentrate on obtaining a significant percentage of ownership in order to capture these high returns. But I ask the same question as above- why would an impact investor seek a high percentage of ownership to capture high impact? The only answer I have come up with is ego. And that seems like a bad answer. Ego (and greed) are tolerated by the traditional financial system, because they are aligned with the systemic objectives of financial return. But if the goal is maximizing impact, it seems to me that the funders need to figure out how to efficiently source deals and do more smaller deals initially, until we get through the emergent phase and a more robust system evolves. This is where crowdfunding appears to offer some real benefit, and be more aligned with the goals of an impact investing system. Both founders and funders may become more comfortable with broad risk sharing and evaluation offered by crowdfunds, such as Kickstarter, Village Capital, Kiva, Inventure, Solar Mosaic and Hoop Fund.**

Well, I have written enough. But I'd encourage you to think about many of the "givens" of investment: relative founder/funder ownership percentages, board composition, preferences for equity (anti-dilution, liquidation), metrics. I see a lot of opportunity for change and redesign, but few people talking about it, much less doing it. In a recent deal by a leading impact investor, the Series A documents had one small change from a typical Series A deal. One small change.

So, what do you think? A journey of a thousand miles first starts with a single... question- "where are we going?" I think we need to hack the financial system to do impact investing well and build an alternative... an impact system. What do you think? Who are the pioneers, scouts and guides?
________________________
* This is key. I am not saying there aren't enterprises that don't create financial value through creating social and environmental value. I am saying that the primary objective of their investors is financial value, and social and environmental values are secondary. I am also saying that in the financial system, as long as one stays within societal rules/norms, negative impacts are allowed. The second hand smoke of our financial system, so to speak.
** I recommend Alex Goldmark's recent GOOD article on crowdfunding and Bruce Campbell's good post as well.

SoCap Redux

2011-09-11T10:54:00.003-06:00

At the last minute, I was asked to sit in on a SoCap panel on Thursday, along with Will and Arjuna from Omidyar Network and Kelly from Potencia Ventures. The ring master was John Goldstein from Imprint Capital.

The general idea was to talk about our experiences with raising money, or investing it, in social ventures in the developing world. I was asked to speak from the entrepreneur's perspective.

One thing about not preparing for a session is that it puts you in "improvisation mode"... no time to try new material. I covered my experience in helping raise money for Envirofit International (a non-profit that sells clean energy products in emerging markets) and Inviragen (a for profit that is developing vaccines for infectious diseases in developing world). Both companies have raised over $10 million, including significant grant funding.

John asked us to share "lessons learned," and I shared a few. First, I like the advice that entrepreneurs should think of "hiring investors." This involves thinking about organizational fit, roles, time commitment, etc. Take off the rose colored glasses and think about who you want on your team when the going gets tough. I have posted on this topic before. I think we hired good investors in both companies. We said "no" to deals that didn't feel good, and those still seem like good decisions. We also have invested significant time with our investors, and have strong, personal relationships with them. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to keep investors "in the loop"; many problems arise when this slips.

The second, related, point was that the deal has to fit the needs of both the company and the investor, and to question "conventional wisdom" as it is embedded in the law firm templates for different instruments. An example I gave was that at Inviragen, we didn't have a min/max for our first round of convertible notes. We had one amount, $10,000. And we made darn sure that this was perceived as "not much money" by each of our investors. Several people wanted to put in quite a bit more, but we said "no." The idea was that this was high risk (others had tried and failed at making a dengue fever vaccine), and all our investors were people we knew well. We wanted to pass the "Safeway" test- if we lost their money, they'd still say "hi" to us at the grocery store. Similarly, a big reason we formed Envirofit as a non-profit was that we just couldn't come up with a plan we had confidence in that would return money to investors. Since our overall intent was to reduce pollution and improve health, we could fit under the requirements for a charity, and be transparent with our investors (what we always called our donors) about the risks of this venture.

Part of being a panelist is knowing when to keep your lips zipped, and I had very knowledgable co-panelists. Kelly, Will and Arjuna shared some great learnings, and I will invite them to post their comments below.

Duh + Duh: Start Ups as Experimental Networks

2011-09-06T08:33:00.001-06:00

Andy Hargadon's idea that building a start up is about building a network is one of those "duh" ideas. You read it, you say "yeah that makes sense"... yet, from then on, it changes the way you think about start ups.

Similarly, Steve Blank's advice is to think of the start up as an experiment to determine whether there are customers and a business model to effectively serve them. I don't know if he knows Bill Easterly, but I know he has a similar faith in "searchers." I do know that thinking of a start up as an experiment is advice I heed on a daily basis.

So, two retroactively "obvious" perspectives, which, if combined, get us to think of start ups as temporary associations tasked with experimenting, prototyping and building networks. These networks are built, then reinforced as weak bonds become stronger. Trust makes these synapses fire faster and more accurately.

I think this is why people are so interested in successful, serial entrepreneurs. They de-risk a start up somewhat, because they know it is about building a network, and they know the questions to ask as they start a search.The entrepreneur that has built successful networks has a head start- if they have done it well, they have existing relationships. What customer wouldn't want to give Tony Hsieh a try if he started another company? What investor wouldn't want in to a deal with an entrepreneur that had given them a good return? What community wouldn't want to have another start up from someone who had been involved in an earlier company? What supplier or distributor wouldn't want to be part of supply chain v2.0? And the cream of former employees often show up in the founding team as well, not wanting to miss out on another fun run.

Not a serial entrepreneur? As a founder, this approach also biases you toward a posture of humility, ambiguity and curiosity. It takes you out of "sell mode" and keeps you in "design/build" mode. Think: "I am building an experimental network, to see if there is a significant market, and a business model to address it efficiently and effectively."*

Spend more time on your business search than on your business plan. And let the search drive the network which drives the business model, which are then all described in the plan.
____________________
Note: I wrote this post in July, and it mysteriously showed up when I tried the new blogger interface this morning. So I hit "publish."
*Channeling Peter Drucker's super marvelous comment: "Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right things."

Welcome to Emergence (A Venture Gapitalist's View on #SoCap11)

2011-09-04T21:45:00.015-06:00

This is a follow up post to my SoCap zoo post from last year. While it doesn't have anything to do with zoos (that is SO 2010...), it does have to do with Socap. Let's start with a story, shall we?

As with many start ups, it began with two friends who thought they could do something better (well, actually it started with an argument). Of course, they had to finish grad school, so they did the start up on the side. They didn't have any real industry experience. Or money. And there was a lot of competition from well entrenched competitors. But they kept at it, and over time, they gained traction and built a company. They called it "Backrub."

I was a bit shocked to see that this company became a teenager today. Yep, Google is now thirteen years old. On track for $30 billion plus in revenues, and over 28,000 employees. I think we could all agree that is pretty good performance for a start up. Even though I have had my disagreements with Larry and Sergey in the past, I think we should all congratulate them as they leave the Wonder Years and become teens. It happens to everyone, even Harry Potter.

The Social Capital Markets Conference (SoCap) turns four this week. What does this have to do with Google? Maybe not much; maybe a little. SoCap is aimed at the intersection of money and meaning,* so it is very much about impact investing. Which, after four paragraphs, gets me to the title of this post.

The term "impact investing" emerged in 2007, but it has been shaped by earlier movements... socially responsible investment, venture philanthropy and noblesse oblige.** While people are still arguing over definitions of impact investing,*** it seems to come down to the idea that people would like to invest their money in a way that makes the world a better place.# This is, I have found, much more difficult than it sounds (so sorry, Larry and Sergey, for my earlier impertinence).

Which really does get me to the title of this post. Impact investing is new. It is emerging, as SoCap puts it, at "the intersection of money and meaning." But generally speaking, things emergent are small, weak, and hard to predict.## A storm in the south Atlantic can dissipate, or turn into a hurricane. We know how to predict this, but we don't know how to prevent, or invent, hurricanes. A start up can dissipate, or turn into a Google. We don't really know how to predict this, although many try.

The impact investing industry is a start up, as are most of the funds, organizations and social enterprises promoting it. And as Steve Blank says, the right way to view a start up is as an experiment. But I don't think that this has happened with impact investing. Instead, I think many are treating it more as a baby they want to go to Harvard, rather than a cluster of hypotheses that need testing. Just look at my "zoo" post from last year... do we know which of these animals have been most successful? We may be able to measure popularity, but that has little correlation with longevity or impact. How many deals are being done? How much capital is actually being deployed to make a difference? And, is it fair to ask these questions before most aren't old enough to go to kindergarden?

One of the things I got to do this summer is work on a special edition of Innovations Journal for SoCap. It is intended as a "provocative primer" on impact investing, for investors, entrepreneurs and policy makers.### There are a number of excellent essays, cases and analyses which discuss, describe and poke at this emergent creature. Many celebrate its potential, but a few question whether it will turn out well. One of my favorite articles is from Katherine Milligan and Mirjam Schoning of the Schwab Foundation, and I think it summarizes the situation well: "... the hype is obvious. The (social capital) market is not ready to absorb commercial capital on anything close to the order of magnitude being talked about...."

SoCap is a four year old. I just googled this, and found that this means it "walks a straight line" but also "can run in circles... and delights in creating... silly language." Still very much exploring boundaries, still very emergent. If you come with an open mind, and an understanding of how much hard work is required to make something new happen, I think you will find it inspiring and useful. And if you come with an urgency to create, develop and act, you can help shape SoCap and impact investing.

We only have 9 years before SoCap becomes a teenager. By then, impact investing should be more fully formed and easier to predict. These are still the Wonder Years, full of hope and dreams, and the opportunity to shape a movement. Welcome to the awesome responsibility of raising a start up. It is an experiment, full of good intentions, but no history. And like many four year olds, it may just turn out alright despite us.

______________

* VC John Doerr, who knows quite a bit about making money, is credited with the "make meaning" mantra. He is also on the board of Google, but perhaps that is just a coincidence. But probably not.

** I had to google that. Since its French.

*** I think there are two types of people in the world. Those that like to argue over definitions, and the rest of us.

# It is curious that this seems a novel concept. I mean, who wants to invest their money to make the world worse? It seems to be moving in this direction already, and doesn't really need additional help, does it?

## Think babies.

### I think it came out well, and you can see if you agree by picking up a hard copy at Fort Mason this Wednesday, or buying it on Amazon (available NOW). Don't worry, I don't receive a penny of your $3.99. It all supports MIT, an educational institution located in New England that needs all the money it can get. (I just used Google again).

NOTE: Greg, you are right. I should have written more about crowd sourced capital. Kevin, you are right, there is much hybrid vigor in Green 2.0, which I hope to witness this week from a safe distance.

Simple, Not Easy

2011-08-16T06:27:00.003-06:00

"There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers." Ronald Reagan

Being an entrepreneur isn't easy. But it also isn't all that complicated.

Last week, I was cleaning off my desk (which tends to pile up), and ran across an email from April 2008. I had been asked to speak to Rockies Venture Club entrepreneurs about what to do during "tough times." Of course, things have gotten a bit tougher since then.

Here's what I said:

"My advice to entrepreneurs doesn't really vary with economic conditions:

-figure out something that's broken;

-figure out a clever way to fix it;

-figure out who you want to work with;

-figure out a way to cash flow it as you develop it; and

-figure out a way to pay yourself once you get going."

Pretty simple. Not so easy.

Kickstart This!

2011-08-15T09:09:00.003-06:00

Find out more about Diane's project, and the inventors and entrepreneurs she is filming in Africa at her website. Then go to Kickstart, watch IDDS'ers Bernard and Jodi in action, and make a contribution.

Accidental Entrepreneur

2011-08-01T13:31:00.001-06:00

Library of Knowledge - Paul Hudnut from Unreasonable Institute on Vimeo.

What are you doing here?

2011-07-14T10:19:00.025-06:00

Entrepreneurship is hard work. So entrepreneurs should focus on problems that matter. If they ask me, I suggest BHAWGs and focusing on "What sucks?". It all gets down to "what you are doing here?" How are you using your time and talent?

Hermione Way had a provocative post yesterday on Silicon Valley, and her impression that it has lost its way. As she asks: "What happened to irreverence, thinking outside the box, wanting to make a difference in the long run?" The thread through her post seems to be: what a waste of talent, money and ecosystem.

She writes that Silicon Valley entrepreneurship seems to be driven by money and exits. Interestingly, a recent survey of many of these companies would counter that claim. StartUpGenome surveyed 650 startups, and the data indicate that impact and experience matter more than money.

Do these worthy motivations survive the funding process? Bringing in outside investors can

either jeopardize a company's mission, or reinforce it. It depends on alignment between founders and funders. Many VC funds are investing other people's money, and those other people have asked for high returns. But impact investors are emerging, in Bay Area and elsewhere, and that may begin to change the system.

I'd encourage Ms. Way not to give up on Silicon Valley. It isn't just Y Combinator and Sand Hill Rd. Outside of the glare of the mainstream, there are worthy enterprises that may indeed change the world. They are in the eddies and edges, but they are there. Earlier vintage companies include Kiva, PAX Scientific, D.Light, Revolution Foods and many clean tech companies.

For earlier stage, the Unreasonable Institute entrepreneurs are visiting the SF Hub on July 18-19. While not based in Silicon Valley, they understand the value of its unique funding ecosystem. And I think many of them know what they

are doing here. Trying to hack it.

Don't Fight Awe

2011-07-11T22:28:00.013-06:00

It is easy to be cynical. "That will never work."

It is easy to be apathetic. "Why should I care."

It is hard (some days) to be an artist, builder, creator, discoverer or entrepreneur (and that is just "A" through "E").

If you discover something awesome, don't fight it. If you find awe, you are lucky. Embrace it. Awe is an effective antidote to cynicism and apathy. It is worth looking for. And examining when you find it. Why does this thing/experience/being make you feel this way? How is it designed? Is it designed at all, or has it evolved? What is common to the things that awe you?

Awesome things aren't always what everyone is talking about. Sometimes you find them by yourself. Alone. Then you get to decide whether to share them, and with whom.

The Grand Canyon, flight, a leaf, an inspiring idea, powder skiing, a fishing spot.

Be an awe hunter.

BFF(F)?

2011-06-30T20:57:00.006-06:00

Is it OK to start a company with your best friend? This topic seems to come up a lot, as though it is a litmus test for whether a company will be successful.

Last night I was at Unreasonable Institute and heard Daniel Epstein* interview David Kyle. This topic came up, and while I can't remember the exchange verbatim, it went something like this:

David: "you need to be careful about starting a venture with your friends. Sometimes the things that need to be said, don't get said because of the friendship. And you want diverse viewpoints and experiences, which may not happen with friends. If you do start a company with friends, get the roles defined. A lot of companies that get started by friends end up not being companies and not being friends."

Daniel: "well you know Unreasonable Institute was started by 3 friends, and I don't think we would have started it, or kept it going, without each other."

This month's Fast Company features some famous "best friend founders," listing Bill & Dave, as well as Cohen & Greenfield.** And there is also the case of starting companies with people you don't know real well, but with whom you become friends by virtue of starting and building things together (these often seem to become very strong friendships).

Who's right? Both. Neither. It depends.

The conventional wisdom (be careful about friends) is good advice if you want to solve a problem, get it funded by outside investors and sell. Perhaps some expertise is really critical, and you don't have friends that have it (or can develop it in time). On the other hand, if you are the kind of people that do well by making commitments to people you care about, can sacrifice somewhat equally in the early days, are willing to learn on the job, and think it would be cool to work with these people for many years (why sell the company when we are having so much fun together?), then go for it.

I can't think of a more important question to ask when starting a start up than "who am I starting it with?" There are some of my friends who would be great to start companies with, and others, well, not so much.

I think it is fine to start a company with a good co-founder that happens to be your friend. Just be sure they meet the test for being a good co-founder, not just the test of being a good friend. Start with character- are they honest, passionate and hard working? Then look at results- have they produced, and are they demonstrably good at things they care about? Next- do you work well together? Ask yourself- what challenging things have we done together, and how did that go? Is your potential co-founder friend still making the cut? Want more?

As with many of these issues around start ups, there are multiple "right" ways (and wrong ways) to do it.*** Despite many attempts, there isn't a cook book that guarantees a successful venture. As with the many early, important issues you face, I think the best approach is to think of them as design constraints. If you found a company with friends, what are the pros and cons? How can you work through them? These are definitely worth thinking through and discussing with your co-founders and mentors, and that may help you with the decision, too.

If you do it well, you might just get a BFFF (best founder friend forever).

___________________

* btw, Daniel is getting to be a pretty smooth interviewer (at least if he has good material to work with), what with practicing every night. Charlie Rose better watch out.

**bet you clicked the link just to check.

*** personally, I think it's unlikely I'd be a co-founder of another company unless it is with a friend (or at least long time acquaintance). But never say never.

Funding Ob-Seth-sion

2011-06-11T09:27:00.006-06:00

I had been working on a post about building companies vs. "getting funded." Entrepreneurs sometimes get confused about which is the goal, and which is a side-benefit. They confuse correlation with causation. When I ask "what do you need?" or "what are you working on?"... I often hear about funding.*

Building a company sometimes requires outside funding.** For these, funding is one of many activities that founders need to pursue. But the focus needs to be on fixing what sucks. That is the purpose of your enterprise, not getting funded. It is finding something that needs fixing, and building an enterprise to do that, that results in funding. Not the other way around.

But I don't need to write that post anymore, because Seth Godin did. Right here.

_____________________

* So I just ask a second question- what will you use the money for? Then we can discuss the many options they might use to obtain those resources.

** This depends on your business model design. Many good companies get built without outside funding. I'd encourage you to prototype several bootstrapped business models for your venture so you understand your options.

Happy Fifth Anniversary to my Blog or... JULIA ROBERTS AND 8 THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW!

2011-06-02T07:24:00.016-06:00

Wow. I just realized on Monday that my blog is now 5 years old (not all blogs have this staying power). To celebrate, I have actually gone back and separated out the posts in the early years (blogger in the early years didn't do this easily), so that it is easier to find old posts (though I should have started this blog on wordpress, which would have been more user friendly*). I also reread a number of my old posts as I did this.

This has led me to the following THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW about me and this blog:

1) I still mostly agree with myself and find my early naivete and optimism to be amusing and refreshing. I also laugh at my own jokes.

2) The fields of BOP focused business and social entrepreneurship are progressing. In the early days, there wasn't much written and there were few conferences. Now it is hard (e.g., impossible for me) to keep up with the many books, articles and events.

3) I still have little idea of who the thousands of people are who read my blog every month. Commenting on blogs seems to be "so 2007." In any event, thank you. I hope my thoughts are useful to you. And I hope that many of you are "BOPreneurs" (or at least proto-BOPreneurs).

4) If you want to increase your readership, use titles such as "10 steps to...", "Ten Tips on...", "8 Things Everyone Needs to Know about... " or make references to sex and/or celebrities (I never anticipated that Julia Roberts would become the spokesperson for clean cookstoves).**

5) The way people come to my blog has changed. Used to be google and RSS. Now it is twitter and facebook.

6) I don't post as often as I used to. Part of this is that I have said what I have to say on what I view as key topics. And part of this is that I have less time. And part is I am now exploring impact investing more deeply... my guess is that more future posts will be on this topic. But I will leave BOPvestor blog to someone else (Ross? Rob?).

7) I started this blog to share my thoughts and learnings about my core belief that entrepreneurship is a powerful force for positive change in the world. From the beginning, my focus*** has been "to share experiences and opinions about the BOP, entrepreneurship, investing, philanthropy, sustainability, teaching, innovation, design or whatever I feel like." This focused approach seems to be working so far.

8) I still plan to write "longer than average" posts. Sorry, Nathaneal. I also hope to have more guest posts. (Ben Lyon, if you are reading this, you still owe me).

For twitter followers and facebook friends, this week I will be bringing back a few of my posts from the vaults. Looking back, some seem prescient, some misguided... and most unrepentantly optimistic.

_____________

*Except I had no clue what I was doing. As in many things, I just started, and figured it out as I went.

**The title of this post could have worked in a sex theme too, but I just won't stoop that low on the 5th anniversary.

*** Use of intentional irony. Times two.

Light Weight Business Models

2011-04-16T19:00:00.007-06:00

As promised in last week's post, here are my slides from the Enterprise Solutions session at the Global Health & Innovation Conference at Yale this afternoon. My hope is that it will help my bleeps design business models that are focused on "ounces of prevention" rather than "pounds of cure." I tried to share some of my thinking on how ideas from "lean start up" folks can be applied to social ventures working on global health challenges.

At the end of my presentation, I offered a free consult to anyone in the audience that was willing to publicly commit, then and there, to design/redesign a business model for a global health venture. I look forward to finding out more about the 16 people who took this first step to jumping in!

I also learned a lot from my co-presenters, and wish that we had more time for discussion following the session. Check out Ted London's new book, "Next Generation Business Strategies for the BOP" as well as the HBR article he referenced. Very helpful resources for thinking about what you want to do, and how you might go about it. It is much easier to travel light if you have friends along the way and rely on local resources, as Ted recommends.

If you enjoyed Michael Fairbanks of SEVEN Fund, I'd encourage you to check out his new blog, the Daedalus Experiment, where you can find out why some social entrepreneurs are like "self licking ice cream cones." Be careful... too much of that type of ice cream will put on the pounds, and you want to design a lean and light weight venture which can fuel itself off ounces of prevention.

Business Models for Prevention: "An ounce of prevention..."

View more presentations from Paul Hudnut

Banning the Banal: 5 Phrases #Socent would be better off without

2011-04-09T09:41:00.009-06:00

Note: a mini-rant follows.

There are many serious issues facing our planet. This post is not about them. It is, instead, a list of the phrases I would like to see expunged from discussions of social entrepreneurship, impact investing, social metrics and international development.

