Creatively Destroying Higher Education: What have I learned?

Standard

The Creative Destruction Lab at Rotman, in just over 2 years, went from an idea to something that is having a very positive impact on students and founders in Canada. We focused at the broken market for judgement and how the mentorship structure or processes that existed were not optimized for either side of the market – the mentor/coach and the person being mentored.

It has made a difference in Toronto and in Canada overall.

In the Fall I made a decision to leave the amazing folks at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. It was a really tough decision as my heart and soul went into building the program but with so many great people supporting it felt like the timing was right. As of January 2015 I am focused on teaching a course for Rotman Commerce and I decided to join the best software/product people I know, anywhere, at Boltmade (that is another post).

When I look back at my time at Rotman there are three big things I learned:

  • Mentorship needs to be managed closely, it isn’t good enough to just have people with successful jobs or titles or experience simply meet with people.
  • The University of Toronto is an important resource to the country, graduate students even more so.
  • There is no single model for supporting entreprenuers that works for every school/community.

Mentorship must be managed

When the CDL was started we looked at mentorship walls incubators and accelerators had (web pages that list dozens of mentors) as something we didn’t want to do. Instead we focused on the G7 Fellows being the only mentors that we were going to focus on because:

  • G7 fellows have built (and exited from) successful companies.
  • Everyone’s time is the limited resource.
  • We wanted to reduce mentor whiplash.

The first point, building successful companies (and exiting), is the qualification that we used to speak to the level of judgement that someone has experienced. Building a company is a roller coaster and reaching a certain milestone (exit) requires both luck and good judgement to win out over the bad. That perspective gained on the journey is invaluable.

The founders that are just starting out and those that have built a $100M+ company share a common constraint on their time. Respecting that constraint and optimizing how time is used is essential. That means keeping the volume of email down, writing specific emails, and having very specific requests. Managing time allows you to sharply focus on what is important.

On founder/mentor whiplash, that is something I have written about before. I strongly believe that my key point on the expertise it takes to educate people. Pretty much every program out there that isn’t directly tied to education likely lacks the expertise to effectively educate people. That doesn’t mean that they all get it wrong, if they are focused on education and apprenticeship they could be getting it right. If they are ignoring the importance of education and the expertise required then they might not be as good as they could be.

The University of Toronto is one of Canada’s most important resources

Quietly situated in the middle of North America’s 4th largest city, the University of Toronto’s St George campus houses over 90% of its ~18000 grad students. There is $1.1+ Billion in research annually. A large amount of that is medical research but what is left is still more research dollars than any 2 schools in the country that don’t have a medical school. It’s big and it is the top ranked school by all measures in the country.

What this means is that it attracts some of the best talent in the world. That talent has direct ties to major international cities and the campus educates globally minded students. This is huge. The people there aren’t trying to be the best in Canada. They are trying to the be the best at whatever they do. Anywhere.

Compared to almost all other schools in the country there is a huge number of graduate level students in science based research (Waterloo only has ~3000 grad students in total, 1/6th of UofT). Grad students in Canada are an untapped resource. Too many employers dismiss them as over educated or inexperienced in work. They find high paying work in other countries as a result (the whole internationally connected thing kicks in).

The opportunities for founders and anyone else:

  • You will find really skilled people with deep technology expertise and global connections.
  • There is a lot of research that looks like science fiction to enhance your product or build a product around it — you just need to look.
  • Your company can attract global talent to a city that has has a world class institution. A lot of the really talented people in the world have a partner that has some interested in research.

…and so much more.

There is no single model for supporting entrepreneurs — its art not science

Once upon a time there was just Y-Combinator. Then TechStars took a version of it and then everyone seemed to think there was a single model to rule them all. That model is essentially:

  • People apply and those applications are filtered/selected and a cohort is created.
  • That cohort runs for ~12 weeks where the founders work with mentors towards a due date.
  • Demo day happens and investors compete to invest in these newly minted companies.
  • Success follows!

My more detailed views are a post when I say there is just one model that works – Y-Combinator. I still believe that. If you are going to exchange equity for coaching/training and you have a certain type of company then YC is the only place you should go.

When it comes to supporting entrepreneurship in research based institutions there is no single way to do it. I don’t think there is a single program that could or should try and take on all the different ways to do it. Why? Organizations need to focus. You can provide a single service to a certain customer base but if you try and make everyone happy you inevitable be mediocre at everything.

