Proud.

Global Social & Sustainable Enterprise MBA at Colorado State University from Kathryn Ernst on Vimeo.

Real students. Real work. Real problems. So proud of what you guys are doing and will do.

Making Meaning Matter- Venture Gapitalist guide to #SoCap12

The Social Capital Markets conference turns five this year. Wikipedia tells me 5 year olds are more advanced than 4 year olds, and have taken on adult proportions. But they also "ask innumerable questions: why, what, where, when, how?"

This year's theme, which seems quite advanced for a 5 year old, is "Making Meaning Matter." I am guessing this is a nod to John Doerr's  advice that entrepreneurs should "make meaning." For the past few years, I have posted a Venture Gapitalist Guide to Socap, so I thought I'd offer two ideas to share/recombine, with an eye to helping answer the innumerable questions that face those of us who work at the intersection of money, meaning and mattering.

First, today, Brad Feld's book "Startup Communities" launched. I was fortunate enough to hear Brad cover the main themes of the book a few weeks ago. I think they are useful for SoCap, age 5. Here are a few notes I took (these should not be a substitute for actually reading the book):
1) Startup communities need to be led by entrepreneurs. Yes, that is a period at the end of the sentence. Full stop. You are either a leader (entrepreneur) or a feeder (university, investor, service provider). On this topic, he warned against the patriarch syndrome, where "old white guys try to act like gatekeepers."  Ouch (I noticed Brad appears to be younger than I, and about as white).
2) To build a startup community, you need to take a long term view. What does he mean by long term? He said "a generation," but his publisher made him say 20 years. He said that's OK... if you start the clock over every day (so you never actually "get" there).
3) You have to include anyone who wants to be included. No titles, no admission requirements. You join by showing up. He made an interesting observation that the more things get organized, the less inclusive they are.
4) A startup community needs to be about events and activity. Startup weekends, hackathons, meet ups.    Doing it, not talking about doing it.

At age 5, how is SoCap doing on these four criteria? I know that after year 2, it reached out to entrepreneurs with more significant scholarships and assistance- I think it saw creeping patriarch syndrome, and opened the door a crack. I think at year 5 it seems pretty welcoming to entrepreneurs from certain networks. Each year this crew is larger, and more diverse. Still a challenge to bring people in from around the world, but very different from a few years ago.

Despite the usual puffery about billions of dollars flowing into impact investing, I think in general SoCappers recognize the emergent qualities of this space, and are taking a long term, "builder" approach to impact investing. So far, our 5 year old is doing well on #1 and #2. But then we get to "inclusiveness" and "activity"- I think these are challenges for SoCap. How to be inclusive, but also have a sustainable business model? How to have a conference which actually gets stuff done? Will SoCap choose a path of becoming a startup community, not a conference? It seems to moving in this direction, but so hard to tell with a 5 year old.

Second, Andy Hargadon and I have been working on some ideas for applying the concepts of lean startups more broadly.  How do we take the concepts that are building Silicon Valley web startups, and apply to them to "the other 99%?" of entrepreneurial ventures? Our view is that MVPs, pivoting and business model canvases are necessary, but not sufficient, for building the types of companies the world needs. We want to encourage entrepreneurs to start somethng, that matters, with soul. Our observation is that starting something is a first step, but that entrepreneurs would do well to focus on starting things that matter. And, to do that in a way that endures, they need to build something with soul. Intentionally building a culture and brand that is, well... immortal.

So to recombine these two ideas for SoCap... can SoCap become a startup community for companies that matter, with soul? I think it has as good a chance as any, and at age 5, is on it's way. If you are at SoCap, what are you doing this week to help this happen? And if you aren't here, how can you become involved? How do we raise this youngster to make a real difference in the long term?
_________
For SoCap history buffs, some of my former posts and escapades:
2008 Panel with Tim Brown, Paul Polak, Kristen Peterson and me (video)
2010 Venture Gapitalist Guide for 2010
2011 Welcome to Emergence: Venture Gapitalist's View on #SoCap11 and SoCap Redux

This post is dedicated to my second ever blog reader (my Mom), who not only wrote her thesis on "The Meaning of Meaning," but then tried to explain existentialism to me when I was about ten years old. Which may explain my deep interest in meaning. Or not. And I am getting dangerously close to having 100,000 views of this blog. So thank you, whoever you are (besides my Mom) that reads my occasional ramblings and helps me makes sense of this journey.

If RCTs Could Kill

Samer Abdelnour posted "If Stoves Could Kill" on the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog the other day. Several people mailed me the link and asked me what I thought. Waving the red cape in my face, I'm afraid. And I have been to a bullfight, so I know it is not a good strategy to be a bull.  

I wasn't bothered by Mr. Abdelnour's main point, about whether cook stoves really reduce violence against women in refugee camps. I think he makes some good arguments about that. But then he keeps going, and says "Research is beginning to question the ability for efficient stoves to effectively reduce fuel consumption and health risks." I think this statement, and the "research" it is based on, is misleading, erroneous, and dangerous. 

To see the back and forth, look at the comments to the post. Heck, join in if you like what either of us has to say. I'll probably need help, as I am taking on the much exalted "Randomized Controlled Trial," and some people who are very smart, very well-intentioned (and much of whose work I admire*).

The problem isn't "If Stoves Could Kill"... instead, it is that their absence does kill. The use of traditional cooking methods and fuels kills many people every year. More than malaria. More than the tsunami. And some of this is preventable. With better stoves, better business models, more work. I don't know when, how or if the market will take off, and real impacts on health will be achieved. I think it will take time. And as the authors of the "Up In Smoke" paper say, it will take changes in behavior. So probably a long time. But I think it is more likely to happen from people that make stoves and sell them to other people, than from people that write reports.** 

And what if, instead of asking about stoves, we turn the question to RCTs? What is the potential impact of misusing data, or poorly designed studies? One JPAL associated professor was quoted as saying "it is more satisfying to answer small questions well, than big questions badly." I would add that it is also dangerous to use answers to small questions to do anything other than answer small questions. A more accurate conclusion for the study might have been: "people in Orissa don't like using crappy stoves that don't work." Not, as Mr. Abdelnour states, to call into "question the ability for efficient stoves to effectively reduce fuel consumption and health risks." 

Why do people seek to extend these studies' conclusions well beyond their boundaries? It seems to me that is a guaranteed way to answer bigger questions badly. If bad studies end good programs, the results really could be deadly. 
__________
*here is a TED video of Esther Duflo, discussing vaccination, bed nets and education (but not cookstoves)
** Phil Auerswald put it well: "What works in development...is entrepreneurial exploration. Why? Because we don't know what works."