Definitions of "banal" include: devoid of originality, hackneyed, commonplace, ordinary. In short, of little use. These platitudes are not inspirational, they are insipid. They are not motivational, they are meaningless. Remove them from your speech, your life, even your powerpoint presentations.

1) "Doing well by doing good." Oh please. Get back to work.

2) "Teach a man to fish, rather then giving him fish." Often said in a with an "oh-so-sincere" expression; implies that the speaker knows how to fish, which is usually not the case, or if it is the case, the speaker knows how to fish in his home waters, but not half way around the world.

3) "Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." This used to be a cool quote from Margaret Mead, and was often used to end a lecture. But it is now officially overused, and is now usually uttered by a band of committed citizens in one part of the world trying to change another part of the world, without a very clear idea of whether the change is desired by those that live in that other part of the world. George Bernard Shaw's similar quote on "unreasonable men" is also approaching a saturation point.

4) "Be the change you wish to see in the world." Sorry Gandhi, your wonderful quote has been misused so often it might drive you to violence. I have been guilty, but never again.

5) Drum roll for the final banality: "Problems can't be solved with the same level of thinking that created them." Es tu Albert? It doesn't take a genius to know that this overused quote needs to be consigned to "the dustbin of history" (a phrase used by Trotsky, Reagan and Gaddafi!).

There are more, and I invite my bleeps to add their "favorites" to the list in the comments to this post. Maybe even play "Banality Bingo" at your next conference or event.

Don't get me wrong, I like quotes, and use them frequently.* Fortunately, there are lots of good quotes out there that are underutilized. Explore the long tail of great thinkers from all cultures, both to inspire yourself and others.

________________________

*Next week, I plan to use "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" in a talk at the Global Health & Innovation Conference. I know that this is a well known quote, but I hope to put a bit of a twist on it, and will post my slides on this blog eventually.

"I can't get no..."

2011-04-09T06:22:00.006-06:00

"When I'm ridin' round the world

and I'm doin this and I'm signin' that....

I can't get no satisfaction."

The Rolling Stones

I love mountains, and have from an early age. For my seventh birthday, I asked my parents to take me to climb Mt. Marcy, the tallest peak in New York. I loved it. When we moved closer to the Adirondacks when I was a teen, I plotted how to climb the 46 "High Peaks." Too young to drive, this often involved convincing at least one of my parents to go climbing. Some days, we would "knock off" a single peak, other times we would get on a ridge trail, and "bag" several peaks.

To me, it was all about the destination. Satisfaction lay in achieving the goal. I remember one summer day at the top of Algonquin Peak, my mother saying "Paul, let's just sit and enjoy the view." As I suspected throughout my youth, she was a crazy woman. We had two more peaks to climb that day. Summits were for eating your sandwich, cramming in a small box of Sun-maid raisins and a square of Hershey's bar, and moving on down the trail to whatever came next. "Sit and enjoy?"

Now, 40 years later, I realize that for my parents it was not about the destination, and all about the satisfaction of hiking through the woods with their excited son. For my Mom, it was much more about watching the cloud shadows race across the cliff streaked nearby peaks, seeing how far she could see, and chatting with other hikers. For my Dad it was identifying birds by their songs, making a walking stick with his jack knife, or speculating on whether there might be "good-sized trout" in an unmarked clump of beaver ponds that he'd spotted from the ridge.

"Life is a journey, not a destination." Wise words attributed to Emerson (as well as Aerosmith), but ones I question still. Doesn't the destination direct and shape the journey? Isn't the destination enriched by the journey? And, anyway, isn't life composed of many journeys and destinations? Where one's summits are like individual notes in a piece of music, sometimes melodic, sometimes not?

For me, life is about both journey and destination, and feels best when that elusive balance between them is, even momentarily, achieved. That, for me, is satisfaction, flow and joy. It is about getting to the summit, and enjoying it. And then starting out towards the next one.

_______________

NOTE: I am known in my family for remembering all of the good, and none of the bad, on many of our trips. It is possible that I have, at times, encountered bugs, mud, injuries, unfriendly animals and locales, and freeze dried eggs with worms in them. At times, I may have packed too little food figuring I would catch enough fish. And, years later, one of my son's friends refers to a backcountry ski tour as "The Trail of Tears." So my parents may have a different recollection of some of these trips during my Wonder Years.

NOTE #2: Update. My parents do recollect that I was a tad difficult. I was pleased they used the past tense.

Who decides?

2011-04-04T07:26:00.012-06:00

"We are always paid for our suspicion by finding what we suspect."

Henry David Thoreau

Lillian BeVier, one of the most popular profs at UVa Law, used this basic question to teach constitutional law. Her point was that societies face many decisions, and it is important to decide which institutions will make them. And to have "checks and balances" in the system.

Today, we face big challenges that go beyond national boundaries. I was reminded of Prof. BeVier this morning when I read this article: "Tweaking the climate to save it: Who decides?"

The theme of the article is that political institutions are at a logjam on actions which might significantly reduce/mitigate green house gasses (Copenhagen), so it might be prudent to have a "Plan B" for involving adaptation and geo-engineering.

Atmospheric scientists might learn from the experience of their biotechnology colleagues. Political decisions get made by people who don't understand the science, and (this can be frustrating) on grounds that have little to do with science (see Stem Cells). But bringing in experts from other fields, such as ethics, political science, economics- and yes, law- will result in a broader conversation and a better chance for a workable framework to emerge.

Just as there are frameworks for approvals before injecting animals or people with chemicals... we will need similar frameworks before experimenting with injecting the atmosphere with chemical "cures." So, who decides what the framework is, and how it will be implemented?

The Royal Society tapped academic experts in their 2009 report "Geoengineering the Climate" which included a chapter on governance, including short sections on ethics and international frameworks. These provide an overview of the issues, but little traction on our question.*

From the "Tweaking" article, it appears that these fields were represented at the tranquil countryside estate of Chicheley. While I could not find the list of attendees at this meeting (transparency?) the journalist reported that attendees came from an invitation list** of "blue-ribbon cross section of atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, geochemists, environmentalists, international lawyers, psychologists, [and] policy makers" from six continents. No mention of ethicists, economists or engineers.

It seems that the attendees had a hard time wrapping their heads around this being a credible "Plan B." One participant stated "as soon as you start to do this research, you say its OK to think about things you shouldn't be thinking about." Really? I better go read up again on the scientific method. But it concerns me that there are things we "shouldn't be thinking about." Not the best approach for someone fancying themselves a "decider," is it?

So, back to the title. Who decides? At this point, the scientists are taking the lead on what seems to be more of a policy question. I hope that the process will be open minded, transparent and accepting of diverse points of view. And that they remember that while science provides an important perspective on the topic, others will be needed if there really is going to be a Plan B.

_____________

*One of my favorites: "A sufficiently high carbon price, credits for sequestration and financial support for reduced radiative forcing would be necessary to stimulate greater entrepreneurial activity in developing geoengineering technology. It is not yet clear if this would be desirable." (p 44)

**the article notes that the invitations were put together by the Royal Society and the Environmental Defense Fund. EDF is a well known environmental organization, and I respect much of their work. But it is far from unbiased when it comes to geoengineering. While I might agree with their view on geoengineering, I am concerned that they were doing the invitation list. The scientific community just doesn't seem to get it that these approaches reinforce the perception of bias, and undermine the credibility of meetings like this one. I guess it might have disturbed the countryside tranquility to invite a Nathan Myhrvold, Bjorn Lomborg or Steven Levitt to the event.

Educational Arsonists?

2011-03-28T19:51:00.011-06:00

Wanted to make sure my bleeps were checking in on the following conversation on the needs for technical disciplines vs. liberal arts as they impact innovation and job creation: Engineering vs. Liberal Arts- Who's right Bill or Steve? and What Bill Gates Could Learn from Chris Rock

For those who like the sound of "educational arsonist" but aren't sure what I am talking about, click here.

I like the debate... a few observations (as an educational arsonist):

1) I think that "both" is best, but unusual in one person, and that is why entrepreneurship is such a great team sport.

2) It would be nice to recognize that "college/degree" is an early chapter in an evolving narrative, not the conclusion. Lots can happen post-university, thankfully. We are not bound by the decisions we make as 17 year olds.**

3) Perhaps some data-cruncher will establish the correlation between job creation and the degrees that a society's educational institutions grant. Until then, I am skeptical of any claim that granting more of any type of degree will create more jobs. That doesn't mean politicians won't still claim a tight relationship, but I think they confuse jobs with votes sometimes. How about letting go of the value judgements of which degrees are better?

4) Let's remember that a lot of education happens outside of classrooms and schools. Which is fine. Probably a better evolutionary swamp for disruptive innovation. Maybe "publish or perish" will become "adapt or perish" or maybe not. Universities are certainly one of society's longer lived institutions, and certainly not one of it's bigger sources of disruptive innovation.***

______________________________

*Thanks Nathaneal, for sharing the link with me on facebook earlier today.

**Disclosure: I settled on Political Science over Biology after conferring with my advisor junior year and checking my finances. I would graduate sooner and I thought I had hit the point of diminishing returns for college.

***For fun, substitute "reactive" for "innovative" in speeches on the topic of university innovation and entrepreneurship.

Well Meaning... Well Doing

2011-02-01T09:12:00.008-07:00

I run into a lot of "well meaning" people in my work. I run into fewer "well doing" people. They are rarer, and more important. Here are a few observations:

Both are inspired, but I find the "well doing" to be inspirational (this has not always been the case- I have fallen for the siren song of the elegant concept... and probably will again).

In the fields of social entrepreneurship and impact investing, where impact is the ultimate goal, it is important not to confuse intention with impact.

Most well doing people are also well meaning, but the converse is not always the case.

Paul Graham urges entrepreneurs to "always produce" and Seth Godin asks "what have you shipped?" A good operating principle, and a good test of that principle. Complicated, of course, by the law of unintended consequences in this field where the desire to help others does not always translate into actually helping others. Right Professor Easterly?

The best "well doing" people are motivated by a desire to learn from, not just help, others. Examples of impactful co-creation are rare, but worth studying carefully. Examples of well intentioned "help that isn't" are not so rare, and are also worth studying carefully.

While I have been a skeptic on the issue of impact metrics, one of their most important uses may be to remind people of what really matters most. Metrics should measure mission, not drive it. And they need to be designed to measure what is done (are we "well doing"?), not what is meant to be done (are we "well meaning"?).

Losing a Leg

2011-01-29T17:21:00.005-07:00

Historically, the autocrat's strategy for control could be the three legged stool of poverty, malnutrition and ignorance. Recent developments indicate that smart phones have knocked one leg out from under that stool. It is increasingly difficult to keep a populace ignorant of what is going on in the world.

Years ago I read Iqbal Qadir's provocative article on the impact of ICT on development and governments- much of what he discussed is now coming true.

"By influencing governance, these technologies can release resources trapped beneath vested interests. This impact is far greater than the conveniences for which these technologies are ordinarily known."

The other two legs may be cut short as well. Iqbal's brother helped develop Cell Bazaar in part to transmit better market data to Bangladeshi farmers so they could get better prices and higher incomes. And a recent story on NPR detailed efforts by Mercy Corps to use mobile cash to replace more traditional forms of aid (including often disruptive food aid).

The impact of the smart phone on the BOP dwarfs the impact of most aid, development and social entrepreneurship programs. In recent days, it also seems to also be dwarfing the impact of national intelligence, diplomacy and news media.

Some refer to mobile phones as "just" a tool. You know, like fire, the wheel, agriculture, genetics....

Egypt & Entrepreneurship:Tectonic Demonstration Effects

2011-01-29T11:02:00.018-07:00

This past week I was fortunate enough to meet with some leaders in the field of innovative philanthropy and impact investing. So thanks first to my guides at Mercy Corps, Lemelson Foundation, Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, Imprint Capital and Omidyar Network.

One term I heard quite a bit was "demonstration effect." For our meetings, this meant examples of investments that provide impact and return on capital. Or enterprises that serve poor customers fairly and make a fair profit they can share with their owners and employees. Each of these could start self-reinforcing trends, attracting more human and financial capital to mission based companies.

More generally, demonstration effect recognizes the power of examples over ideas. Hearing about an idea that has never happened is very different than seeing something unexpected happen. Real examples open people up to new possibilities, and shift their frame of reference. The unlikely becomes more likely, and the world is never the same for that person. As these events are shared, they ripple to companies, communities and societies. There is no going back.

This morning, the AP is reporting that China is blocking #egypt on their twitter like services. The street demonstrations in Egypt were in part a result of the demonstration effect of similar protests in Tunisia. Could it be that China is worried that it is next? That the democratizing force of social media will drive a different type of domino effect? Tunisia ->Egypt->China? And imposing internet darkness may backfire on these governments.

These are tectonic political shifts. The longer the built up energy is surpressed the more impressive is its release- in building continents, the result can be earthquakes and in building nations, the result can be revolutions. The Latin root of this word is "to build," and tectonic means "building through structural deformation." In other words, creative destruction (right Mr. Schumpeter?) Continents, countries, and industries are built on ruptures, shifts, shaking and destruction. I wait, hopeful that Egypt (and any other countries that follow) don't add violence to the list. Iran's brutal repression is still a fresh gash on this hope for a better world.

In a more personal light, I spoke to one of my African students earlier this week. She told me that she had never thought of herself as an entrepreneur but that my class had shown her a) examples of others who had decided to make a difference through entrepreneurship, and more importantly, b) given her personal experiences that had shown her that she could be an entrepreneur. She made some tough decisions at some cost and difficulty and now has embarked on a new venture. Another dandelion starts to bud through the soil and sunlight provided by demonstration effect.

Throughout history, the power of seeing something work opens our eyes to new possibilities. Whether it is a "demo" of a new product, the self realization of one's potential, or the possibility of over- throwing an autocrat, the demonstration effect has vast potential for rapid replication. This can be both scary and exhilarating. These are common emotions to unreasonable people- revolutionaries, activists, entrepreneurs, hackers and (ad)venturers. Emotions that I imagine were felt in Boston in 1773 and are being felt in Cairo today.

Entrepreneurial By Nature

2011-01-28T22:08:00.006-07:00

My longtime bleeps may think this post will once again refer to the debate on whether entrepreneurs are born or made. But- surprise- that topic has almost nothing to do with this post.

No, this post has to do with Colorado. What some refer to dismissively as one of "the flyover" states. But they are wrong. That is old school thinking.

In December, a small group met to talk about how to promote Colorado's entrepreneurial and innovative culture. As is often the case with a small group, someone said something, and someone else built on it, and all of a sudden, we had a pretty cool mantra. "Colorado... Entrepreneurial by Nature."

For those entrepreneurs who are digging out of the most recent blizzard on the Right Coast, or stuck in traffic on the Left Coast, maybe it is time to come to Colorado. Not to ski, but to create. I live not too far away from a city named after the man who exclaimed over a century ago: "Go West young man, and grow up with the country." Well, old Horace had a point, I think.

A personal story. During law school, I interviewed with a prestigous old Boston law firm. At one point, they asked me where my parents went to college and what they did. I doubt they know how that ticked me off. At that point, mentally, I turned on my heel and walked out the door on the East. In the West, we don't care where your parents (or you) went to school. We don't care much about what you wear or drive (though you get points for riding your bike or horse). Mostly, we care that whatever you do, you do well. It isn't about your daddy, it is about you. If you can hang with us, in business or out on the trails, you are welcome to come along.

Now, if this were an official campaign, this is where I'd break out lots of numbers to convince you that moving here is a no-brainer. But it isn't an official campaign, so let me just tell you about my day. While all days are unique, this day is fairly typical for me, and offers some flavor of why I am always happy to come home to Colorado.

I flew in from SF late last night. When I woke up, I thought I might head up to the mountains to ski later today- it has been a great snow year (in the mountains) and there is nothing like a bluebird day on the slopes. But I've been away a lot, and the forecast was for a nice few days on the Front Range. Very nice. Sunny and 60's. In January. So I decided to stay in town. Since it was early, I connected with a few people in India (12.5 hours), catching them before their weekends started. Then exchanged emails with a few folks in the east, and a phone call with a microfinance friend in Boston who called me "old school" for picking up the phone to chat. Then a bit of time reading and preparing for next week's class.

OK, no biggie so far. I could have done this most anywhere with an internet connection. But it was a bit past noon, and had warmed up nicely outside. So I jumped on my mountain bike* and took a ride up through the foothills and along the reservoir. The sky was blue, and the trails were tacky. It was so warm I was tempted to swim in the lake until I remembered that it was January and the water was probably freezing.

After the ride, I "had" to swing by New Belgium** to drop some papers off... and fill up a growler. They suggested Trip #7, a recently released Black IPA. I caught up with a few folks, met intern Drew of the new Lips of Faith Drew's Beer, then heard briefly about brewmaster Peter's recent trip to another brewery where he had seen some exciting stuff. Then, I was off to chat with a friend about some challenges and upcoming changes as his company begins to market in Africa. And we did put a dent in that tasty Trip #7.

The point is not that I get to do interesting stuff. It is possible to do interesting stuff with interesting people almost anywhere. This makes the "where" of innovation both less important (got internet?) and much more important (do I live in a place that makes me feel alive/joyous/energized?). While you can tap into big parts of the global innovation community from a lot of places, there are far fewer that offer the range of opportunities that Colorado has. It is a place to be entrepreneurial...artistic...musical...athletic... by nature***. Maybe it is just me, but I think the combination of good work, good biking, good weather (and good beer) is pretty special. At least for me, I can't imagine better growing conditions for new ideas and ventures.****

If you want to come check it out, might I suggest TEDxMileHigh on April 7. They plan to highlight some of the entrepreneurial gems of the state. Then you can spend a few days to investigate Denver, Golden, Boulder and Fort Collins. And then go take a few days to ski, or go mt biking in the desert.

Entrepreneurial by nature... sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Maybe we will see you around.
_____________
Just a few examples:
* A Yeti. From Golden, Colorado.
** One of our wonderful Fort Collins breweries.
*** For music: Aspen Music Festival, Telluride Bluegrass, Red Rocks, New West Festival
**** Supporting Data Point: Recently opened Innosphere for start ups is already full.

Charity 2010

2010-12-31T19:13:00.011-07:00

Last year I posted some details on our family's charitable giving to non-profits. So what's new for 2010? Where are we headed for 2011?

As some of my bleeps know, fortune smiled on me this past year, and I am now involved in making philanthropic decisions on amounts of money far in excess of my dreams. This work with the Bohemian Foundation, as part of an impact investing initiative, has been wonderful and we are off to a good start. I hope we will soon be sharing details of our first funding decisions. While I can't name names, I can say I am excited about how we are starting in this field... and the organizations with whom we are starting.

But back to our family decisions. For several years, we have reviewed our past gifts, and asked family members to identify both new charities, as well as those who may not make the cut in the coming year. As with prior years, we focus on 5 areas for our giving: Health, Income Generation, Environment, Education and our Local Community.

What's new this year?

1) One of the most provocative books I have read in recent years is Peter Singer's "The Life You Can Save." I think this is a great book to think through the "whys" and "hows" of being charitable. As part of this work, Peter has posted a pledge to answer the question: "Am I willing to do my part in eliminating extreme poverty?" He suggests levels of giving for Americans. This year, our family has used his target of 5% for our giving. Most, but not all, of our contributions are aimed at the addressing extreme poverty. Our other contributions go toward the environment and local organizations.

2) We have added some new organizations this year:

Akili Dada - we wanted to increase our giving to education, specifically focused on girls. Thanks to sister Sara Hall for recommending this organization.

Root Capital - an innovative organization which finances farmer cooperatives in poorer communities.

The Citizens Foundation - a Pakistani educational organization that also conducted relief operations following the floods. We try to support local aid organizations, and this is one that was a USA registered charity. Thanks to friend Asad for this recommendation.

IDE - Embarrassing. We have given to IDE for years. Last year, somehow, we forgot. I hope Paul and Al will forgive me. They do great work around the world on developing technologies that increase income for poor farmers, as well as building markets to distribute these technologies.

Pratham - providing education for poorer children in India. Recommended by Peter Singer and Rachel Glennerster for their excellent, measurable results.

National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship - Great organization referred by my friend Mark Albion. Works on promoting entrepreneurship to high school students in disadvantaged US communities.

Food Democracy Now - trying to fix our broken food system. One of Mariah's suggestions.

3) We increased our level of giving to:

Doctors Without Borders - one of the best aid organizations for disasters... and 2010 had several new disasters (Haiti, Pakistan) as well as the ongoing disasters in conflict zones.

VisionSpring - a simple way to improve incomes of the poor- inexpensive reading glasses.

Central Asia Institute - Greg Mortenson's work on education in Pakistan and Afghanistan continues to impress us.

Vittana - an innovative approach to providing student loans for higher education in Latin America. Check it out and make a loan!

4) We did all our giving online this year. From the number of last minute appeals via email, facebook and twitter this must be the big trend for small donors (like us). But there is great variation in how well prepared various charities are to do this (umm... it is almost 2011... let's get on it, folks). Some still have a limited presence on social networking sites (umm... it is almost 2011... if you aren't on facebook and twitter yet... why not?). I thought Nature Conservancy had one of the best interfaces- a personalized link on an email, the ability to easily promote the organization on social networking sites, etc. I was also intrigued by the "Causes" approach on facebook- each step told me how much more the cause might be able to raise if I only shared on facebook or sent out emails to my friends. To me, it went too far, but I am an old gray beard. My guess is in another year or two I will be fully on board.

5) Here is how we allocated our giving this year. We increased our overall giving by 40% (not only was Peter's book provocative, it was EXPENSIVE):

Education: 37%

Local Community: 22%

Health: 19%

Income Generation: 19%

Environment: 12%

What's up for 2011?

In both my professional and family roles, I have been challenged to describe what impact might result from two competing donations/investments. What is the relative impact of a donation to Pratham, TCF or CAI? How do we answer the questions about who to add and who to drop from our giving? Or where to increase or decrease our giving? As the mutual fund ads say "Past results are no indicator of future performance." I will continue to watch GiveWell, J-PAL as well as GIIN/IRIS (for those that participate). At least with mutual funds, you know what past performance is. The charity field still works mostly off of anecdotes and hard-to-compare metrics. I am not sure there is much incentive to change, or at least to be the first to change. But we shall see.

I have also continued to learn in the past year how complex it is to be an effective donor. Part of this is research, part is monitoring, part is listening. I am sure I will learn much more in the coming years. And late in each year, I will try to share it with my bleeps.

Do good, and be great at it. See you next year!

Rediscovering Search

2010-11-14T21:08:00.012-07:00

Please check out the wonderful Slideshare "Creating Start Up Success" by Alex Osterwalder and Steve Blank which contains 5 rules for start up success. The basic concept is that no business plan survives the first contact with customers, and that entrepreneurs should spend a lot more time developing their customers and business model than a fancy business plan.

This is not a new idea, but it is contrary to the dominant logic of start ups (which the slideshare quickly covers).* Folks like Steve, Alex and Eric Ries are now presenting this concept in a compelling way, the "lean" start up, and it seems to be getting more traction every day.

I think part of the reason it is getting more traction is that it is getting more right every day. Changes are disrupting the way start ups are being started, operated and financed. Start ups, in general, are getting cheaper to start, at least in many industries. Technology, global talent, more distribution options help drive this. The balance of power between founders and funders is changing. If you don't have to raise millions of dollars and give up a chunk of your company, why would you? The last time the balance shifted (the internet craze), VC investors paid more to play. This time, they may not get to play.

Anyway, the reason for this post is not to regurgitate what Steve and Alex are doing, or speculate on the state of the VC industry, but instead point out that there is a common thread between the lean start up work and the work of William Easterly. In White Man's Burden, Easterly categorizes international development approaches as being either those of the planners or searchers. He is critical of the failure of the planners' approach, and hopeful that searchers will do a better job on reducing poverty, disease, illiteracy and other seemingly intractable challenges of the developing world. Both Easterly's critique of the World Bank, and Blank's critique of Motorola, show planners who fall in love with their theories can burn through a lot of other people's cash for far longer than they should. This isn't to say entrepreneurs shouldn't plan, just that their planning should be about how to search, not on polishing up a 40 page glossy business plan.

While Steve and Alex's advice is mostly aimed at mainstream entrepreneurship,** it's emphasis on searching is key to BOPreneurs as well. Many times, entrepreneurs tell me that they need money to get started on their wonderful, world changing ideas. But that usually isn't so. As Andy Hargadon is fond of saying, there are plenty of $5 and $50 experiments to test your business concept. Applying the lessons of the lean start up, and using the business model canvas, can help an entrepreneurial team map out their assumptions, try on different prototypes, and test those at low cost and with lower consequences. I can't see any reason to vary the approach for a BOP start up.*** If anything, it is more critical for a social entrepreneur. If a new web app fails, no one is going to go without food or water.

OK, gotta go. I am working with our GSSE students on just this topic tomorrow. We will discuss the Envirofit case, and the question of the day is: are start ups pretty when they are born? Usually not, in my experience. I sure wish we had some of these materials to guide us at Envirofit back in 2003-04. We certainly made a few mistakes, particularly in customer development. And we are still learning every day. One could even say "searching"....

____________

*In his book, Four Steps to the Epiphany, Steve has a number of examples of the dominant model, which is product development focused- have a cool idea, get some people working on it, do some market research, write a business plan, raise money... and then see if any customers will buy it or if there is a scaleable business model. I might quibble and say this is more the dominant model of the Silicon Valley Venture world, and that many outside the valley have learned to bootstrap or at least finance without venture capital, which requires earlier contact with customers. But let's not get distracted with that here.

** Alex has a nice presentation on social entrepreneurship, and Steve and Alex blogged on one early stage BOPreneur, PeePoo. I expect we may see more in the future from them on this topic.

*** I do want to emphasize that when BOPreneurs "get out of the building" they must go all the way to their market. Sure Kiva was started at Stanford, but only after the co-founders spent time in Africa, and partnered with local micro-finance organizations. Similarly, Grameen Phone, profiled in Alex's book, was very much a Bangladeshi rooted venture. I am dubious of any venture that isn't rooted in the field, with some co-founders who know their way around on the ground. This raises some additional aspects of customer development that aren't touched on in Steve or Alex's books. Luckily, you can get started with Paul Polak's book and dive deeper with D-Lab, IDDS or GSSE programs.

My Bottom Line on Bottom Lines

2010-11-10T21:08:00.012-07:00

I am fortunate, in that I know some wise, interesting people. And some even answer my phone calls. One of them is Jill Bamburg, who is one of the founders of Bainbridge Graduate Institute, and who has both a broad knowledge of sustainability and many deep, provocative ideas on what needs to happen to "Change Business for Good."

Jill talked to my class today about her book, "Getting to Scale," and shared some ideas on what she thought needed updating, and what was still very relevant. Good stuff. One of the things she mentioned was that she was thinking a lot about the usefulness of the "Triple Bottom Line." She thinks that People, Planet and Profit are all important aspects of a good business, but that sometimes it tugs entrepreneurs (and intrapreneurs) in multiple directions. It makes it hard to determine trade offs. What if, she asked, there was just one "P" of purpose,* and the other P's were viewed as constraints? Would that be a more useful model for designing a beneficial business model?

Well, it's hours later, and I am still thinking about that extra "P". I have used the triple bottom line for years as a way to initially analyze a business idea or design a business model, but it does lack the crispness of a single focusing factor. Recently, I have been questioning what seems to be the deep seeded need of homo economicus to have a "bottom line." I mean, I lived for several decades without knowing what a bottom line was, and am not sure I am better off now that I know about three of them.

And if focusing on the bottom line got the planet into this mess, is focusing on three of them going to get us out of it? Maybe. But is a periodic reckoning what business is about? Are bottom lines what drive the innovation we need? Do people get up in the morning inspired by bottom lines? To me, entrepreneurship is more about route finding and adaptation than score keeping.

Maybe it is my outdoor background, but I respect businesses that take the cleanest line.** It requires practice, it requires crux moves, it requires trusting partners, it requires adapting to changing conditions, it requires economy of movement and it requires persistence. Not sure it requires metrics, or lots of people watching or offering advice from below. But it does require focusing on the journey, not just the destination.

Once you have locked in on "why," "how" becomes very important. While the end often does not justify the means, the means almost always affect the end. If you "fudge" on your eco-friendly product or act inconsistently with your values, you get knocked off line, and end up at a very different place than you intended. The ability to recover, and stay on line, separates the best from the rest. This is not to say, however, that having a clean line avoids difficult, high risk or chaotic periods. But with proper focus and training, I think it improves the chances of avoiding the the most dangerous threats, and recovering from mishaps.

As you scope out your line, keep in mind who it is for. It must motivate your team, and it must resonate with your customers. Investors? Do you need them to make it happen? If so, be sure they understand and support your line.

While expeditions used to take dozens or even hundreds of people, and large business ventures (railroads, Ford, IBM) took thousands, much lighter venturing is possible now. In the mountains and in business, the size of the venture and scale of its impact are delinking. Some may even see an inverse relationship. So choosing the right partners and packing light are important. Lean is the watchword.

So my botton line? Focusing on a clean line helps entrepreneurs think about making both the journey and the destination worthwhile. It can be helpful to use those triple bottom lines to design and train for your clean line, but once you have that line, you may be able to lighten up by tossing out all those bottom lines, and instead focusing on how your venture is going to get to where it needs to go.*** Plain. Simple. And very hard to do.
___________
* Jill does not claim "purpose" as her discovery. Peter Drucker, Jim Collins and Rick Warren have all tread the "purpose" path. And I hear it was the buzzword at the recent Net Impact conference.
**not even original.
*** might I suggest a BHAWG?
P.S. I also like her idea of design constraints, which are often great ways to enhance creative problem solving. Perhaps another blog topic.
P.P.S. I am also bothered by attempts to out "green" others. Adding new lines or new adjectives to the old lines. Blended bottom lines, integrated bottom lines, quadruple bottom lines... is this really helpful? Or are these merely attempts to sell consulting services or yet another book on the topic?

Green Rankings & Grade Inflation

2010-10-18T11:21:00.006-06:00

Newsweek just released its green rankings for 2010 for the top 500 US based companies, as well as a global 100.

Dell placed first of the US based companies, and IBM topped the global rankings. Each received a 100. Maybe it's just me, but I think the esteemed panel was a pretty easy grader. And as an educator, I understand how pernicious easy grading can be. Grade inflation may make people feel good in the short term, but the lack of rigor impacts society in the long run. I hate to break it to you, but just as we don't all have above average students in our classrooms or above average drivers on our roads, we don't have above average sustainability efforts in our large corporations.

I understand that the methodology means the "100" is relative to others in their industry, but it still carries a connotation of A+. And I don't think any of these companies deserve an A+. If you take a look at Dell or IBM sustainability reports, you will see that they realize they have significant impacts on our planet, and much to work on. The problem with grading relative to others is that you end up with a "queen of the pigs" syndrome. Too often it selects the outstanding example of mediocrity.

There is no doubt that Dell and IBM are leaders in our current economic system which has recently emphasized reducing impact on the environment and being more socially responsible. But these companies are in no sense regenerative. They are still working on reducing negative impacts on existing ecosystems and communities, not recreating systems that will have positive impacts.* Doing less evil, while laudatory, doesn't earn a 100 in my view.

Instead, I'd ask "would the world be better off if this company made and sold even more of their stuff?" This query goes more to the essence of the business. Its reason for being. Perhaps Dell and IBM really do create high net value across their product offerings of disposable computers and consulting services. But companies whose core essence is "doing good" should rank higher. Those that provide environmental benefits such as cleaner air, purer water, or healthier ecosytems, or provide societal benefits such as education, health services, or ecofriendly energy. Those who truly have cradle to cradle supply chains, where their "waste is food." These are the ones for which I can answer "Yes, if they were more successful, the world would be better off." To my mind, there are no A+ companies under my scheme either, but I think it is a more useful question than comparing relative "green-ness." I don't give an A+ for good answers to the wrong question.

Perhaps I am quibbling over the A+ issue, and instead the focus should be on the bottom of the class. Some of the food processing and utility companies there, such as Monsanto, ADM, Duke and Edison, continue to underwhelm. These seem to be the trouble makers every year. Maybe Obama should start a "No Company Left Behind" policy for these poor performers. Others might argue that they should be put on probation, or expelled. And what about Peabody Energy? It seems like they never even came to school. I wonder if they think their absence was excused?

I tried to go back and look online at the 2009 Newsweek rankings, but interestingly, they all now link to the 2010 rankings (I do see they have maintained ranking Wal-mart above Whole Foods, which created a lot of controversy last year). I think I have a hard copy at home, and will take a look. My guess is that a lot has changed... which makes one wonder how sustainable one's sustainability ranking really is. I wonder how last year's "top ranked" companies feel? Has their performance slipped, or did the grading system change?**

So, kudos to Newsweek for tackling what is a slippery problem. They worked with experts at TruCost, and had a strong panel of advisors. But grade inflation seems to be a problem that is being felt outside of our schools, and I think it may be even more dangerous here.

A planet is a terrible thing to waste.
_______________
* I realize that relative to current competitors, it might be more eco-positive to buy a Dell computer compared to a competitive product. But the business model is still based on obsolesence and me replacing my computer every 2-3 years, rather than providing me with eco-effective/efficient computing services.

** For a more sanguine (and detailed analysis), check out Joel Makower's blog on the rankings.

Venture Gapitalist Guide for SOCAP10

2010-10-02T09:33:00.020-06:00

In anticipation of SoCap, I thought I'd share my thoughts on several types of venture gapitalists, where they may be observed next week, and share a few concerns I have as this social capital ecosystem evolves. I am excited by the opportunities to be around so many leaders, but am also a bit anxious about the size of the crowd and the many great sessions which often overlap. So this post is also a way for me to organize my tour of the SOCAP zoo this week.*

The early days of the social capital ecosystem started with venture philanthropy in the 1990's, which grew from the intersection of philanthropy and venture capital, and resulted from some frustration as a new type of wealth began looking to make an impact in communities. Mario Morino was (and is) prominent in articulating the goals of this approach, as well as putting his money behind his words, mostly in domestic organizations. A more global approach began with the emergence of Ashoka, followed later by Endeavor, the Skoll Foundation, Dasra and Acumen Fund. And more recently, the regional impact investing funds in developing and emerging markets, such as Omidyar Network, Gray Ghost family of ventures and Aavishkaar.

I am still in the early days of understanding this ecosystem and how the pieces fit (or don't), but I do see some different niches. Of course, there also may be some invasive species as well as some shape-shifters which defy categorization (intentionally or not). BOPreneur Tevis Howard recently observed that his screen is Impact-First and Finance-First investors, and while this is a good first cut, I think a few more distinctions can be made.

Herewith, my early notes (to be supplemented with more detailed sketch books from SoCap?) on classification**, as well as suggestions for where these might best be viewed at Fort Mason:

1) Philanthropic source/philanthropic approach. The Gates Foundation is a good example of this approach. Innovative approaches to impact, but grant based with an occasional PRI. These will be best observed in the Tactical Philanthropy track, where they may feel some evolutionary pressure from moderator Sean Stannard-Stockton. My concern about this niche is that metrics are being emphasized at the expense of impact. This is not a chicken and egg problem; it is cart before horse. IMOSHO*** impact must drive metrics, not the reverse.

2) Philanthropic source/investment approaches. Acumen Fund is a leader here. Money is donated to Acumen, which then makes investments in social enterprises. I think they would belong in Tevis's Impact-first category. If successful, they recycle the capital into a new round of enterprises. Other innovative approaches in this group include Lemelson Foundation (working capital) and Microcredit Enterprises (guarantees). Concerns here? Scale, pressure from new species that promise some return of (or even "on") capital, and continued ability to invest in portfolio companies as their capital needs grow. How patient will their capital be? Will anyone copy their model in other markets (Acumen invests in India, Pakistan and Kenya)? Is imitation not the sincerest form of flattery (not to mention a viable competitive strategy) in the impact investing space? Time will tell, of course. But time's a wasting. These species seem the most ubiquitous at SoCap, and they may be viewed in almost any of the tracks as well as many of the keynotes. The astute observer may notice different behaviors in these tracks, as well as different displays for potential mating opportunities.

3) Investment source/investment approaches: as this video of Aaviskaar shows, these funds raise money from commercial sources and provide commercial returns and exits, but with returns below those expected of traditional venture capital firms. As Tevis observed, these can fall into Impact-first investors, or Finance-first investors. The recent fracas over the SKS IPO did an excellent job of highlighting the concerns for this genus. The balance of greed and altruism can be a difficult one, and changes in ownership or leadership could result in dramatic and erratic behavior changes in these species. The differences between these species, and perhaps, some ritualistic and competitive displays of dominance, will best be seen in the Impact Investing tracks.

4) Hybrid sources and approaches. Within the Gray Ghost family, one can observe several mutualistic species. Village Capital is based on philanthropic capital to crowd source seed investments in social enterprises, Grey Ghost Ventures invested $10 million in private funds into 8 ICT firms focused on "goods, services and financial access to low income populations," and ISFC provided loan capital to affordable private schools in India. You are most likely to spot these species in the New Money track, and I can guarantee a sighting of several at the Seed Investing session on Tuesday afternoon.

And don't worry, it is safe to get close to these venture gapital species, and even feed them. In most cases, they are quite friendly.****

____________

* No disrespect intended. A zoo is a place where species are displayed out of their native environment, right? You just have to keep in mind that behavior is different in the zoo: polar bears are more dangerous in the wild, and monkeys throw a lot more poo when observed in confinement. Also, due to expense and distance, the full diversity of the social capital ecosystem won't be represented. Nonetheless, Socap is probably the best zoo of its type. I mean, I could have called it a circus. And I understand that I am part of this zoo, and will try to avoid poo-flinging at all costs.

**My classification is pretty basic. Source of funds and how those funds are then granted or invested in social enterprises. Apologies to both Darwin and Linnaeus.

***In My Oh So Humble Opinion ;-)

**** BOPreneurs are urged to approach them in an open and friendly way, and to avoid making the "ask" in the first 30 seconds of conversation. Too forceful a greeting has been known to provoke fight or flight responses.

Some Thoughts on Venture Gapital

2010-09-21T09:12:00.021-06:00

My bleeps know I have been grappling with the idea of Venture Gapital for some time. Moving forward, in addition to covering BOPreneurs in this blog, I will also start to highlight Venture Gapitalists of note. In effect, to try to look at both sides of the table in this evolving dialog to build a healthier ecosystem of human, financial, social and natural capital. As always, bleeps, I'd appreciate your suggestions, nominations, props and criticisms. And I look forward to learning more at SoCap10 in a few weeks.

To kick it off, I'd encourage you to read Jonathan Lewis' remarks from last week, where he shares six operating principles for fighting poverty from a market perspective. More importantly for this post, he concisely unwraps some major differences between functioning financial markets and those in which the poor live. Venture gapitalists should ponder these before taking action.

In functioning markets, a distinction is made between public and private goods, between street cleaners and vacuum cleaners.

• Where the poor live, private investment is often the only investment. The market, quite literally, becomes the sole provider of the common good.

In functioning markets, survival of the economic fittest is a necessary consequence of progress. Some businesses succeed, some fail.

• Where the poor live, the only ethical economic policy is not creative destruction, but creative opportunity.

As we cannot bomb our way to peace and prosperity, we cannot finance our way to economic justice. In the end, the poor must have the power to speak up, speak out and speak for themselves.

No economic theory and no marketplace, whether functioning or failing, can change a basic truth. As individuals, we are each blessed, and burdened, with a moral compass. Free markets mean each one of us has the freedom to make ethical choices.

Is social entrepreneurship about creating a viable asset class to make money in developing markets or about building a social movement for economic justice? Are we advocates for the poor or advisers to the well-off? (emphasis added).

Jacqueline Novogratz, founder of Acumen Fund, was recently interviewed by David Bornstein of Dowser on "Investing to Change the World." Acumen sees a need for "patient capital" that is, I guess, a bit less relentless in seeking returns (their view/my view). I think she does a great job of outlining the challenge of venture gapital:

I said, 'You are very comfortable with charity, seeing a 100% loss, send the money out and you never see it again, and you justify the good it’s doing in the world even if your metrics are fuzzy. Or you’re comfortable seeing 20% returns on your investments with no social impact, and potentially some harm. But you are so uncomfortable in this middle section, where you might get the money back, might not, or you might lose 20%.’ And he said, ‘Yeah, because you’re playing the game of business but you’re not taking it seriously.’

And I said, ‘I never said we were playing the game of business. We’re playing the game of creating change and we are using business as a tool. We are incredibly serious about these businesses succeeding, but we never forget that these businesses are about tackling poverty.' (emphasis added)

Empowerment or Autonomy?

2010-09-12T21:01:00.003-06:00

I am reading Dan Pink's book "Drive." It discusses how people are motivated and inspired (or not) by what they do. While it doesn't explicitly address entrepreneurship, it does have some interesting applications to BOPreneurs.

Where this came home to me was when the author bashes "empowerment" as being an empty phrase, based on old methods of motivation having little to do with creativity or purpose. In my experience, "planners" seem to talk more of empowerment (as though power is a gift from the developed world to the BOP) while "searchers" look for local input and approaches. Instead of empowerment, Pink believes motivation comes from having "autonomy." This means work is more motivating if it is self-directed in terms of the four T's of "time, task, technique and team."

If you plan to use people to sell your product or provide your service to BOP markets, do you talk about empowering women or micro-entrepreneurs? Perhaps it is time to take breath and reexamine your assumptions. The next time you hear a proposal to empower some group or community, it may be useful to take the perspective of respecting their autonomy instead.

Ten Tips On Elevator Pitches

2010-08-31T07:45:00.009-06:00

Two of my favorites, Chip & Dan Heath, just posted six great tips for Elevator Pitches [those brief, compelling and credible descriptions of your venture that will motivate your listener to (a) tell others that they think could be interested/helpful and (b) ask you to tell them more]. Here are their six:

1) Think short.

2) If your topic is complex, use "anchor and twist"

3) Don't wing it, script it.

4) "Why" before "what".

5) It is mandatory... to include a story. (this isn't exactly the way they phrased it, but this way rhymes)

6) Check out other pitches for inspiration.

To their list, I would add four more, to make it to that ever useful "10 tips":

7) Know what you want, and build in a soft "ask" to every pitch. This anchors the idea for your listener so they will think about who else they might want to tell about your idea. Whether you see yourself as a social entrepreneur or a "plain old" entreprenuer (irony intended), it is important to know what you want, and ask for it. Your ask is also a gift- you are providing the listener with an opportunity to get involved with something AWESOME... your venture. Don't make it a "guess what" gift. Be clear about the opportunity!

8) Tell "who"- people tend to overvalue the idea and undervalue the team. Don't. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Worthy ideas with strong teams are rare and valuable.

9) Use questions as well as statements. This shifts your audience from questioning and challenging your idea to wanting to assist you. (Paul Graham gets credit for this framing idea)

10) No matter what your pitch is, "how" you deliver it is at least as important as what you deliver. Are you passionate? Formal or informal? Team based? Think through all the non-verbal aspects of your pitch. Videotape yourself. Seriously. You get one chance to make your best impression.

When Andy Hargadon and I do our session on pitching new ventures, we say: "if you can't say what you are doing in 150 characters or less, you don't know what you are doing." Provocative? Yes. But in our experience, the ability to describe the essence of a venture is indicative of a successful entrepreneur. This short statement can then be used as a framework around which to build the rest of your pitch.

Finally, remember a big part of the pitch is to provide for retelling. If you have ever done the class room exercise of whispering some words to the person next to you, who whispers to the person next to them, etc., you know how garbled a message can become through retelling. That is why being clear, concise and compelling is so important. You are not just creating an elevator pitch, you are designing an elevator pitch that will be retold. Test your early prototypes. How well is your message retold?

Big Shorts and big LIEs

2010-08-27T17:59:00.006-06:00

The Big Short, by Michael Lewis, is a great story. But it is also awful. To hear about the arrogance and ignorance of those who profited from the subprime mortgage market is at first unsettling, then disgusting. Unfortunately, in my experience, Laziness, Ignorance and Ego are often at the root of many such stories. The next big short will probably be on the next big LIE.

The guys that shorted the subprime market- Eisman (and partners at FrontPoint), Burry, Lippman and the fellows at Cornwall Capital- are the heroes of Lewis's book. But that is because his yardstick is one of using maverick cleverness to make a lot of money. While their big sting targets were Goldman Sachs, AIGFP and other Wall St. firms, I don't feel any joy in their final win. Nor did they. Eisman compared it to being like Noah- he was on the ark, but not happy about the flood.

If I understand it, the protagonists were offended by the exploitation of the poor by the subprime market, and disliked the greedy traders on Wall St. They made a bundle (so did the greedy traders). But what have they done with their "winnings"? They aren't Robin Hoods, from what I can tell. While they lightened the bank accounts of some of the big firms, nothing they did helped rebuild the decimated neighborhoods that were hurt by the whole scam. As far as I can tell, they haven't given back any of the loot that represents what communities lost with the housing collapse, or families lost with the resulting recession. Probably "Hey, I pay my taxes" is sufficient for them.

In the introduction, Lewis bemoans how his first book, "Liar's Poker," had become a "how to" guide for college students wanting to get a job on Wall St., rather than the cautionary tale he had intended. Will the Big Short become a "how to" guide for those wanting to profit from the next big LIE? Eisman says it could be "for profit education." And I bet someone got rich selling BP short, too (and that trade may not be over). BP CEO Hayward certainly seemed to be leading the LIE lifestyle and building an organization based on LIE.

One interesting angle of the Big Short was the work these guys did to come up with ways to short the American housing market. It wasn't easy. If there are things you think are fundamentally intolerable or unsustainable in the current system, how would you short them? Don't like coal fired power plants and global warming? Do you go long on renewable energy investments, or short the coal companies and utilities? How would you short poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa (or if you are Bill Easterly, how do you short foreign aid in that region)?

It is an interesting perspective to consider, as one doesn't need to look far to see Lazy, Ignorant and Egotistical policies, people and organizations at work. These characteristics are often those underlying "conventional wisdom" and "business as usual." Perhaps the field of social entrepreneurship needs a few shorts, as well as "change makers," to really make a difference. As I have said before in this blog, entrepreneurship isn't always about playing nice.

If you do figure it out, I'd ask that you contribute some portion of your earnings to the social or environmental problem that motivated you in the first place.

______________________

If you'd like the short version of the story, here is an NPR's Fresh Air version.

Colorado's Super #Socent Summer

2010-07-26T18:47:00.003-06:00

OK, you all know I am a big fan of Colorado. I love living here. But this week, I REALLY love living here.

Why? Because this place is going off. Since late May, the Unreasonable Institute has been down in Boulder, building social enterprises with the potential to impact 1 million people. An amazing group of people. On Saturday, they are doing their final pitches. Buy your tickets here.

And in early July, sixty plus innovative people from around the world came to CSU to be part of the fourth International Development Design Summit. They will be giving technology demos and updates on their projects this Wednesday in Lory Student Center Ballroom at 2 pm. Special guest evaluators include Marc Manera from Acumen Fund, Patrick Maloney from Lemelson Foundation, Phil Weilerstein from the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance, and the inimitable Paul Polak of D-Rev and Windhorse.

If you are into social entrepreneurship and you are anywhere near Colorado, I'd encourage you to attend at least one of these events. Can you say "epicenter"? Seriously, this is a great way to acquaint yourself with this movement and some amazing people in the middle of it.

Porcupines. Troublemakers.

2010-07-23T23:09:00.003-06:00

When Paul Polak goes to events, he often writes "Troublemaker" on his name badge.

But I think he is really a porcupine. Bursting bubbles of confusion wherever he turns. He calls it as he sees it, and doesn't sugar coat his advice. Check out his new blog. You may not always agree with him (I don't), but he will often change your point of view and get you to question a few more of your overly precious assumptions. While it doesn't always feel good to tangle with him, one does recover (although you may be tender for a few days).

Porcupines and troublemakers are a rare and important part of the social enterprise ecosystem (much more important than cheerleaders). We could use a few more, and should treasure the few we have.

If you haven't had the opportunity to meet Paul, read his book and subscribe to his blog. And maybe when you meet him, his badge will say "Porcupine."

Start up

2010-07-08T07:26:00.004-06:00

We launched v4.0 of IDDS yesterday. While the core offering features remain (Innovation through Diversity, Creative Capacity Building, Community Building and Innovating for Impact) we have added additional functionality- new faculty (Jill, Bryan, Andy), new participants and a stronger emphasis on dissemination.

Borrowing from Jim Collins, yesterday started with "First Who"... introductions of all the amazing people who have travelled thousands of miles to participate. Then "What"... quick descriptions of the projects and Amy discussing the history and philosophy of IDDS. From there, people started at Market Activity, where they needed to design, manufacture and market products for the IDDS community. There is even a form of local currency: "briquettes."

After lunch, Bryan Willson and Paul Polak presented case studies on approaches to disseminating products at scale, discussing Envirofit (cookstoves) and Windhorse (water), respectively.

The day finished with some fun, one-minute infomercials from the teams on their Market Activity products. From World Cup attire to room accessories, there was a lot of creativity on both the ideas and their promotion.

Designing by Making... Learning by Doing

Buying... "That will be 5 briquettes" (Amy as shopkeeper; Daniel from Global Cycle Solutions as buyer)

Paul Polak discussing some of his 100 million potential customers for clean water...

Starting to Finish

2010-06-29T10:30:00.006-06:00

Past IDDS'er Joe Agoada has been on the road in Africa, bringing the World Cup to school children in remote areas. The tour will end with the World Cup finals. Joe's recent update on Kampala 2 Capetown got me to thinking.

Often, we think of a start-up as a "built to last" organization- one that should endure and persist. But initiatives like Joe's are also instructive. Start ups can be events and tours (a series of events). They still have business models, just ones with a set finish line. The metaphors come from movies, sports, and "special forces" in the military. Perhaps more start ups should start this way- without the assumption of permanence. Ceasing to exist is often what happens to a start up, but it isn't something that is usually planned or discussed openly. A venture's planned obsolescence is rarely a section in a business plan.

Their are many implications for founders and funders. Less time spent planning and more time doing. The goal of finishing, not continuing. At the end, people are paid off and move on to the next venture. Instead of staying together and hoping that lightning will strike twice for the same team.

This doesn't mean that the venture can't shape shift and become more permanent. Successful events become fixtures- whether Burning Man, the World Cup or the Rolling Stones. But this could be an approach that is based on evolution instead of planning. Design focused on the organization, not the strategy. And it would be paradoxical if the behavior of "starting to finish" leads to behavior that is more likely to lead to survival: faster, leaner, more responsive start ups.

With all thy getting, get references...

2010-06-13T12:19:00.004-06:00

School, jobs, relationships, journeys... through life one accumulates many experiences. Surprisingly, however, few people pay much attention to externally validating these key experiences. Sure, you take a photo from that remote mountain peak or your visit to the Taj Mahal... but how can you let others know what you have done when you can't just take a picture? For many experiences, people don't take the picture when they are on the peak... they wait a while, and then try to recreate the moment by putting it on their resume. "See this picture from a magazine? I climbed this mountain." Wow.

Your resume should present your accomplishments. But how did you do it? For that, people (such as employers or investors) may want to find external perspectives. Say your resume claims you ran a successful product launch at you last company... have you won awards? If so, put them on the resume. If not, and you think this is important, you need a reference. Who can say: "Yup, she climbed it in tough conditions, had a great attitude, I'd love to climb with her again"?

The world works on references. Not just employment references... but the many discussions that go on about you. What do people say? What would you like them to say? What have you done to increase the chances of a good reference as you go through your life's journey? Who are the best people to validate what you have done? (perhaps you should make a list right now)

Most companies won't provide meaningful references now. The HR department will confirm dates of employment. What if it happened 5 years ago? Or if the company you worked for has gone out of business (do you imagine anyone at BP is looking for a job right now)? Have you kept up with co-workers? Former bosses? Perhaps you saved a copy of your 2005 performance review.

I send people the following memo when they ask for a formal reference. A number of them have said it was helpful. Disturbingly, a number have also said "no one ever told me how to do this."

To: People requesting references

From: Paul Hudnut

Asking for a reference is an art…you only want good references. So before approaching me (or other professors, bosses, co-workers, etc.) think about whether you think they can give you a good reference. Your goal should be to have each reference validate a piece of the picture that you have painted about your qualifications: education, work, character, accomplishments. Then think about what you want each of them to say about you…do they have a basis to be able to say that?

Overall, I am happy to give references if they are requested ahead of time and I am given background materials necessary to write or provide the reference. Last minute requests for written recommendations will be declined, and I will not provide a phone reference or a written reference if I am not provided the minimum requirements below.

1) Keep in mind that if you know what you want, it is easier to ask for it! Your target should be to tell me what you want, and then make sure you give me what I need to help you get what you want. Employers are trying to understand your competence and your character. You will strengthen your references by focusing on, and providing examples of, activities and experiences that demonstrate both.

2) When you request a reference it is helpful to ask for a detailed reference and to provide background information. For instance, telling me: "I am applying for a job with golf resort development and management companies as a marketing manager” is OK, but adding “Would you be willing to give me a good reference with respect to my performance in your class, my interest in the golf industry, my honesty on the course, and my habit of always buying a hamburger for my professor at the end of the round" is much better.

For most of my students, though, I can only write about the first item. I can't write about the others unless we have actually had a chance to sit down and talk about your interest in the golf industry, we have played golf (and you didn't take a Mulligan) and you can bought me a hamburger. Golf is only an example, folks- it could be your interest in fashion design, green building, biotechnology, etc. In all, though, for me to comment on it, you need to have given me the material. LinkedIn and Facebook can be helpful ways to informally keep me up to date on your activities.

3) As a reference writer, I like to get help from YOU. It makes it much easier for me to write a reference if you tell me what you are trying to accomplish. At a minimum, include your resume with your request. Even better, attach a "draft" recommendation letter or outline covering the points you want me to cover. If it is a specific job, include the job posting.

4) If you don’t need a letter, but just want me to be available by phone, then please provide a resume, and an outline of the main points you would like me to cover in the call. Then let me know by email or voicemail when I should be expecting a call.

Good luck. I look forward to helping you find, or create, your next opportunity!

LOHAS and LOPAS

2010-06-05T15:46:00.005-06:00

A friend asked if I planned to make it to the LOHAS conference in Boulder this month. LOHAS is short hand for Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability, a key market segment for consumer brands. I checked the website, and learned that this is an opportunity to "successfully approach the LOHAS consumers with your products and services. Network with like-minded executives from all LOHAS market sectors."

But this email got me thinking about two other things going on in Colorado this summer. The International Development Design Summit (aka IDDS) and the Unreasonable Institute. These have a very different focus than LOHAS. You see, these are aimed at successfully developing ventures that serve the poor. They are largely social ventures, aimed at maximizing impact on a challenge faced by the those in what I call the LOPAS segment. Lifestyles of Poverty and Sickness.

Most companies are looking at the LOHAS market as early adopters for greener brands, organic foods, renewable energy. The purchasing power of this segment is estimated at close to $300 billion. They are seen as drivers of a more sustainable economy.

Few companies are looking at the LOPAS market. This is too bad. China is a leading example of how a market can explode as hundreds of millions of people begin to move out of poverty. The media has recently started to talk about "reverse innovation" where products developed for India or Africa begin to show up in the US and Europe. So just how big a market is created for every 100 million people who move from making $1 per day to $4?

It's just math. The LOPAS market is bigger, growing faster and is less competitive than LOHAS. I didn't say it was easy. And it definitely takes a different approach. But it is worth doing something about if your company cares about sustainability. It makes little systemic sense to sell solar panels to LOHAS in Boulder, while LOPAS in Accra burn kerosene or charcoal. What company can serve both markets? What synergies might exist?

As you think where sustainable growth will come from, it would be wise to follow both the LOHAS and the LOPAS. And if you are in Colorado, you have a chance to find out about both this month. Perhaps you will figure out how to turn some LOPAS into LOHAS. That seems like a good challenge for marketers.

GSSE Program Update

2010-06-04T18:33:00.002-06:00

Next Billion is doing a series on educational programs and resources for students interested in market based approaches to development. They were kind enough to ask me to provide some information about our program at Colorado State. Here is a link to that post.

Data Jedi in Training

2010-05-07T11:03:00.006-06:00

Just signed up for Edward Tufte's class in Denver in June. And Asad is going to teach me how to use Hans Rosling's gapminder software this summer. Obi-Wan said "You must learn the ways of the Force." I am going to try.

Part of my self funded "Intersectional R&D" program.

Logistics, Legacy & Large Numbers

2010-05-06T12:14:00.023-06:00

I suggest to entrepreneurs that they use a simple matrix to think about scale. Basically, how will they make and market their first 1-10-100-1,000 ... 1 million products? Thinking about scaling up by log steps, basically.

Here is an example I used at IDDS last summer in Kumasi:

This gets people thinking about the next level of bringing a product to market. It is much easier to say "we will sell a million" than it is to plan how to do this.* And I am not sure it gets easier to move up a log as you get bigger. Apple sold 1 million iPads faster than it did iPhones. But will Apple find it easier to sell 10 million iPads than 1 million?

I know at Envirofit, it was hard to do each log step for our reduced emission cook stoves. We have now sold 100,000. But everyone is working just as hard (or harder) to figure out how to reach 1 million. And these aren't just iCandy for the masses. Every stove reduces pollution in a home and improves family health. Less smoke means less respiratory and vision problems (so I guess they are eyeCandy in a way).

Global markets represent very large numbers. Numbers that humans have a hard time comprehending. There is potential for much more rapid dissemination of products and services in emerging and developed markets. However, as one moves to the base of the pyramid, dissemination of ideas and products often still proceed at more "traditional" speeds. Even more successful social enterprise models, such as microfinance, have not seen broad market penetration. Cellphones and a few others are the notable exceptions.

Earlier in my career, I worked on a lot of deals. I found out that many entrepreneurs are motivated by a number. "I raised $x million." "I sold my company for $y million." I suspect that many social entrepreneurs are motived by some other number. "I saved x lives." "I moved y people out of poverty." Rare feats. But worthy goals. And worthy legacies if achieved.

Here are a few numbers that may help you think about log scales, your legacy and the logistics of serving large numbers.

- 10,000. Many products. Even maniacs. But not easy. Means you need to sell 27 a day for a year.

- 100,000. About how many Honda Civics were sold in US last year. It seems like a big number when you are selling stoves. But depressingly small compared to total market of 500 million households that cook with biomass. I can't do the math.

- 1,000,000. Number of iPads sold in April. Number of Toyota Priuses sold worldwide since launch: 1.6 million. Number of IDE treadle pumps sold in Bangladesh: 1.3 million.

- 10,000,000. How many miles George Clooney aspires to get in his latest movie. Nintendo has now sold 10 million Wii's. Grameen Bank has 8 million clients.

- 100,000,000. Annual number of beneficiaries of UN World Food Programme: 90 million. Number of polio vaccinations conducted by Rotary in India in 2009: 200 million. Number of iPods sold, so far: 220 million.

- 1,000,000,000. A billion. Worldwide there are an estimated 3 billion cell phone users. There are about 1 billion people living in extreme poverty. Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug is widely credited with saving 1 billion lives through the "green revolution" in agriculture. To sell a billion products would mean 2.7 million units... every day... for a year.

My point? To achieve a legacy, you need to work on logistics. How will you serve your first customer? Your tenth? Your thousandth?**

_________________

* My bleeps know I occasionally express frustration with oft repeated mantra of the need for "scaling up." I understand the sentiment, but perhaps better appreciate the difficulty. I would observe that "scaling up" has very little to do with talking about it.

** I recently gave a talk at the Unreasonable Institute called "Crux" where I discussed that each point of log scale up may require crux moves (think dropping into a couloir, big wave or Class V rapid) for which an entrepreneur needs to train and practice (or hire people that can do it). It might be changing supply chain to go from 1,000 to 10,000 units, or it might be growing from 10 to 100 employees. Sure there is natural talent, but Chris Sharma didn't start out on 5.15 pitches. You need to think how you will obtain your goals in order to reach them. Hope is not a strategy. (Sorry POTUS)

A Bowl of Porridge in Rwanda

2010-05-03T07:17:00.004-06:00

John Gasangwa is a student in Colorado State Univerity's GSSE program. Here is his talk to a local middle school, providing them more background for their study of Hotel Rwanda. Here is his talk about the genocide, suffering, and forgiveness.

"I am telling you my story, so that you may build on it...you can build your character, you can build your community...and you can change the world."

[38 minutes]

More IDDS 2010 Info

2010-05-01T10:03:00.005-06:00

There are 67 days until the fourth annual International Development and Design Summit starts at Colorado State University. We have picked teams, accepted participants, and are spending a lot of time getting ready. It was exciting to see Amy Smith, who started IDDS and is our grand pooh bear, get recognized in the TIME 100 this week. But all of us are even more excited by the potential of the IDDS 50- the 50 participants from around the world who will be coming to CSU for the month of July.

For those of you who are DR100 fans, which is Paul Polak's idea of getting "Design for the Other 90%" courses and programs at 100 universities around the world, we are going to have some good news on that front soon too. I will keep you posted when I can say more. But tell your favorite design, engineering and business profs to block July 28-31... just in case something is going on then.

Lots of people have been asking me about what IDDS is, so here is some more information about IDDS- I have included links to the teams' websites where possible. If it reads a little like a press release, what can I say? Oh, and I will use twitter to update with #idds10. So now, when someone asks about IDDS, I can just say: "IDDS? Just check my blog and add #idds10 in twitter app." Or not.
_____________________________________________

"Imagine a team of top engineers, doctors and scientists working on a breast milk filter to prevent the transmission of HIV from mothers to babies. Now imagine that two African women, who work with HIV patients daily in community health centers and schools, join the team. For over 3 weeks, they learn together, work together, eat together, and live together. Now imagine a community of 10 such teams recruited from around the world, working with experienced faculty, practitioners, and mentors, each tackling an important problem facing the world’s poor. Each team designing a solution involving a scalable technology and a sustainable enterprise. This is the vision for this year’s International Development Design Summit."

The International Development Design Summit (IDDS) is an annual, multi-week, intense hands-on design experience that brings together people from all over the world and all walks of life to work on projects to improve the lives of people living in poverty. We held the first summit at MIT in the summer of 2007, as well as the second in 2008. The following year, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology hosted the summit in Ghana, where we were able to practice co-creation and work in villages in the surrounding area. For this year’s event, the focus has shifted from the creation of technologies to their dissemination. Co-sponsors MIT, Franklin W. Olin College, and Cooper Perkins will be joined by the 2010 host institution, Colorado State University, in developing and implementing the curriculum.

In addition to the dissemination focus of the 2010 program, a group of prior participants and faculty will work to envision future directions for IDDS while learning first-hand about the organization, culture and operation of the summit. This effort will allow the program to respond to growing demand, reach more participants more efficiently, and build relationships with other universities.

Over the past 3 years, we have grown the IDDS community to a substantial size with more than 150 participants from dozens of countries, inspired numerous participants through design, and developed many promising prototypes and projects. In 2010, we are emphasizing the creation of ventures and the production and distribution of products. Innovations to improve the lives of people living in poverty often require new business models, whether for profit or non-profit, in addition to new technology to be successful. The following projects will be hosted at this summit to develop sustainable enterprise models and plans for product production and launch:

AYZH (India): an IDDS spin-off that disseminates appropriate technologies, including a home water filtration unit and a birthing kit for mid-wives, to improve the lives of women in India.

Fuel from the Fields (Haiti/Rwanda): a project that creates micro-enterprises that produce clean-burning cooking fuel from agricultural waste materials.

Lo Chlorine (India/East Africa): an IDDS project for producing chlorine and dispensing it accurately to provide safe drinking water.

Solar Innovations Organization (Brazil): a project founded by an IDDS organizer to use solar technology to improve the lives of the urban poor.

Running Water (Kenya): an enterprise committed to using sustainable business models to bring clean water solutions to communities in Kenya.

Just Milk (Africa): an IDDS project that seeks to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS from breastfeeding mothers to their children.

SEED (Bangladesh/India): a venture that will provide affordable irrigation products for small plot farmers in Bangladesh and India.

ABARI (Nepal): a project for a low-cost treatment of bamboo to improve its performance as a construction material.

Sollys Lighting (India/Ghana): a collaborative effort of former IDDS participants from India and Ghana to provide low-cost solar lighting to rural communities.

Hippo Roller (South Africa/Ghana): a water-carrying device to reduce the work-load required to fetch water.

Each of these projects has had some success already, and IDDS 2010 will work to help them move forward and scale up. The distinguishing feature of IDDS will remain the same as in previous summits: diverse, multi-disciplinary teams will work on projects under the mentorship of international leaders in both technology and business development. In addition to internationally regarded faculty, a number of practitioners including designers, engineers, investors, and executives from design firms, development organizations, and start up ventures will be participating. The tradition of holding community events will also continue to more broadly inform others of the role innovation can play in addressing global poverty."

Do Stories Matter Anymore?

2010-04-21T06:52:00.008-06:00

I just added links to both the Microfinance Open Book blog by David Roodman and the Innovations for Poverty Action blog (look to the right for my list of suggested blogs). Others more expert than I have weighed in on the debate of the true impact of microfinance on the poor (which I believe is a healthy one). And these two blogs are a great way to understand the debate. I'd start here.

For BOPreneurs, this debate is a useful illustration of how investor/donor requests for assessment of outcomes can impact an industry, and organizations within that industry. And it is ironic/paradoxical in its implications for stories. For many years, people in international development have recognized the power of telling stories. More broadly, entrepreneurs are encouraged to tell stories about how they, and their companies, will change the world. I encourage entrepreneurs in this blog, and in my classes, to use stories. But these inspirational stories that attract resources to your cause are also "anecdotal evidence" in the world of research. And they are suspect. The very act of telling stories is one of selection, and often, embellishment.

Microfinance organizations, and more broadly, social enterprises, need to realize that while stories inspire, they are not an end, but a means. What matters is what you do, not what you say (although I hope the two are closely related!) How do you measure the performance of your organization? I encourage entrepreneurs to pick 3 measurements ("metrics") and set goals for each over a 5 year period. This "3x5" becomes a map for your journey, as well as a way for you to track progress. Then measure and track how you do.*

At Envirofit, we have witnessed how a retrofit for a motorcycle taxi can significantly increase a driver's income and help build his family a new house, or send his children to school. But we have also struggled with resistance to stubbornly high costs and reliable parts supply. While the stories are important examples of what we can do, in the end, our success rests on our ability to sell more retrofits and more cook stoves. While the stories may engage people to support our work, they communicate our direction, but they don't measure our progress.

You need both. Good stories and good performance. And if someone criticizes your performance, or points out that stories are not the same as your performance, a good BOPreneur will take heed of Macbeth's** warning:

... Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

So don't be an idiot when it comes to the life of your organization. You are trying to do something of significance. Not just tell stories. Find a good story to tell, and then get back to work on making something people want and an organization that can deliver that to a meaningful number of people who need it.

___________

* I think some microfinance organizations do this quite well. But others could do this better. And no, I am not going to name names. A perusal of websites will be illuminating, I think.

** I am not trying to be ironic by using a quote from one of Western culture's great stories in this post.

Whazzuup?

2010-04-15T12:38:00.003-06:00

"Hey Paul... Why aren't you blogging?" "Why aren't you at Skoll World Forum?" "Why aren't you at the Yale conference on global public health?"

Dang... you are making me guilty with all I am NOT doing.

Just keeping my head down and trying to do what I have already committed to do. I try to be one of those people "who do what they said they were going to do, when they said they would do it." And sometimes that means working on stuff that is important, but not at all sexy.

Yesterday, we just finished making admissions decisions for the fourth cohort of GSSE students who will start in August. And planning for IDDS is hitting the intense phase... lots of work to do on visas, curriculum planning, raising funds, recruiting speakers. And right after IDDS, we are putting on a faculty workshop to help more schools get "Design for the Other 90%" courses.

Other cool stuff this week:

On Monday, saw Thin Air Nitrogen Solutions dry run for the big business plan competition at Rice later this week. Great to see how far they have come in past months.

On Tuesday, spent some time working on plans for NEVA- the New Economy Venture Accelarator we will be launching at CSU.

Last night, Mitesh showed me the SEED diesel irrigation pump, running smoothly, pumping 100 gpm of water. Lower cost and more fuel efficient than anything out there. He heads back to Bangladesh soon for more field testing. And, he just raised some more money.

OK, back to work.

Gambling, Dandelions, Hackers and Swimmers

2010-03-26T17:39:00.008-06:00

Here are is the written version of the comments I made today upon receiving the Olympus Innovation Award in San Francisco. I intended that there be a correlation between these notes and what I actually said. And, if any jumpers need to check back on the instructions, look below.
_________________________________

Thank you for this award. It is an honor to have the Global Social & Sustainable Enterprise program at Colorado State University recognized for its innovation. To me, it is still very much a work in progress, but an award is a good chance to stop and reflect for a minute (or five). It is meaningful that this is happening in the San Francisco Bay Area- the “breadbasket” of the Innovation Economy and a place known through its history as an outpost for the unconventional. In accepting this award, I’d like to reflect on four things: Gambling, Dandelions, Hacking, and Swimming.

Gambling

As one who has always been threatened by the idea of a career track, I have always favored serendipity and opportunism over planning and strategy. It is ironic that I teach strategy and business planning classes, really. But key to pulling this off is gambling. More precisely, to have people gamble on me, and my ideas. I want to thank them for having this vice.

-To start, the number one gambler in my life for over 30 years is my partner, Annie Hudnut. A big part of any venture is the team, and this adventure I call life has been immeasurably enriched by her support, and mostly constructive criticism.

-Three people at CSU gambled on me in 2003. Tony Frank, Ajay Menon and Bryan Willson. They provided wonderful support as I started the transition from being a business person to being an academic. A transition I hope never to complete. And they all encouraged me to start building the GSSE program.

It seems strange to be receiving an award in the company of many of the people who have inspired, guided, and gambled on me. I started teaching in 2003, and attended my first NCIIA meeting in Portland in 2006. Until that time, I was having a difficult time connecting with people who were teaching at the intersection of entrepreneurship, technology and international development. In Portland, I found my tribe. A bunch of gamblers. There are a few other gamblers I’d like to thank, that are here today:

Paul Polak- “Design for the Other 90%”. 90:10 is the Polak Ratio. He does this with me, too. Pushing, questioning and challenging me on 90% of what I say and do. And being incredibly supportive on the other 10%.

Amy Smith and the IDDS crew, for inviting me to join a community where I have learned so much.

Andy Hargadon – for opening new doors for my thinking about innovation and entrepreneurship, and always answering my phone calls.

Carl Hammerdorfer- for succumbing to a transatlantic telephonic seduction and being such an important part of the GSSE program.

Phil Weilerstein- the chief of the NCIIA tribe, who subtly pushes, cajoles, engages, inspires and occasionally funds a number of “crazy” gambles that just might change the world and the way our students look at it.

You have all gambled on me, and I appreciate it more than you can know.

Dandelions

My vision for the GSSE program, from the start, was to build a program of changemakers, and to launch 20-25 of them into the world each year. What should the GSSE mascot be? Tigers? Dragons? Lions. Well, kinda. The image I used was dandelions. Now I know, particularly around this time of year, that dandelions are not greeted with enthusiasm. Some of you will probably start pulling, or even poisoning them, in the coming weeks. But dandelions are hardy, ubiquitous, resilient and tenacious. They reproduce in hostile environments. One dandelion will soon lead to many more. That is how I view my students. If our program can recruit entrepreneurial people, and provide them with tools, experience and networks, they will spread around the world. Like dandelions, they will take root and spread. Their work will empower and inspire others, truly becoming "seed" capital for other entrepreneurial ventures.

Hacking

Schumpeter identified innovation and entrepreneurship as a process of “creative destruction.” A lot of people aren’t comfortable with that in an academic environment. They want entrepreneurs to “play nice” and like to pretend that new enterprises will fit nicely into markets and industries. This is often the way governments like to view entrepreneurs too. But it’s wrong. Entrepreneurs are revolutionaries with a business model. The good ones are looking to hack the system. To create fundamental change. To disrupt. Currently, business as usual, and capitalism itself, is under fire- climate change, social inequity, financial abuse, the rise of China's planned socialist economy. But business as usual is always under fire from entrepreneurs. That is as it should be. If you are an entrepreneur, you need to be aware of what you are going to destroy, as well as what you are going to create. Hacking, in the sense of taking advantage of systemic weaknesses in “business as usual”, is a useful approach to keep in mind. For social enterprises, rather than focusing on destroying an incumbent or competitor, entrepreneurs can focus on destroying conditions of poverty, environmental degradation and disease. Simply: figure out “what sucks” and then “what are you going to do about it.” Make that your BHAWG- your big hairy audacious and worthy goal. To me, that is the simple essence of creative destruction, innovation and entrepreneurship.

Swimming

One analogy I use is that entrepreneurship is like swimming. You can read about it, you can watch others do it, you can ask others about it. But until you jump in the water, you can’t understand it. Just as you can’t understand “wet” until you are in the water, you can’t understand entrepreneurship until you start a start up. Our GSSE program is designed to get people into the water, into the currents of innovation, into the flow of starting an enterprise. An enterprise that will make the world a better place.

So I want to end my remarks with a request to the audience on helping more people swim. Could I see the hands of people who are swimmers? That have started an enterprise, built a business, developed and sold a product? Great… now could you folks stand up… and make some swimming motions… freestyle, butterfly, you decide. OK, now, could I see hands for those of you who are on the entrepreneurial water’s edge? You are planning to jump in, you have watched, but you want a bit more guidance from people who know how to swim. Great- OK, you folks are “jumpers”. Now, here is the drill: 1) jumpers spot a swimmer. 2) some time before the end of this conference, go up to the swimmer and say “I am a jumper and I am going to jump” and tell them in 30 seconds what you are planning to do. Then ask them for advice. 3) Swimmers, provide 2-3 positive suggestions to the jumpers- ideas, connections, activities. 4) NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT- jumpers, make a commitment to your swimmer to take an action in the next week to move your venture forward, and to let them know when you have done it. Then keep them posted on your swimming.

Thank you again Olympus and NCIIA, for supporting innovation, and honoring the GSSE program at CSU. You have supported gamblers, dandelions, hackers and swimmers. And that is important.
___________
March 29 Update: Here is the press release on the awards.

Wham Bam, what's a YAM?

2010-03-21T12:03:00.009-06:00

I'm currently working with some student venture teams on market analysis and marketing plans. Sometimes there is some confusion with terms such as Target Available* Market (TAM) and Served Available Market (SAM). While these are useful concepts, the one that really matters to startups is what I call YAM.

Let me share what I hope is a "sticky" example. I have developed a wonderfully fresh, local, healthy, sweet potato pie. It is awesome. It has yummy yam filling. I want to go sell these pies through grocery stores, starting in Northern Colorado. But one of my advisors, who thinks he's a marketing wiz, has asked me about my TAM and SAM. He asserts I must know them before I go into the pie business.

Here is what I'd tell him. My TAM is "baked goods" and I need to go research national sales levels and trends in this segment. My SAM is "pies," since I am not selling cakes or breads, and I would want to look into grocery store sales, in particular those in Colorado. But this is still pretty abstract, and TAM and SAM are likely to be big numbers. Such big numbers might tempt me to take the easy way out, saying "well, if I get 3% of the pie market I will sell thousands of pies and be able to supplement my professor's income over the upcoming lean summer months." TAM and SAM will fuel my dreams of becoming the Bill Gates of pies. They will show the potential of my business in the long run. But they won't get me started selling those first 10 or 100 pies. They count a lot of people who won't really be my customer in the early days, and may never be.**

See, for my sweet potato pies, I really need to know my YAM. "Your Available Market." How many pies get sold in Northern Colorado grocery stores? How many grocery stores are there in Fort Collins that sell pies? How many pies do they sell per week? Who buys them? When? How much do they pay? Important info, and hard to get. I am going to have to go hang out in some stores. Watch who is buying pies. Ask them if they would prefer sweet potato pie to that cherry pie they just bought. Figure out what stores I'd like to be in, and how many pies I might sell in each. See if I can do some in store demos.

Then I will be able to estimate the YAM for my sweet potato pie business. And build a bottom up strategy to sell my pies. First 10. Then 100. Then 1000. It's gonna be awesome...
___________
* some prefer "addressable" to "available" for their "A" word.
** for an interesting look at the odds of finding matches out of large numbers, listen to this This American Life podcast (prologue on dating in Boston). Or see the calculations for DC dating on this blog. See, while there may be a lot of people "available" they may not really be possible dates, or sweet potato pie customers.
*** if I were selling pies over the internet, I'd try to figure out what other food sites were doing, and try to find other means of drilling down (non-geographic) to find out who really was a potential customer. Or just start a site called ePotatoHarmony.com and see who orders.

Derivative Book List

2010-03-19T15:36:00.005-06:00

People often ask me for a book list. "What should I read if I want to find out more about... social entrepreneurship, international development, innovation, policy, leadership?" Well, I don't have a great memory for names, books, movies, records... so I often blank out. And while I read quite a bit, I sure haven't read everything on these topics.

But today, I am grading book reviews by students in our "Sustainable Technology Entrepreneurship for Engineers and Scientists" class.* I figure I will share a few of the titles they read. Perhaps it will give you a few additions to your reading list:

Making Globalization Work, Joseph Stiglitz.
The Power of Unreasonable People, J. Elkington and P. Hartigan
Elusive Quest for Growth, William Easterly
Be the Solution, Michael Strong
The Soul of Capitalism, William Greider
The One Straw Revolution, M. Fukuoka
Engineering, Poverty and the Earth, G. Catalano
The Cart that Changed the World, Terry Wilson
Small is Beautiful, E.F. Schumacher
The Bottom Billion, Paul Collier
Renewable Energy Policy, Paul Komor
The Plot to Save the Planet, Brian Dumaine
Mystery of Capital, Hernando DeSoto
Reengineering Your Company: From Engineer to Manager to Leader, Howard Eisner
Wings of Fire, APJ Abdul Kalam Azad
______
*I did not come up with the name. It is descriptive. And it is also probably a winner in any buzzword bingo game.

Launching the FAB Campaign

2010-03-16T06:21:00.003-06:00

Financial Access at Birth. A crazy, audacious idea. We can't even get Americans to agree on a health care plan, yet here is a group of people proposing that every child in the world should start life with $100 in a savings account!

The idea sprang from Professor Bhagwan Chowdhry at UCLA. If you meet Bhagwan, he does not strike you as a dreamer or a schemer. Yet he shares this idea with evangelical persistence. While not a panacea to all that plagues the poor, such a simple idea could help with education or starting a small business. As pioneers in microcredit have shown, even small loans can make a big difference. Nobel prize winner Muhammad Yunus started his first village loans with $27.

Perhaps as importantly, a FAB account would be an important step toward broader financial inclusion. Access to financial services often begins with a bank account. It can also be a source of individual empowerment- leading to further savings, independence, and a source of start up funds.

If you are interested in more info, read the full proposal at Fast Company and the write up in the Economist. And if you like the idea, please take a minute to register your support at the FAB site.
_____________________
Note: Bhagwan and I are both members of the Faculty Council of the Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion International.

Symbiotic or Parasitic?

2010-03-06T18:24:00.007-07:00

I'm working with my MBA class these days on the various challenges between company founders, founders and funders, and multiple funders. Lots of permutations if you have multiple founders and several rounds of funding, and it deserves some thought in the early days of a venture. Some of our work focuses on cases, articles and discussion about the "long shadow" that early funding decisions cast into the future of the organization. I encourage entrepreneurs to think about how they can design an organization that can best balance these sometimes competing perspectives.

But while organizational design is important, the day to day relationships are also important. Last week, our class centered around the question: "can founders and funders get along" ... and eventually prosper? To many, the answer is "NO." Not just for my students, either; I hear this sentiment from many who are interested in being entrepreneurs, and from entrepreneurs as well. Yet when pushed for examples, one discovers more legend than fact. Somehow, it has become widely believed that investors are bad for ventures. Many people seem to think that investors want to come in and steal the company away from the founders. I think this is a rare case, and usually occurs after a "series of unfortunate events" (as the saying goes).

What is the effect of this "venture legend"? If an entrepreneur starts out with this mindset, might they create a self fulfilling prophecy? Why would a good investor invest in a venture team that views them with suspicion? To paraphrase, "to make an investor trustworthy, you must first give them trust." How can founders and funders get along?

Here is my advice for start ups that require outside investment.* An investor is paying you do what you want do more than anything else in the world. (And if this isn't true, your likelihood of funding, or success, seems remote to me). At the same time, you need to create value and share some of it with your investors. As others before me have advised, think about getting money as "hiring an investor." And, just as with any new hire, work to build a trusting, informed, respectful, mutually beneficial relationship from the beginning. Avoid the trap of seeing an investor as a potential parasite, sucking your cash and resources, intent on taking over the host. With your investors, focus much more on offense (how they can help your venture) than on defense (how they can harm your venture).** From identifying potential investors, to meetings, to negotiating terms, to building your board. Offense.

The entrepreneurs I respect build a symbiotic ecosystem around their company, including their relationships with investors, suppliers, employees and co-founders. As with many systems, these interconnected relationships seem more resilient when the inevitable set backs do occur.
__________________
*You may have skipped over this clause. Don't. Deciding on whether you need outside capital, and the form it takes (debt or equity) is one of the more important decisions you will make as founders.
** Note I did not say "don't play defense." I said focus more on offense.

5 Steps to be H.E.R.O.ic

2010-02-04T15:17:00.006-07:00

Actually, Tina,* we do need another hero. A lot of them. And we need the right kind of heros.

I am talking about H.E.R.O.s: those Human and Environmentally Regenerative** Organizations that do good by cleaning up bad, so that no matter how much they grow, the earth and human society are better off.

Imagine enterprises whose goods are good, and whose services serve. Who produce clean water like Water Health International. Who produce clean air like Envirofit. Who produce healthier children like JustMilk and A-Z Textiles. Who produce better sanitation like Ecotact. Who produce sight like Aravind Eye Hospitals and VisionSpring. Who produce cleaner fuels. Sustainable fisheries and forests. Better educated children.

I like to imagine enterprises that focus not on return on capital, but on return OF capital. Back to the ecosystem. Enterprises that replenish and restore natural capital, human capital and financial capital. Cradle to Cradle capital. Maybe I am a dreamer, but I believe that we need more H.E.R.O.s, and I spend a lot of time working with H.E.R.O.ic entrepreneurs. They are out there. And here are my observations on what it takes to start being H.E.R.O.ic:

Pick one opportunity. This is your BHAWG. Your quest. Phrase it as a question.*** Look for bright spots****to guide you. Imagine sharing your idea with MLK, Gandhi, Mandela. What would they say?

Ask two questions. What sucks? What are YOU going to DO about it? The second question is key. Otherwise, you are a whiner. Not an entrepreneur.

Solve three S's with your business model. It needs to be sustainable, scalable and have a significant impact. Sustainable means you can afford to stay in business, and have a symbiotic, rather than extractive, relationship with communities and the environment. Otherwise, when you scale, you fail. If you pull it off, you will begin a self reinforcing upward spiral of goodness. Call it a tipping point (if you like Malcolm Gladwell) or a forest fire (if you are an educational arsonist or a network theoretician).

Build your business on four foundations. Find an attractive market. Bake in your competitive advantage (that which makes your solution much better than alternatives). Recruit a team with a superior capacity to execute the plan and improvise when needed. Create value and share it with stakeholders (you must first make something that matters out of nothing (an idea), then make more and more).

Build a network based on five deals. Customers. Founders. Co-workers. Suppliers. Investors.

Got it? Then get going. You too can be H.E.R.O.ic!

_________

*From Thunderdome . In which Mel was a hero. Right?

** Substitute "Restorative" if you like the word more.

*** Shamelessly borrowed from Paul Graham's essay: Ideas for Start Ups

**** I am excited by Heath brothers upcoming book "Switch" which addresses the issue of not looking for problems to solve, but bright spots to be copied. Here's an excerpt.

Big Questions

2010-01-23T17:04:00.011-07:00

There are a lot of big questions out there. For some, I have no answers. For some, I believe I at least have some insight. And I use those to organize* my MBA course.

So, here are some biq questions about innovation and new ventures that I plan to ask some 300 MBAs this semester:

1. What on earth is an idea worth?
2. What do start up teams do?**
3. How do you make a business model?
4. Bake it in or bolt it on?
5. Can you have it all- value, values and valuation?
6. Can founders and funders get along?
7. Are start ups pretty when they are born?
8. Can you keep your job while you start a new venture?
9. Investors- deal or no deal?
10. How do start up investors control risk? (and does it work?)
11. What are the leading causes of start up death?
12. Should entrepreneurs be acquisitive?
13. How do you pitch in the big leagues?
_______________
* Some of my students assert this is a verb that should not be used to describe my classes. These students mistake the verb "organize" with the adjective "organized." One describes the effort put into the undertaking, the other its result. So, I think I can use the verb. And, the adjective is not one for which I strive.
** The question some students ask me during this class is: "why are we watching South Park in business school?"

Ending Poverty (period)

2010-01-08T21:49:00.015-07:00

It seems like ending poverty has become quite fashionable in recent years. Movie stars, politicians, and economists are all getting in on it. No doubt, it's a great sound bite, and who could possibly criticize it? For much of recent history, it has been articulated as goal of any modern society.

As humans moved from rural agricultural societies to urban industrial societies, wealth began to be created at levels that made the elimination of poverty possible, at least theoretically. Inspired, we have had "wars on poverty" and much important literature, as well as social and religous movements, have been aimed at this worthy goal. We have seen the launch of the UN's Millennium Development Goals to halve poverty by 2015. We have seen books with titles like "The End of Poverty" (with a forward by Bono) and "Creating a World without Poverty" (just out in paperback).

Well this bothers me.

What's wrong with me? How can I be against ending poverty? Don't I agree with Dr. Yunus's hope that someday our grandchildren will have to go to a museum in order to see what poverty was like?

Sure. It is a grand sentiment: the eradication of poverty, period. But this grand sentiment can have a pernicious effect on entrepreneurs and activists. Billions of people are in poverty, and no one is going to lift all of them out of poverty. Perhaps poverty will always exist.

So, as a budding entrepreneur or activist... what if your venture is only going to help a few villages, perhaps by providing a cleaner source of drinking water? Should you even bother? Surely, it isn't fair to people in neighboring villages who don't get clean water. And, heck, maybe clean water isn't the biggest problem, maybe you need to build schools too. Wise people will advise you to "scale up." Others will tell you that you need to have systemic solutions. Otherwise, you just aren't a player.

One of the people I respect most in the field, Paul Polak (who wrote "Out of Poverty") is fond of saying "if you can't lift 1 million people out of poverty with your idea, don't bother." Now, I know Paul pretty well, and I think he says this with a wink. He is being provocative. Encouraging entrepreneurs to think big, to consider how they could scale up. But I think (hope?) that he has a lot of respect for entrepreneurs that will educate 10,000 girls, or help 1,000 midwives make a living by providing healthier birthing environments.

For better or worse, I hear apparently well meaning people repeating these "don't bother" words like they were engraved in stone and found on a mountain. Who wants to invest in a small village water project? How will we eliminate GLOBAL poverty with these many small efforts? Listening to TED talks and experts, I keep hearing of all these big ideas to eliminate poverty. Woe unto any entrepreneur who wants to figure things out for a while before they talk about scale. The message seems to be: Better to go BIG and be wrong, than go little and get it right.

I disagree. I'd like the donor community to start seeing themselves as community gardeners: encouraging thousands of entrepreneurial seeds to sprout in their plots. Perhaps with each focusing on a few crops, but trying lots of varieties. Sharing their seeds from successful plantings with others who have similar soils and climates. I am pretty sure that monoculture, even from benevolent souls, is not the answer to our global challenges. We are eager to find the super productive and adaptive crop, and transplant it all around the world. To date, these transplants have had little success.

I am skeptical of the large scale efforts, and attempts at rapid scaling. I certainly understand the entrepreneur's propensity to see the limitless impact of their idea and their desire for speedy implementation (these are personality quirks from which I occasionally suffer). A few years ago, word got around that to be attractive to VC's, entrepreneurs had to offer a certain package ("$50 million in revenue in 5 years"). Soon, every business plan hit this number. Then that wasn't enough, and business plan inflation ensued. I am not sure this resulted in new ventures growing any faster, although it may have eliminated some honest entrepreneurs. I am afraid that budding social entrepreneurs are being lead to believe that they need to hit similar numbers to find capital.*

Yes, I hope that we can end poverty, but I believe it will happen one family at a time, one business at a time, one community at a time. The path of human development is a frustratingly slow one. To figure out how to improve income or health for a thousand people is worthy work, and should be celebrated, even if it doesn't "scale up" to millions. The venture that has served 1,000 people has a better chance at scaling than the idea that has served none.

Loren Eisley's starfish fable is instructive. I don't plan to invest my money or my time in ventures that claim they will save all the starfish on the beach (often while standing on a bluff above the beach, sipping chardonnay). I will spend my time on those ventures that are down on the beach, have saved a few starfish already, are dedicated to continuing their work and have a knack for teaching others to save starfish. Period.

_______________

*Kudos to Ian Fiske of the William James Foundation Business Plan Competition, who asks evaluators to measure the ventures against their self-defined measures of success, rather than some artificial hurdle of triple bottom line success.

Charity

2009-12-31T16:52:00.006-07:00

As many of you know, I am a pro-business kind of guy. Entrepreneurship... capital... new business models... sustainable product design- these are the topics I write about with respect to tackling the challenges of the BOP. My bleeps know I also believe there is a role for charity (see my "Matrix" post).

So, what does my family do for charity? Where do we "invest"? What organizations do we support?

We focus our charity in 5 areas, which I list below, along with the specific organizations to which we gave, and my twitter length rationale. Careful readers will also note that many of these organizations are BOPreneurs, or directly support BOPreneurs. But not all. It's a theme, but not a screen.

1) Environment: because we can't live without it

-Nature Conservancy: an innovative leader in conservation; preserves threatened ecosystems; builds strong, sustainable local partnerships.

-Envirofit International: reduces air pollution with energy efficient products in developing world. Has sold almost 100,000 improved cookstoves in India, which use less fuel for cooking and make for healthier homes.

2) Health: because health is the cornerstone of development; it's hard to work or go to school if you are sick or dead.

-Rotary Foundation: Working to eradicate polio and build infrastructure (schools, clinics, libraries, water systems), a service organization of which I am proud to be a part.

-One World Health: Developing affordable medicines for the developing world, a non-profit pharmaceutical company.

-Doctors Without Borders: Nobel Award winning org who perhaps best fits the needs of delivering aid in times of crisis. Truly inspiring work.

-VisionSpring*: VisionSpring is working on innovative, scalable models to help people see. The answer is simple, inexpensive eye glasses, but the implementation is difficult. Vision problems are common reason for loss of livelihood.

3) Social/International Development: Admittedly, a catch all category. But basically for organizations that are working on innovative, primarily private sector approaches.

-Ashoka: they coined the phrase "social entrepreneur" decades ago, and now support thousands of them around the world. An army of change-makers (and quite a few BOPreneurs).

-Acumen Fund*: A non-profit venture capital fund. We like to invest in oxymorons. But seriously, they are breaking new ground in financing BOPreneurs and priming the social enterprise sector for investment. Seems like I should pitch in.

-One Acre Fund: a bottoms up approach to helping over 10,000 small farmers "grow their way out of hunger." A BOPreneur for sure.

-Ayllu Initiative*: a start up venture in Brazil, working on an innovative approach to launching and scaling social enterprises. I used them for an exam question, and so many students liked what they do, I thought I should make a donation.

4) Education: We are fans. Much positive change comes from education. Of course, we are "contributing" less to this category now that all our kids are out of college!

-CSU College of Business: Weird. Why give money to your employer? Well, we think CSU is doing some of the more innovative things in public education and sustainability. Land Grant University 2.0, baby.

-Central Asia Institute: building schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But don't read my tweet, read the book. Mortenson was a BOPreneur before I knew what one was.

-Bainbridge Graduate Institute*: a leader in sustainable business education- "we are changing business for good." We support their scholarship fund for enhancing diversity.

-Vittana: another start up venture I used in my exam. They are the Kiva of student loans for BOP. I like that. I hope they go BIG.

By the way, we have stopped giving to the schools we attended. Each year, we consider it, but with limited funds, they don't make the cut.

5) Local Charities: there are so many needs in our own communities.

-Colorado Combined Campaign- Larimer Co. United Way- we think of them as a portfolio manager for investments in local non-profits.

-Larimer County Food Bank

I hope that by sharing our choices with you, we inspire you to give to those organizations you think are doing good work. Really, every donation counts!

Happy New Year!

_______________

*indicates new organizations we began supporting in 2009

What if?

2009-12-14T11:28:00.005-07:00

What if? This is one of my favorite two word questions.* An artist's question. A builder's question.

How might we...? This are my favorite three words to start a question. Implies a team. To me, a team provides fuel for any innovative spark I am lucky enough to have. And it implies a problem to be overcome.

Who could help us? A really good four word question to ask.

How do we get started? An essential five word question.

Coming up with new ideas and teams is simple. But not easy.

Really? [a one word question].

_________

Of course, bleeps, "What Sucks?" is also one of my favorite questions, and it comes before "what if ?" But "what if ?" works in even the politest of company.

Is it Right to Have the Poor Pay?

2009-11-28T09:30:00.009-07:00

As someone involved in companies that are based on the idea of attacking global problems of pollution and health, I am deeply interested in the issue of whether it is "right" to have the poor pay for products. And I have spent much time trying to find innovative business models that create societal value and allocate it between customers, communities, investors and employees in a way that makes impactful solutions scaleable and sustainable.

In addition to my teaching, I have been quite involved in two companies that are based on the principle that the best way to achieve social good is through market based approaches. Envirofit, which designs, manufactures and sells cook stoves to poor people in India is a non-profit company, dedicated to developing environmentally friendly products so that poor people can lead healthier and more productive lives. Inviragen is a for-profit biotech company developing vaccinces for developing world infectious diseases in markets that traditional pharmaceutical company R&D has ignored. Is this the "right" approach to tackling these global challenges?

Some people have objected that it isn't "right" to have the poor pay for products and services on ethical grounds. They argue that for those who are wealthy to charge someone who is poor violates an ethical norm. That humans should provide charity for religous or altruistic reasons.

More recently, people have started to argue that having the poor pay isn't "right" because it violates rules of economic incentives. That, as Rachel Glennerster of MIT's Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)* states in this month's Fast Company: "Charging small amounts is the exact wrong thing to do" to tackle issues facing the poor.

The data are several years old, as is the debate (I first blogged on it in March 2008). But with J-PAL now being featured in Fast Company, and one of its members, Esther Duflo recently being awarded a MacArthur "genius" grant, I am concerned about the ramifications of these catchy sound bites.

J-PAL studies are useful for what they show, but my concern is that their findings are now being applied with too broad a brush. Glennerster's comment is such an example. Perhaps she added caveats to her statement that didn't make it past the Fast Company editor's desk. Both examples are in the field of public health, an area where the societal and community effects are compelling for broad measures. But standing alone, the statement is dangerously overbroad.

As one J-PAL researcher put it in the Fast Company article, "it's more satisfying to answer small questions well than big questions badly." Yet statements such as Glennerster's seem to indicate a willingness to answer the bigger questions with limited data. While most of J-PAL's studies seem to be on government funded aid programs (see Duflo's suggested "Best Buys" to achieve UN Millennium Development Goals), their broader policy prescriptions don't seem to have boundaries. To apply this "pricing model" to the many social enterprises working today in Base of Pyramid markets would be foolish. Not only is it OK to have the poor pay for goods and services, it may often be necessary in order to have these goods and services exist.

To me, Glennerster's comment speaks to only one side of the equation, that of demand. Yes, people will use more mosquito nets if they are free, or get more infants vaccinated if they receive lentils. But that assumes that someone is willing to supply the nets for free, or buy the lentils to accompany the vaccines. In a small trial, this charity work can be done. The sponsor can buy a few kilos of lentils along with the vaccines. But at the massive scale required to really solve some of these problems, I am skeptical. Even the Gates Foundation with its billions cannot buy all the nets, vaccines, cook stoves, treadle pumps and school fees required to lift the world from poverty. With or without lentils. To use the fashionable term these days- charity doesn't "scale." What does scale is markets (and economists know this, don't they?). That is what has made the 4 C's ubiquitous in our world: Coke, condoms, cigarettes and cell phones. While I don't view markets as a panacea for every global challenge, I do think they are indispensable in development.

As my regular readers know, my argument is more nuanced. In some areas, where the problems are of a crisis nature, and governments are weak, charity is the most workable business model. Where problems are more chronic, such as vaccinations or education, but governments are weak and therefore unable or unwilling to provide such public goods, then enterprising, market based approaches offer a more sustainable business model. And these are typically driven by customers paying for their goods and services. Sometimes, the business model is purely commercial. Sometimes, as with Envirofit or International Development Entrprises, it is a hybrid, where donations are used to subsidize product or market development. Other enterprises which have the poor pay include Vision Spring, Grameen Bank, and Kickstart. Even A-Z Textiles, a mosquito net manufacturer. When J-PAL argues that incentives work for the poor, they also need to remember that incentives work for producers. Yet they are curiously silent on who will make the free or subsidized goods and services to support the policies they propose.

To be sure, the actions of A-Z, Vision Spring, or even Grameen Bank are still small. I don't claim that there is any one path to reducing poverty and improving public health, education and the environment. Charity and "free" products will be required in some instances, but so will having the poor pay.

While I am pleased that J-PAL is bringing new approaches and insights to the field of international development, I encourage them to remember that the field has humbled many with big new ideas. Most tools are useful only in specific situations, even economic tools (like randomized trials). To dispel myths is important work, but broad statements of general application begin to build new myths that may be just as mistaken.

The title to this post is purposely provocative. My answer would be "much of the time, but not always." Not a very good sound bite for a reporter. But it sounds "right" to me.

_________________
*NOTE: I have recommended J-PAL's work to BOPreneurs. And I found one of their recent studies on the impacts of microfinance to be useful for some of my work in that field.

Update 11-30: NextBillion's Francisco Noguera posted on the Fast Company article and this post. Thank you to those who have commented on this post and for providing more examples. Also, William Easterly recently blogged on another aspect of randomized controlled trials, noting they will "only EVER be available for a small sample of aid projects."

AYZH and Ears on TEDIndia

2009-11-26T08:00:00.003-07:00

The following guest post is from Zubaida Bai, a graduate student in Colorado State's Global Social & Sustainable Enterprise program and TEDIndia fellow. She is hard at work launching her social enterprise, AYZH (link below) and is definitely a BOPreneur-in-training. I have no doubt that with her vision and passion, she will have a lifetime of impact. Here are her reflections on her time at TEDIndia.

It has now been a week after TEDIndia and I am still trying to absorb the impact of my experience. I met entrepreneurs who were distinctive horizontally as well as vertically on the business spectrum; a Chef, a race car designer, a monkey explorer, a humorous website designer, a blogger, a health worker, an artist, a film maker, a chief ethical officer… the list is endless. As I stood admiring this exceptional group of individuals, I was unaware that among this cream of the crop, were two individuals whose work would touch me the most; Sunitha Krishnan, a woman who has dedicated her life to saving young girls from the terror of Human Trafficking in India and Babar Ali, a 16 year old headmaster running a school without walls for over 2000 children in Bangladesh.

The first impression on arriving at the Infosys Campus was of awe as we passed walked through a myriad of architecture from around the world. As I sat in my room late that night going through the day’s events, I realized the artificial atmosphere such landscapes created and how easy it was to get carried away. That night, I made a decision of not letting this atmosphere sway me but learn from it and enhance my experience as I interact with such a large gathering of amazing individuals over the next 3 days.

Within the first hour of the next morning as I went about meeting new people, I knew I had made the right decision of leaving my assumptions and inhibitions behind. Each interaction demonstrated a unique effort at making the world a better place precious for life. As the day progressed, on one side I was humbled beyond words with each contact I made on the other side I saw these individuals were so very similar to me, driven by their desire, energy and passion to make a difference to a burning need in the world.

The TED experience reinforced my belief, that what matters is not how big or small your contribution is to the problems around the world. The key is to identify these problems and make an effort to solve these problems. With AYZH – Technology Solutions for Women, I have begun to tread the path of empowering women through affordable health and livelihood products. I am supported my expectional individuals and entities in India and USA in this initiative and together I am sure we CAN and WILL make our contribution.

I have to admit that I once felt "how silly is it to spend $2500 for a conference and watch a talk in person which you can watch online for free?" But I realized this is what makes a life changing TEDific experience. If and when I can afford, I would most certainly make the investment of time and money to go to many more TED conferences.

I have been talking about all good things. Yes, there are dark sides too but the bright ones cover it up and I bet I won’t even remember the negatives. I am in a sense missing the endless days, starting at 7 am with exchanges about ‘this is what I do’ and ending with informal late night interactions about ‘this is who I am’.

Finally, it was also great to hear from C. K. Prahalad talk about “learning disabilities” of organizations and from Thulasiraj Ravilla about Lions Aravind Institute of Community Ophthalmology after having learnt about them at GSSE. It was also exciting to see the GSSE theme echoing throughout the conference of making social businesses sustainable and viable.

Bonus Pack: My two "must watch" picks for TED Talks: Hans Rosling and Sunitha Krishnan.

Come and Get IDDS

2009-11-24T09:33:00.006-07:00

Limited time offer for aspiring BOPreneurs:

The International Development Design Summit is now accepting applications from project teams with working prototypes for products focused on addressing the needs of communities in the developing world.

From the website:

Whereas previous versions of IDDS focused on creating prototypes, IDDS 2010 will focus on turning prototypes into products and project teams into ventures with business plans. Dissemination and marketing will be significant aspects of this summit. We will also focus on what happens after IDDS and how teams will continue working on ventures after the summit. In short, participants will have the opportunity to explore the many challenges of entrepreneurship and technology dissemination for developing markets with a diverse group of people from around the globe. By the time IDDS ends, you can expect to have developed a richer understanding of ways to disseminate your innovation at scale, a plan to move your venture forward, and a broader network of people who can assist you with both.

We have been recruiting faculty and guests and can GUARANTEE that those teams that participate will have an opportunity to significantly advance their ventures. Faculty from MIT, Olin, Colorado State, KNUST, UC Davis, and Bainbridge Graduate Institute. Guests from Cooper-Perkins, IDEO, Acumen Fund, IDE, NCIIA, Stanford, Envirofit, Sprig and Hummdinger. The goal is a collection of collaborative energy from around the world focused on dissemination- people who are interested in taking action and moving forward with new approaches.

So here's what you need to do to get started. Download the form. Fill it out. Send it in.

May the force be with you.

Impatience is a Virtue

2009-11-22T21:09:00.008-07:00

My bleeps know I am not long on patience, particularly when it comes to metrics. Not so long ago, I ranted a bit about how incredibly bored I am with this topic. Since then, I have been to two conferences, where, unfortunately, it reared its head. The most recent of these, this past Friday, was entitled "Change that Counts" and had a definite metrics and measurement tilt.

Don't worry. I am not going to rant some more about metrics.

Instead, I am going to poke at the issue of "patient capital." This seems to be an emerging thread in a lot of conversations I have with young entrepreneurs. In part, I think, because of the good work of folks at Investors Circle, Acumen Fund and others. But I am a bit worried about the concept.

See, it is the nature of capital to be impatient. It seeks a return, just as salmon swim upstream or birds migrate. To ask it to be patient is to change its nature. Now, if I wanted to fit in, I would start to wax about how this transformation will lead to great environmental and social change. Indeed, to transform capitalism and our world. Cue tweeting birds and global peace. More offers to get me to sit on panels at conferences. Yup, there are many advantages to transforming capitalism.

But no. I don't want to fit in. I want to fix stuff. To get stuff done. And I think that impatient capital is more likely to change the world. I believe that time is of the essence, and I want impatience. When you go to the emergency room, are you a patient patient? No, you want to see things happen, stat! Worried about poverty, environmental degradation, infectious disease, climate change? Want to be a social entrepreneur? Then get going. And hire capital that will help you get going.

And hiring capital is the way you should think about it. Whether human, social or financial capital, look for common purposes, and one of those purposes should be impatience. I want to hire impatient people. I want impatient investors. To be mission focused DOES NOT mean you can't be impatient. In fact, I believe all triple bottom line focused organizations should be MUCH MORE IMPATIENT than their more traditional competitors. Entrepreneurs throughout history have won on hustle, not patience. Persistence, not pondering.

An example of a social enterprise based on respecting the impatience of capital? Kiva. Some believe it's key innovation was connecting microloan borrowers directly to lenders. Important for sure. But they are built on the idea that you get paid back by the person you help. I think that is the core innovation. Kiva scratches my charitable itch, but it also lets me reuse my capital by reinvesting it in another venture. This is harnessing the nature of my capital better than a more traditional non-profit. My capital pushes for better reporting, more transparency, better entrepreneurs. And more capital is coming into this system. I doubt this would be the case if the default rate were 50% and I was really "giving away" 50% of my capital.

To be clear, if an investor wants to advertise that they offer patient capital, that's fine. Let them compete for deal flow. But for the entrepreneurs, be careful. Be sure "patient capital" doesn't make you patient. Don't think that taking patient capital relieves you from the obligation to think about the things that are important to capital: returns, time horizon, exit strategies, milestones. These are the things that will drive your team to think about impact, sustainability and scale... and to get going about changing things.

Don't believe what your parents and teachers told you. For entrepreneurs, impatience is a virtue.

Update 11/23: Yasmina Zaidman from Acumen blogged today on "Patient Capital- A Bridge Over Troubled Waters." I commented that investors need to emphasize that patient capital does not mean complacent capital.

Update 11/27: Yasmina's reply was typically thoughtful: "If there’s one thing we look for in our entrepreneurs and our colleagues it’s impatience. But Patient Capital now stands as an alternative to the “get rich quick” approach that has gutted our economy and our planet, leaving massive inequality in its wake. So, we envision a patience that enables market forces to play a role even when the dividends take longer to materialize, and are as much social as they are financial. And we aim to get there are quickly as possible, but not so fast that we continue to leave two thirds of the world behind. It’s a daily conversation to explain that this approach requires even more rigor, urgency and commitment to sheer excellence than EITHER straight business or straight charity, but it’s a conversation worth having."

Conflicted on Conferences

2009-10-24T14:20:00.010-06:00

There are a lot of conferences. And more and more are in the fields of social entrepreneurship, clean technology and green business. Just this weekend, one could attend Poptech in Maine, Social Venture Network in La Jolla or the Energy Justice Program in Boulder. Is this a good thing? What is all this conferring doing to make the world a better place? Here are a few issues that concern me.

1. It's hard to keep up. In the room in Boulder are people who would also be good participants in Maine. Some of the conversations seem to be similar. And we could sure use Esther Duflo in our conversations on energy justice here (maybe next year?). Are we fracturing the chance to get things done by having concurrent conferences and lots of conferences?

2. Inclusion. Always an issue. But it makes me nervous to sit in a room with a lot of people from USA and Europe talking about solving problems in Africa, India, etc. I don't think this is immoral, but I do think it is ineffective if you want to look at action instead of conferring.

3. It is a lot of carbon. At Poptech today, Michael Pollan said that "a vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a meat eater in a Prius."* But what about a vegan that jets around the globe going to conferences to tell people about carbon footprints? (And no, I didn't ride my bike down to Boulder today and I'm not a vegan.)

4. It is a lot of conferring. But not much doing. This is my biggest concern. Conferences seem to attract "idea people" who love to share ideas and network with each other. It is the nature of conferences is to encourage people to talk about BIG IDEAS. But BIG IDEAS are often HARD IDEAS and once everyone heads home, not much seems to happen. This is an intellectual waste, isn't it?

How could we redesign conferences to actually accomplish change? A few ideas...

1. The International Development Design Summit intentionally targets "prototypes, not papers." The Clinton Global Initiative assumes participants will make financial commitments to the programs it spotlights. As the CGI site states, "After attending thousands of meetings during his career in which urgent needs were discussed but no action was taken to solve them, President Clinton saw a need to establish a new kind of meeting with an emphasis on results." Perhaps our Energy Justice Conference could have faculty commit to add energy justice to at least one of their classes, and have students pledge to do one of their class projects on the topic. Organizers, ask yourself: "what could my conference DO? what happens after the final session?"

2. Maybe we should call them "creater-ences" or "do-ances" to emphasize creation and doing, instead of conferring. (I once visited a company that didn't have conference rooms, they had decision rooms. Cool culture.)

3. Change up the schedules. Too much old school, one-way lectures. These are not "conversations," no matter how often the organizers overuse the word. Social media may change this. As more people multi-task, perhaps the discussions will become more robust and more two-way. But instead of defaulting to the virtual world, how about having multiple types of sessions, not just lectures and panels.

4. Leg chains for keynote speakers. A lot of the "biggie" speakers are hit and run. Great message: fly in, fly through your powerpoints, meet with a few elites, fly out. Don't spend time with students, don't visit a few small companies. Very inspiring (NOT). Conference organizers, why not ask your speakers to commit to staying and engaging?

I blogged about this a few years ago, and still agree with myself on this topic.

___________________________

Addendum 10/30: Thanks for the helpful comments and emails. Here are a few nuggets of interest, or perhaps portents of change?

From Martin Montero (@montero), this link to Dan Palotta's HBR blog on a "Change the World" conference. On Guy Kawasaki's Alltop Good site, I discovered this open source conference for women entrepreneurs. And see Lars's comment regarding changes to Social Venture Network conference agenda.

*Evidently, Michael Pollan didn't do his calculations on vegans very accurately. Ooops. Careful Mr. Pollan- we expect you to research your tasty soundbites, so they don't leave us feeling queasy after we have consumed them.

Addendum 10/31: I will be at BYU's Conference on Economic Self Reliance this coming week (Nov 5-6). Will work on making sure there are some outputs for my session on "Building on BOPportunities: Strategies for Start-Ups."

A BIG Deal

2009-10-11T14:05:00.005-06:00

In 2003, two guys (with whom I used to work) started a company. No big deal. Happens all the time.

At first, the company looked at using some new vaccine delivery technology. Both guys had other jobs. But they wanted to build a company together. They had a start on the WHO, but not really the WHAT yet.

But they were fortunate. One of them lived in a town where the Centers for Disease Control has laboratories. And where the land grant university has a number of scientists working on infectious diseases in the developing world. And a few non-profits that were working on products and services to improve public health in the developing world. And it probably didn't hurt that there were a few good local breweries to support "beer storming" ideas. An idea for a company began to evolve.

And these guys were knowledgeable. They knew about doing research. They knew about drug development. They had worked at top research universities and in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. They had a lot of respect for what the drug companies did. But they also wondered about what the drug companies didn't do. One thing the drug companies didn't do was develop many drugs or vaccines for the billions of people in the developing world. Their business models didn't work for these markets. Their pipelines were focused on the diseases of the affluent- expensive medicines and treatments for chronic diseases. The developing world was a place for off-patent medicines or the occasional charitable venture, not a place to target R&D efforts.

So these guys thought about how they could build a company that created products for those billions of people. They studied the markets. They spoke with early leaders like One World Health. Could they do research on new vaccines? Instead of expensive treatments, could they develop affordable vaccines that would prevent disease. Could they develop products that would also work for the middle class in these countries? For travelers to these countries?

Well, from those ideas, they started building a company. Global from the start. To develop vaccines to fight infectious diseases. Top quality research, top quality manufacturing. Partnerships with clinics around the world. Picking diseases, such as dengue fever, which did not receive much attention from other companies, but had huge impacts on public health. A big idea, maybe. But still not a big deal.

At first, they got told they were well intentioned, but crazy. Why develop products for these less developed markets? Why develop vaccines, which don't have a continued revenue stream? Why move manufacturing outside Western countries? But they kept plugging away. And they began to win a few awards (Colorado's most promising biotech Business Plan in 2005). They raised some start up capital from friends (including me). They were awarded some grant funding from the NIH. With each step, they looked a bit less crazy. They added a few more smart, well-intentioned people to the team. A good idea, good people. But still not a big deal.

They knew that bringing a vaccine to market takes tens of millions of dollars. That was going to require venture capital, and venture capital requires competitive returns. In 2006, the company decided it was time to start raising money to start building the company. They pitched and pitched, making the case that these markets and diseases were attractive and that the company could profit from preventing these diseases. To put it diplomatically, they got a polite reception, but not an enthusiastic one. Professional investors asked some of the same tough questions about the markets and vaccine based business models.

Over time, the company stayed afloat, and the perceptions of this company, the attractiveness of its target markets and its business model, began to change. At several points, the situation looked dicey. But these guys, and their employees and partners, persevered. In 2008, they found a lead investor. Got a term sheet. But then the global financial crisis made it tough to fill out the group of investors. They survived and kept working. Which was a good thing, but not a big deal.

Finally, last week, more than three years after they started working on Series A and after over a hundred investor presentations, these guys, and their company Inviragen, closed the round. $15 million dollars. Enough to take the company through the early clinical trials of several vaccines. You can read more about the company at their website. And more about the Series A investment, and merger with Singapore based Singvax, in their press release.

So, why do I think this is a big deal? It's not because of the money (although that is certainly helpful). It is because of whose money it is. Sometimes you hear an entrepreneur say "all money's green; who cares who the investor is." Well, those entrepreneurs are wrong. It matters who your investors are. And Inviragen's investors are top notch biotech VC's. Experienced. Main stream. Connected to a network of people who know how to bring products to market. They found Inviragen to be a compelling investment.

This is one of the first of what I hope to be many deals where mainstream investors see the benefits of starting high tech ventures that serve global markets, including the poor. And I hope that it shows that the drive for attacking global public health challenges can be very profitable for investors. That the value they create can attract top private capital firms. In fact, I hope it shows that the financial returns required of this venture will drive the successful commercialization of several vaccines, saving thousands and thousands of lives. And yes, I think that is a BIG deal.

Congratulations to Dan Stinchcomb, Jorge Osario and the rest of the Inviragen team, and best of luck in continuing your worthy work.
___________
Note: I am not an unbiased source. I have known Dan and Jorge for years, and was an early investor in their company. I also served as a director of the company until recently.

3 Billion Served?

2009-09-22T14:21:00.010-06:00

When I was a kid, the McDonald's signs kept me updated on how many billions had been served. The year I was born (1958), in it's 10th year of business, it hit 100 million. When I turned 5, McDonalds hit 1 billion. About the time I reached 6 feet, it reached 10 billion burgers. By 1984, when I graduated from law school, McD's reached 50 billion. A few years later it stopped counting.

What does this have to do with BOPreneurs? Well, this simple metric illustrates a great example of scaling up an international business. Jim Collin's writes about the flywheel effect of gradual, increasing momentum in a business. For McDonalds, part of this came from potent branding and marketing to a newly mobile population. But the other part came from a solid franchise model. This let them experience logarithmic growth without exploding, and allowed them to leverage other people's human and financial capital.

Yesterday, Jason Fairbourne of BYU's Economic Self Reliance Center, visited CSU to talk about his work in applying franchise principles to BOP markets. Fairbourne persuasively made the case that this is a promising approach for both large companies and growing ventures. Borrowing from his research on companies such as VisionSpring and Fan Milk, as well as his own work with a new start up in Ghana, Fairbourne proposes a straightforward framework for "micro-franchising."

1. Find a Successful BOP Business. He didn't say this was easy, and it takes getting out into the field. You won't find these at conferences or in a library. On the other hand, since many of the businesses in BOP are hawkers, you might be successful by looking at "businesses that aren't hawkers." Or not exactly hawkers. It takes a little observation to see that Fan Milk is not just hawkers selling yogurt or ice cream in Ghana, but a sophisticated, profitable organization with low turnover of its bicycle based franchisees. If you are a BOPreneur, microfranchising is not your strategy, but it is a tactic you can use once you have proven your business model.

2. Systematize it. What is the venture's business model? What are leverage points that come with growth? Look at issues of branding, supply chain logistics, territory, contracts and operations manual. The idea is to remove the "creative burden" required for a new entrepreneurial venture, and move to a system which a manger can operate. By doing this, the franchisor reduces risks and enhances income generation for the franchisee. Note that Fairbourne isn't advocating for the demise of entrepreneurship in the BOP. But he is suggesting that those BOPreneurs wishing to "scale up" would be better off to rely on training microenterprise managers, rather than hoping to find an army of micro-entrepreneurs (which he has found to be in short supply).

3. Replicate it. Once the supply chain has been figured out, the manuals written, the managers trained and the business proven regionally, it is easier to replicate the concept into other territories and markets. This is where McDonalds excelled. Not all McDonalds were the same, but they were very similiar around the world. Local modifications may be neccessary as a venture enters new markets, but they should be kept to a minimum to enhance rapid growth. CSU students quizzed Fairbourne on how to decide where to start, and he suggested they pick regions with more stable governments and growing economies.

Fairbourne emphasised two big advantages he sees for this approach. First, it reduces the risk of failure for the business operator. Done properly, incentives for success and penalties for failure are better shared under Fairbourne's approach. Secondly, it connects informal operators to formal supply chains. In doing so, it has macroeconomic effects as these businesses become formalized and grow (not surprisingly, Fairbourne has discussed his approach with Hernando DeSoto's ILD as a way to promote development).

If you are interested in finding out more about micro-franchising, take a look at Fairbourne's book, the Microfranchise Toolkit, and David Stoker's blog. And certainly attend the conference he is hosting in early November (as a special BOP bonus, I'll be there too).

I was impressed with Fairbourne's talk, and the potential microfranchising offers for certain types of consumer focused businesses in the BOP. There is a lot of cheap talk on scaling up BOP ventures, but precious few examples of BOPreneurs that can claim "millions served" (IDE, Aravind, Grameen). The world could use a few "billions served" social enterprises, and if history is a guide, franchising might be a good way to get there.

Definitions and Metrics (yawn)

2009-09-08T08:08:00.006-06:00

SoCap09 had many sessions, blogs and tweets on metrics and ratings. And the "social entrepreneurship" field seems to have a fascination with definitions. Dare I say it is a morbid one? (I do.)

Today, Ashoka x-posted Adrienne Villani's blog on the question: "can you be a social entrepreneur if you aren't the head honcho?" Why do we care so much who gets to wear this coveted badge? Does it actually make a difference where it counts- solving the issues of poverty, environment and health in the BOP? I'm skeptical.

So, why do I think this fascination with definitions and metrics is "morbid"? Because this field is full of people who like to watch, comment and tweet. Social entrepreneurship, and for that matter, plain old entrepreneurship (irony intended) are not spectator sports. This well meaning crew (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt) of spectators is, at best, a distraction. More likely, it is a negative effect, in that it is making entrepreneurs spend time on spreadsheets, conference calls, conferences and reports, instead of getting stuff done. And if the spectators spent their conference fees on ventures, I'd bet the world would be better off. Take the money to attend the next "unconference," and start a fund which actually has to make decisions and investments. Not just discuss stuff.

Will ratings and metrics help? Well, reports from both Skoll Foundation and the Center for Effective Philanthropy help illustrate the quandry. Because these entrepreneurs build value that cannot be measured with financial tools alone, investors/donors have resorted to a plethora of self-set goals. Perhaps workable for measuring effectiveness of an individual venture, but hard to compare across a portfolio. Unlike those VC's (which most of our spectators seem to envy) who supposedly have terrific, easy to use metrics (e.g., 10x or 30+% IRR). So our spectators get all a-"twitter" on how the field needs transformational radical new metrics. Then they fall all over each other with competing methods. So the new venture looking for funding now has to run spreadsheets using IRIS, GIIRS, SROI, and WTF.* That is sure to add value, right?

Can standardized, improved metrics help bring new capital to the field and fertilze more and better ventures? That is the underlying assumption. But as I have written before,** I suspect this capital shortage in this field is only the market being relentless. It isn't a financial capital shortage if the market is not providing funding to those ventures that don't deserve it (and I have had my fair share of these). It may be a human capital shortage. Does financial capital drive more human capital into a new field, or does experience point to the converse being true? My opinion is that finance follows after the innovators; the trail needs to be pretty packed before those carrying money bags come along. And the early innovators aren't motivated by money, or swish conferences. They are motivated to fix what sucks.

Two years ago I challenged this sector to "give me a specific example of a good team with a good idea that didn't get funding." Maybe I don't get around enough, but no one has given me that example. Sure not every venture gets what it tries to raise, but the good ones are still going. Yes, the market is a nasty and brutish place, compared to the loving embrace of a feel-good conference. Progress can seem slow to the spectators, but on the field, the entrepreneurs are working hard, learning and doing. Often without standardized metrics and rigorous evaluation techniques. But making progress on addressing what sucks. Doing something about it.

Don't get me wrong. I think there are definitely some unserved needs for financing these new ventures. New instruments and new incentives could be very useful. But enough on definitions and metrics. Time for less talk and more action- if you have a theory on metrics, go raise a fund (e.g, Acumen) and make some real investments. A few decent sized seed and A rounds have happened.*** A few more are in the works. All good stuff. But I think that there is too much academic/consulting/foundation DNA in the room. Not listening enough to the entrepreneurs and experienced investors. Having investable deals will drive investment in worthy ventures, not better definitions or metrics.
____
*OK, I admit it, I made the last one up.
** See here and here, if you are so inclined.
*** d.light and Vidagas come to mind.

IDDS-y Bitsy

2009-07-28T13:18:00.005-06:00

A few random quotes and descriptions from the last few days in Kumasi.

Bob Nanes (IDE Ghana): "You don't sell people a product, you sell them a dream. You may be making a chlorine water purifier, but you are selling them the vision of healthy children."

At the KNUST university books store, there was a pile of World Bank books on African development for sale for 200 cedis. That is about $142. I guess they want to sell a lot of them. The store also had one copy of Good to Great, for 25 cedis. That title seemed to be harder to keep in stock. Hmmm.

Bob Nanes: "Don't reinvent channels. There are hundreds of companies marketing to the BOP: soap, cigarettes, beer, buckets and batteries. NGOs always want to start a new channel, and it is usually a big mistake. Better to piggyback on what is there."

A student asked Bob what IDE's most successful product was. I figured he would say the treadle pump. But he said the "off season tomato green house" had the biggest return for family weatlh creation. Bob also mentionned that IDE had trained thousands of agricultural machinery technicians to service the treadle pump, and these technicians were often effective marketers for IDE products.

Amy Smith: "In design, there are no solutions, only trade offs."

Ben Linder: "If you don't want people to hold your prototype like a gun, make sure it doesn't look like a gun." [discussing prototyping progression for a demining clipper in Angola]

Amy: "how do you incorporate failure into the success of your design? how will your design fail? how will it fail first? what is the best failure mode? the worst?" [she described redesigning a plow so that when it hit a big rock, instead of bending the blade, a bolt broke. bolts are easier and cheaper to replace than blades.]

Last image: I got to attend my third IDDS International Potluck Dinner last night. Bigger and better than ever in Ghana. Participants grouped by country and then tried to show why their food is the world's best. And we all got a taste. The party lasted long into the pleasant evening. (Sule and I brought Enviro-banku... the world's first banku cooked on an Envirofit cook stove).

Design Reviews IDDS

2009-07-25T11:06:00.004-06:00

Yesterday IDDS held design reviews on the 12 projects. These were held at ITTU, in the Suame area (an area with many small industrial workshops). Due to the format, I could not attend all the reviews.

I watched two teams who are working on chlorine purification approaches. It surprises me that chlorine is inexpensive and effective, yet not widely used to purify water. Why is this? Are more complicated technologies needed? The first team is looking to make a low cost chlorine manufacturing device. Using salt water and electricity to produce chlorine. The team was trying to figure out a way to do this without using expensive high power batteries. The second team was planning to use commercially available chlorine, but was working on a reliable way to dose water in smaller communities. They were also looking at business models- water committees, cooperatives or entrepreneurs- to distribute the device.

The other two reviews I watched were working on small scale energy. The first was looking for an alternative to batteries for LED lights. They had examined hand cranks, bicycles and salt water batteries (I had not heard of these before). They were also intrigued by a light we had seen in the villages that used an old music CD as a reflector and provided decent room lighting with 1w LED bulbs. The second team was working on a way of keeping produce from spoiling between the fields and the market. The cost of transport is not just the time and vehicle, but also the loss of up to 30% of a shipment before it is sold. This team has been looking at several alternatives to "pot in pot evaporation" which works well in dryer climates but not humid climates (West Africa). Their current design uses insulation, a small fan and inexpensive webbing materials.

The teams got good feedback from reviewers, a mix of development folks, business people, Suame artisans and engineers. Today is a rare "day off" and tomorrow will be back to work with prototyping and some "Build It" sessions (participants showing others how to make stuff).

BOP Bits: IDDS 2009

2009-07-23T10:11:00.005-06:00

From Kumasi, Ghana, a quick report on IDDS'09:

This past weekend, the 12 project teams left on their second trip to rural villages to continue their design projects. The projects generally clump into 3 areas: agriculture (better threshing for groundnuts, or removing debris from rice), energy (storage, food storage, small scale energy generation) and water/sanitation (kid friendly latrine, small scale chlorine production). Interviewing potential customers, meeting with village chiefs, weighing babies. Dawn until dark, these were long, hot, hard days, but much was learned by all, and relationships bloomed.

I was impressed by how these participants really are working on co-design: what is the problem? what do you do now?, would this work? why or why not? what would be a good way to do this in your village/on your farm? can you think about ways you could pay for this? It is a team effort with the villagers. My impression was that, at least in the villages I visited, this was not the way they were used to interacting with visitors. Villagers were excited (but also surprised) to see the teams return, and are working on things to get ready for the next visit at the end of next week.

This week has been a combination of class work on thinking about entrepreneurial business models to disseminate the products, as well as preparing for design reviews tomorrow. The tools are out, and the participants are making prototypes and concept drawings. The halls at the hostel are humming and hammering!

Why the World Bank Isn't a VC

2009-07-15T06:48:00.006-06:00

Thanks all, for your comments on the World Bank post. A few comments from me:

First, if we really did what Carl proposes, this would be the largest Venture Capital fund in the world. By a huge margin (I think the largest is about $2 billion). Not sure that's a good thing. The nature of large funds is to invest in larger, later stage companies. Last year, VC's invested about $30 billion (a few billion more than WB's annual budget). Would a doubling in the size of VC be a good thing? Do VC's need a stimulus package?

Second, World Bank funds come largely from public sources, as I understand it. Very different from VC sources (private investors, pension funds), which are looking solely for financial returns. Would these WB sources be effective investors/limited partners? I am skeptical.

Third, VC's are picky. They are supposed to be (the same could be said for WB). Is there adequate deal flow for VCs, in terms of investable deals? VC's concentrate investments in certain industries (info technologies, biotechnology) with large capital needs and potential scale to sell off (an "exit strategy"). This would likely need to be modified for BOP. And VC's fund about 1 in 20,000 startups in USA. Not sure why this percentage would go up if BOP.

Fourth, there are some interesting proposals out there of combining private dollars and more socially oriented funding sources (foundations). This is intriguing in that it allows higher returns for the financial investors, and better leverage on social/environmental returns for the foundations. But not many examples, so far. For instance, Gates Foundation has not been doing a lot of Program Related Investments. If Gates isn't finding deals, will World Bank?

I think, however, that Carl is proposing more a change in attitude and approach to how WB money is invested. Wholesale elimination of the bank is unlikely, but experimenting with new approaches in their investments, and the economies of the developing world, seem worthy objectives. If they were a VC fund, it seems likely to me that they would have a hard time raising money based on their track record. Moving some of their portfolio to a new fund for companies that serve BOP customers, properly managed and incentivized, is worthy of consideration.

Replace the World Bank with Venture Capital?

2009-07-13T09:53:00.005-06:00

This is a guest post from Carl Hammerdorfer, the director of Colorado State University's Global Social and Sustainable Enterprise Program. Carl is an entrepreneur, returned Peace Corps Volunteer (Mali), and has worked in international development for years. In this post from somewhere in Africa, Carl proposes that poor countries (and BOPreneurs) would be better served by shutting down the World Bank, paying their experts severance, and investing the remaining multi-billion dollar budget as venture capital. Can he be serious? You decide (and comment if you'd like).

"Is it just me, or is the world actually discussing global poverty and development solutions with renewed passion and genuine rethinking? Work in the development racket for too long can make even the most starry-eyed optimist feel a bit jaded. After all, how long can you hang your hat on the success of South Korea and Poland? Sure, Ghana and Botswana are starting to seem like good stories, but what about Egypt, Burkina Faso, Honduras, Bolivia and a hundred other countries spinning their wheels in poverty’s swamp? When do we start seeing some real, long-term results? When do perennially poor states stand on their own feet?

So it has been good to see Dambisa Moyo brashly call the whole development rodeo into question. It’s been terrific to see Bill Easterly and Jeffry Sachs duke it out in the NYT, Huffington Post and all over the TV and the web. The kind of debate they’ve been having almost never, ever makes the mainstream media. That pabulum factory is too worried about Brad and Angelina’s adoptions or Oprah’s academy, both nice things to be sure, but hardly more than a gnat on an elephant’s … oh, never mind.

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, Moyo – dubbed the anti-Bono - has said that the development industry has ruined Africa and should get out…er, except for humanitarian aid… and maybe a few scientific institutes. Jeffrey Sachs holds that it’s Western greed and selfishness that has underfunded development, thereby causing untold misery, death and destruction. “We must give more money!” he screams. “Much, much more money!” Bill Easterly stands with Moyo, deriding the World Bank, USAID and other development actors, and arguing that in enterprise lie the answers. He ridicules Sachs, while Sachs basically accuses him of murderous proposals that will damage the lives of millions. And then there’s Bono, Bob Geldoff, most of Hollywood and almost every wannabe activist between the age of 15 and 21. They all want to have another rock concert for Africa and buy more T-shirts to save the planet and all of the poor people on it.

Well, It is time for some wise person to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable positions so that we can all get back to our I-Phones, Tivos and Priuses. I, regrettably, am not that person. Rather, I’d like to throw some more fuel on this fire and get some other people involved in this global barroom brawl. Smart people. People with big brains and big pocketbooks. People who hate to chip or mar their manicures. World Bank people!

I think it is time to shut down the World Bank. Yes, you heard me right. Shut them down.

It’s not a new or original idea, I’ll admit. Right wing nuts and crazy leftists have both taken aim at the Bank over the years, so this might actually be a chance to get two nuts in the sack together. Er, never mind. But if the extreme right and left agree on this, then let’s take a flyer and cut off the money, turn off the lights, and send all of those really smart people who want to save the developing world back to the developing world. After all, if these guys, most of whom have multiple PhD’s, are the premier experts on development, let’s send them to developing countries where they can practice their craft. And I don’t mean 14 days in the Ulan Bator Hyatt or the Dhakar Sheraton. No, I mean to live, to educate people, to reform governments, to build economies, to create civil society institutions and all of that stuff that they so ardently want to get done. How in the world are they ever going to do that from Washington DC?

Have you ever been in the World Bank? Man, it is an awesome building. All glass and steel and leather and beautiful art and ergonomic chairs. And that cafeteria? Are you kidding me? Last time I was there I had the choice of Asian fusion, pheasant under glass, sushi, sol meunier or veal piccatta. Food I can’t even pronounce, and all at rock bottom prices! Heck if they’re serving that kind of fine cuisine and not bilking taxpayers to support it, then they should be in the restaurant business, not wasting their time in the “not ending poverty business”. Shoot, the light bill alone at the World Bank could probably get both Cape Verde and Honduras out of poverty in a couple of years.

So, shut down the World Bank, I say. And, I have an idea for putting all of that money to use that would actually help poor countries. A friend of mine helpfully suggested that we not shut them down, but that we “transform” them. Ha, ha ha ha ha! Is he crazy!? Nobody’s ever going to transform the World Bank. Heck, the inertia of this institution is approximately that of the Himalyan mountain range, the pyramids and offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers combined… and then squared! And man, are those guys ever cagey. Do you think anyone can transform an organization that has 8500 of the smartest people on the planet, people who were able to get out of villages with no electricity, running water or flush toilets in places like Angola and Burma and Venezuela and manage to permanently entrench themselves into some of the highest paying, tax-free jobs on the planet… you think they’re gonna be transformed by anyone? Not on your life. They must be eliminated.

I think we can pay them to go away, and still have money left to implement my aforementioned plan. We could give them half of their salary for 10 years and ask them to go back to work in the real world. Heck, if you are from Niger or Chad, with that kind of money, you are going to be the man/the woman. Since the cost of living there is about 1/10th of what it is in DC, you’d be able to live off of that money and use the balance of it to manage your own personal development strategy. You could do micro-lending, women’s empowerment, maybe even build a small hyrdo-electric dam. And what could be better for the developing world than to send all of their smartest people back to them to build that country?

With the balance of the $25 billion that 185 countries put into the WB every year, here’s what I propose: Let’s use it to subsidize and incentivize the venture capital industry to invest real money in developing countries. If anyone knows how to invest money wisely, it’s the venture capital guys (excluding, of course the guys who invested in Segway). If you ask entrepreneurs in Africa or Latin America what the biggest problem is, they’ll tell you “it’s capital, stupid”. There’s a bunch of money to be made building businesses that make stuff to sell to local people and into regional markets, but rarely can the guy with the idea and the drive get the money to do it. It’s hard enough to do that here, but at least you can mortgage your house or charge up your credit cards or go to Vegas, find a roulette wheel and bet your life savings on red or black. But in Ethiopia if you have a fool-proof plan to pelletize coffee husk for fuel for people’s wood-stoves, finding an investor is like finding cockroach at the Ritz-Carlton. It ain’t gonna happen.

The reason venture capitalists are as rare as hen’s teeth in very poor countries is the perceived risk of doing business there. As one of them told me recently, “Sure, I’ll go to Africa… just as soon as I feel like I won’t earn a ‘negative return’ on my money.” Okay, fair enough. You see it as too risky. Well here’s what we’re going to do for you. We are going to take the money that’s no longer funding Italian loafers and marzipan biscotti at the World Bank and use it to buy out some of that risk. Maybe we’ll cover most of your startup in Kenya so that you can get a person on the ground looking at investments at minimal cost. Maybe we’ll provide training on how to avoid the sharks and scam artists. Or, maybe we guarantee some percentage of your investment capital, leveraging up all of that taxpayer money, all to be put to productive use.

Yes we’d need controls. No investments in illicit arms smuggling, opium production or massage parlors. But there are a few brave folks who’ve got most of those rules of the game down (go to SEAF and see what they’re doing with VC in over a dozen developing countries). Granted, it takes a while to figure out the ropes in Kenya, but it does in pharmaceuticals and biofuels too. VCs would be smart enough to hire good people and develop a methodology to evaluate investees if the incentives are there for them to make healthy returns. They’d make some mistakes, just like they do here, but they’d probably pick some big winners too, maybe even some that produced enough profit to make up for the WB money that might otherwise have gone to that beautiful office and staff in downtown San Salvador.

Let’s face it- what a poor country needs is no different from what a poor state or county in the US needs. Economic development, entrepreneurship, new companies, products… real jobs for God’s sake! Not unproductive jobs working for a foreign NGO, but jobs where people make stuff….and sell it. Michigan and California are depressed- and what do they want? Companies that give people jobs. Why should Guyana and Mali be any different from Georgia and Montana? And if there’s one thing that entrepreneurs and new companies need, it’s capital. You could have a bunch of WB guys making decisions about where to put the money, but I don’t think anyone believes that that’s what those guys are good at. So let’s let the professionals handle it… the venture capitalists.

BOP Blips

2009-06-24T21:21:00.006-06:00

- Nice to see IDDS get a shout out in this month's Fast Company calendar. This will start on July 8 in Kumasi, Ghana. Two Colorado State students, Sule Amadu (Cohort 1 and recent grad) and Habib Anwar (our new Cohort 3), will be helping out, and Bryan Willson and I will be there for part of the program. Full time faculty will include Amy Smith (MIT), Ben Linder (Olin), and Ariel Philips who will be hosted by KNUST's John Quansah and Crossman Hormenoo. The program ends in time for the participants to be part of the Maker Faire Africa in Accra from 14-16 August.

- For another GSSE team blog, check out: Organic Oasis and their aquaponics venture in Peru.

-To see a lot of electrons being being burned on the aid vs entrepreneurship debate, take a look at Easterly's blog and Maggate Wade's post on Huffington. My take- we need African Cheetahs, but they need to figure out where the real game is. (Hint: maybe not attacking MV tours!) I know there is an argument that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I think that beating up on Jeffrey Sachs is not a particularly useful undertaking at this point. I had been pleased that Easterly's blog was beginning to have more of a focus on identifying true Searchers, but I don't think he can help himself from rising to MV bait. I guess his self-identified role is critic. But I hope he continues to promote Cheetahs/Searchers, study them and let others know what is working, rather than the harping on what isn't working for the Planners. What doesn't work can be instructive, but not as instructive as what works. When one learns to paint, one studies the masters. Inquiring minds want to know: Who are Easterly's masters? I hope that is his next book.

- Panda Bikes, started by GSSE grads John McKinney, Mark Schlink and Jacob Costillo got a nice segment on Denver's Channel 7 tonight! The first organic bamboo bike for under $1000. On sale soon! Here is the video link.

Pay Attention To Your Private Parts

2009-06-17T07:35:00.008-06:00

When you are designing a venture, spend some time on the network. Think about the "5 Deals" in a venture: customer, founders, funders, employees, and supply chain. Your venture will need to make a deal with each of these groups to build out the network.

Once you have sketched out your proposed network (use a dirty napkin for karma points), think about which of these deals are private, and which are public.

Private in two ways.

First, is this a deal with a public organization (charity, social enterprise, government agency) or private organization (a company)? If private, the consideration (the legal term for value) will need to have some financial components. Not all financial, but primarily. If public, then the mix will likely involve some non-financial items.

Second, is this deal private between the parties? Can you talk about it? Typically, a venture does not disclose terms of supply arrangements, founder and employee options, or terms of financing. Be sure you understand what you can talk about, and what you can't. And understand that if you have public organizations in your network, they may have a different culture, and rules, about disclosure.

Now back to the napkin. For many BOPreneurs, there will be a mix of public and private organizations in the network (yet another "hybrid"). As with any entrepreneur, your job is to create and share value. Not just for your organization, but for this network. Too often, founders will focus on creating value for a specific group ("our" investors, "our" users) but not for the entire network. Does the network create and share value effectively and efficiently? Is each group providing and receiving value? Can you find that elusive synergy that characterizes strong networks?

An example from Envirofit. Our cook stoves are manufactured in China by a private company. Envirofit (a non-proift) ships these to India and sells them through a network of dealers and retail outlets (mostly private, but some NGOs). Our customers purchase the stoves, and receive a warranty from Envirofit. Envirofit employees have incentives to sell stoves (but the details are private), as do the dealers and retail outlets (profits!). We provide value to our donor-investors by reducing pollution and improving public health. Paying attention to the private parts of the network is important. Private firms are willing to work with social enterprises, but they also want to be paid. And these deals with private firms can be a source of competitive advantage for your venture (price, reliability, etc.).

The trick, of course, is to provide value all the way through the supply chain. Customers like the stove and find the price attractive. Dealers sell at a price which provides an attractive profit. Envirofit gets enough margin to pay employees and suppliers. Manufacturers make an attractive profit by selling the stove to Envirofit.

These 5 deals are key to building your venture. Now they are on your napkin, be sure that you can make the numbers real, and that you understand what value each organization provides and receives by participating.

"It is very possible, for you very possible.”

2009-06-15T09:40:00.004-06:00

Great to see blog postings coming from our GSSE teams in the field.

Running Water International is working in the Njoro region Kenya this summer on biosand filters (BSF) for clean water in homes and schools. They have already started taking orders!

And they now have a waiter inspired mantra: "It is very possible, for you very possible.” Indeed.

Teaching "about" stuff

2009-06-06T08:48:00.009-06:00

One common discussion around universities is about the value of teaching disciplines that society tends to view as an art or a talent. In my area, I often hear it expressed as "can you really teach entrepreneurship?" Implicit in the question is that entrepreneurs are born, not made. I have also heard that people question whether one can be taught: leadership, teamwork, art, etc.*

This is a topic that has been discussed in this blog since its humble beginnings.

But what is my answer to the question? I usually respond "I don't teach students to be entrepreneurs. I teach them about being entrepreneurs." There is a difference. Not all students want to become enterpreneurs (a source of continuing puzzlement to me). But they want to find out more about the role of entrepreneurs in business and society. Or maybe entrepreneurship courses are popular for the same reason "Social Deviance" is popular in psychology and sociology departments- morbid fascination?

What seems to work best for my classes is providing a framework, discussion, and a chance to practice. A mix of encouragement, support and questions. For those that lean entrepreneurial, my classes provide examples and a chance to test out a new venture. And, I hope, a dash of inspiration. If they decide to pursue a new venture, class is just the start. Then my role becomes advising, assisting, watching.

Really, though, the answer to the question is more complicated. What is important is what students learn, not what I teach (I still cling to the idea that there is a correlation). Some students learn to be entrepreneurs in my classes. Some learn about entrepreneurs in my classes. In many cases, it is not the particular content of hours of reading, cases and discussion. But rather at some point, a student realizes "I can do this." They give themselves permission. They realize there isn't a litmus test or an entrance exam for becoming an entrepreneur.
______________________
* I am not getting into levels of genius here. For instance, I think it is possible to teach basketball, but not possible to teach just anyone to be Kobe or Jordan. It is possible to teach painting, but not possible to teach just anyone to be Cezanne or Homer. And there are many impressive people who are self-taught. But being a self-taught entrepreneur is different than being a born entrepreneur, isn't it?

Shuffling into Intersections

2009-05-20T22:47:00.005-06:00

Puzzled by my current reading. Just finished Ishamael Beah's "A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier." Concurrently working through Jessica Livingston's "Founders at Work" and Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World."

So what is the connection between child soldiers in Sierra Leone; founders such as Steve Wozniak, Paul Graham and Craig Newmark; and Medicis and silver mines of Peru? I have no idea.

All are excellent, but my current selections seem a bit like selecting shuffle on an iPod (is this an option on Kindle?). Guess it will be a test to see if I can see any intersections. Maybe I will see a pattern or get an insight. Maybe not.

I think "shuffling" is one way to foster to intersectional creativity and innovation. The random events in a day are a shuffle... are you paying attention to the hands you are being dealt? What are you doing to get a variety of ideas from different cultures and disciplines? Are you keeping track of them?

20 Lines About 20 New Ventures

2009-05-16T00:24:00.008-06:00

One of my great joys is helping students who are working through the challenges of building a business. Here are my one line descriptions of the 20 businesses which I have had the privilege of seeing in my role as an entrepreneurship instructor this spring at Colorado State University and Bainbridge Graduate Institute. What these students are doing is difficult and inspirational. Some are real ventures, some class projects, and some dreams deferred until personal situations allow them to proceed. I learn from each team, and am proud of them all.

Colorado State University MBA

1. Adventure Academy of Northern Colorado: an after school Outward Bound program.
2. Beacon Financial: financial services for immigrants from China and India.
3. Colorado Equine Rehabilitation Center: helping horses heal after surgery at CSU Vet Hospital.
4. Green Ride Colorado- a more convenient and eco-friendly airport shuttle service.
5. Harmony Wellness Systems- reducing employer health costs through wellness programs.
6. KromaTid- cancer diagnosis through a proprietary method of identifying genetic inversions.

CSU Global Social & Sustainable Enterprise MSBA

7. AYZH- designing and producing products to empower women at the base of the pyramid.
8. Cradle of Tea- launching a healthy and delicious new beverage from Ethiopia.
9. Ecuador ICT- telemedicine and tele-eduction for rural Ecuador.
10. Latin Health Services- helping make South American homes safe from insects and chemicals.
11. Organic Oasis- providing vegetables and fish in an affordable, closed loop aquaponics system.
12. Rocky Mountain Hops- providing local hops for Rocky Mountain craft brewers.
13. Running Water- household water filtration products for rural Kenya.

BGI MBA Program

14. Char for Change- cook stoves and biochar provide cleaner kitchens and income in Peru.
15. Growfood.org- matching organic farmers and volunteers for labor and learning.
16. Healing the Hero- therapeutic wilderness trips for our returning veterans.
17. Restoration Abbey- using information technology to restore the lives of former slaves.
18. Second Helping- enterprise approach to meals for those in need on the Olympic Peninsula.
19. Tangerine Solar Cooperative- solar energy, with a twist, in Hawaii.
20. Terrabytes- reducing the ecofootprint of clients' information technology systems.

Nonprofit with Attitude

2009-05-07T10:11:00.005-06:00

The other day during the CSU Clean Energy Supercluster Expo, someone said to me: "I can't believe Envirofit is a non-profit. They don't look or act like one." I took this as a compliment for Envirofit, and a criticism of more traditional non-profits in the energy field.

Envirofit is a non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation. But we intentionally try not to act like one. We make and sell products. We define success as making and selling a lot of these products. We have a complex supply chain with large multinationals. We have built a distribution network in India for our stoves, and in the Philippines for our retrofit kits. We offer a warranty on our products, something poor customers aren't use to getting. We care about marketing, and we care about our brand. While we are not yet profitable overall, we do make a profit on each unit we sell. We hope to sell enough volume soon to become a profitable company, and we are on track to have millions of dollars in revenue.

We aren't doing these things to make money for our shareholders (we don't have any). We are doing them because we believe this is the best way for our company to have a significant impact on the environment and poverty, and to do so in a sustainable and scalable way. When we started the company, we couldn't promise attractive returns to investors, but we could offer attractive impact. Since our goal was to clean up the environment, and alleviate poverty in developing regions, we could qualify as a non-profit organization.

My point? Envirofit is a non-profit organization. But it runs as a company. If you decide to start a non-profit, be sure you realize that this is but one decision on your organization's design. It certainly defines some things you can and can't do. (At times, it has been a bit of a bother for us.) But it doesn't have to define your relationship with customers, the types of employees you attract, and the way you conduct business.

Other non-profit BOPreneurs with an enterprising attitude? Kiva, One World Health, Accion and One Acre Fund all come to mind.

In short, don't let your legal form drive your business attitude. Don't let "non-profit" become a mindset.

Who is Steven Johnson of the BOP?

2009-05-05T06:14:00.004-06:00

The value of ludicrous ideas in NY Times article about Steven Johnson, whose "work tends toward the nodes where social issues intersect with design and urban planning issues." An example from the article is the "bike vest" shown above.

Instead of working with gurus or innovation processes, Johnson is more intuitive: “I wish... to be irresponsible, rash, associative, dreamy, impish, brainy, intuitive, and stupid.”

A good reminder that even serious work, such as designing products and services for the world's poor, could benefit from some wackiness and fun. Wouldn't it be cool if some of the video clips we saw from the field were, instead of earnest multistakeholder co-creation design charrettes, some people goofing around and having fun? Ludicrous indeed.

Eco-chic & Schwag-free

2009-05-04T07:01:00.003-06:00

Bryan Willson and I headed to the Denver Green Festival yesterday to talk about Innovations for Energy, Environment and Health, which basically means we got to tell stories about Envirofit cook stoves and Solix Biofuels. There were some great speakers and entertainment. And the conference organizers took many steps to make this truly a "green" festival.

What I wasn't ready for was what I saw when I went upstairs in the convention center. It was a huge trade show, with the floor filled with booths with the latest in "green goods" for home, body and mind. Gotta love the American consumer. And with trade shows comes schwag (no, not bad weed, but the promotional items used to encourage you to remember a product).

One sign asked: "are you eco-chic?" When I signed in at the speaker booth, I was asked if I wanted some organic, fair trade eye cream. (to be fair, at least they didn't provide the "goodie" bag that one gets at many conferences).

Sorry, but for me, at least one step toward true eco-chic is to just say NO to schwag.

Help One Acre Fund Grow

2009-04-26T16:36:00.004-06:00

Andrew Youn, founder of One Acre Fund and a true BOPreneur, recently sent me a message asking for help in recruiting additional funding. So, bleeps, this is your chance to help an amazing group do their work for $20/month (enough to help a family of 6 work their way out of poverty).

"Thanks to your support as an Investment Council member, One Acre Fund continues to make major advances in addressing chronic hunger. More than 4,000 families, including more than 16,000 children, are literally growing themselves out of chronic hunger. Our farmers' hard work coupled with One Acre Fund's innovative market bundle, which includes quality farming inputs, farmer education and access to output markets, is proving to be a powerful tool in the fight against hunger.
Now we need to ask for your help. If every member of our Investment Council identifies just one friend, family member, co-worker or organization that shares the desire to create an innovative and permanent solution to chronic hunger, One Acre Fund can help an additional 500 families permanently grow themselves out of hunger. The Investment Council is One Acre Fund's single largest source of financial support. Please help us build a long-term foundation for a pioneering solution to world hunger."

Andrew has built a great organization, doing worthy work. He has done it quietly, in a difficult place and time. One brick at at time. Please join me in helping out One Acre Fund as a member of the Investment Council.

Better than Kyoto?

2009-04-25T17:05:00.003-06:00

Bjorn Lomborg strikes again in today's NY Times:

"In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted...We might have assumed that investment in [energy technology] research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not. "

Lomborg suggests that instead of emissions limits, nations instead agree to invest .05% of GDP into research for making wind and solar energy technologies more competitive. He argues this would be more efficient and effective.

"Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good."

While he doesn't get into it in this article, Lomborg has also written persuasively that other public health investments are more compelling than carbon reductions. HIV treatment, malaria, cleaner drinking water, nutrition and education all have higher returns. Society must prioritize how we invest in a healthier planet (even more so after having lost a lot of ground due to the financial crisis).

"The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine. " This statement is true, and troubling. The issue is whether we increase the chances (and speed) for leapfrog energy technologies with more R&D funding or with Kyoto.

Lomborg's view that investing in cleaner energy technologies may result in better decisions than regulating emissions deserves careful consideration by policy makers.

Sankalp Info

2009-04-25T14:53:00.003-06:00

Intellecap is hosting Sankalp forum on April 28 in Mumbai. For more information, click here.

From Sujatha and Adrienne: "Sankalp (which means 'Pledge' or 'Determination') is India’s first Social Enterprise and Investment Forum with the primary goal of bringing together various stakeholders sharing a common conviction that capital should be invested to create multiple bottom-line returns (financial, social and environmental) and not exclusively financial (profit-maximizing) or social (philanthropic) returns."

They have some great sponsors and participants from the looks of their website.

I hope it is a great event, and that they tweet about it for those of us that can't be there!

When Good Things Happen To Great People

2009-04-16T12:25:00.004-06:00

Colorado State University GSSE and Engines Lab student Sule Amadu has received an Acumen Fund Fellowship for 2010. He is an amazing person and we are all so excited for him. He was chosen from over 300 highly qualified applicants.

Congratulations to Sule and congratulations to Acumen for making such a wise choice!

P.S. There are no known pictures of Sule when he isn't smiling.