University of Toronto is the only example I know of that has many different programs being delivered by many different ‘owners’ that have absolute control over how that program is run. That allows them to focus on their areas and deliver the best possible program. There may be some overlap and there may be some mistakes but no one really knows how this is done so the experiments are invaluable and should be watched by everyone interested in entrepreneur education/support.

Overall

I am really excited about the future of entrepreneurship in Canada. I don’t think anyone yet knows how or if there there is a common model to educate entrepreneurs in higher education. We do know many different ways that work and lots of others that don’t work as well. It is an exciting problem that I have worked on for nearly 10 years – I will continue to support entrepreneurship but in different ways.

The Role that Education Institutions play in Entrepreneur Education

Standard

The role education plays in entrepreneurship is a discussion built on the assumption that entrepreneurship is a skill that can be developed. I believe entrepreneurship is a label we place on the human ability to organize, develop tools, and collect resources to survive.

Being taught to have the confidence and ability to effectively apply those skills in a business sense may not suit everyone’s interests but you can be taught how to better leverage your ability in a business situation. Few will ever be truly great entrepreneurs but most can be happy and make a living being an entrepreneur.

If you accept it is a skill that can be developed then the tough questions to ask are: Who can teach it? What role do education institutions have in the development of entrepreneurs? Do we need more resources? Does education need to change?

In October I participated in the Quebec City Conference – a gem of a conference that focuses on venture capital, policy, and supporting companies. I found myself in a room with a number very smart an accomplished educators (this includes a number of other experienced Directors of programs, VCs, academics, and founders) of entrepreneurship in Canada we covered the topic of the role of education in entrepreneurship.

When I left the room I was left thinking that opinions over education and entrepreneurship are shaped by their understanding of what education is (or isn’t). A lot of people only have the perspective of a student in education and they are focused on the classroom only.

I think education institutions as a whole have a general set of responsibilities:

  • Teach people how to learn.
  • Create an environment where students can explore their interests and develop expertise.
  • Through education and research, develop civic minded citizens — otherwise what is the public interest in funding it?

Entrepreneurship education is something that is being discussed specifically like it is something different and special. I think there are three key areas that people are currently lumping into one:

  • Developing companies and supporting founders as they begin the journey by providing space and/or specifically designed extra-curricular programming.
  • Developing students knowledge and skills to either build their own company or succeed at being an employee in an early stage company, otherwise known as (build your own) career preparation as part of their formal education.
  • Intellectual property (or research) commercialization

The three key areas require different things and are measured by different metrics but at the same time are deeply dependant on one another to be successful. I am highly skeptical that a single ‘program’ or department could do all three well. I also think higher education by its design was already doing all three but their core business metrics don’t allow them to focus on it.

Whatever the solution is in higher education with regards to entrepreneurship education it must be anchored in its responsibilities as an education institution. To me that means the outcome is a culture shift — the environment needs to support people that want to build businesses and the people at those institutions need to be incentivized to support the people and the activities around building businesses.

Culture shifts are harder than creating a program. They take longer than election cycles and my guess is that they are a reflection of the culture in the broader community. They talk of education as a whole needs to focus less on the belief that education is broken and focus more on what is working and how to make it better.

10 years of blogging: coder to dad to entreprenuer

Standard

In April 2004 I started blogging. When it started, I wrote about things that I would have posted on uw.general (the wild west of amazing backchannel at U of Waterloo once upon a time) – status updates on the main web page, standards, and other interesting things. That evolved into an interesting timeline of life events over the years. In looking back I can see my transition from a coder working away at web stuff to a dad and entrepreneur. What I learned going back over my blog’s 10 years:

  • Writing more means I have become a better writer or expect more from my writing which means I blog less.
  • Going through my old posts reminded me that startups need community more than anything – that is what gave me the confidence to build one.
  • It is fun to build things. I don’t want to ever stop doing that.
  • I need to shift back to a balance of sharing life events and writing about things I am passionate about.

This is my current top 10 in the last 10 years.

  1. Back then I was really excited about web development, this is when I first started thinking about Ruby on Rails in January 2005.
  2. It wasn’t until the summer of 2006 when I really got excited about development — that summer was a big with the development of some interesting things on rails.
  3. January 2007 my first son was born (and it was mentioned in the Daily Bulletin at the bottom!) – I posted about the next 3 kids but this one was the first.
  4. January 2007 started the mobile project that became VeloCity. As part of that project we built a twitter clone, UW Chatter. It didn’t go anywhere but it was cool.
  5. I started a new job in with the Special Projects Group and I was President of the University of Waterloo Staff Association – that work inspired TribeHR for me.
  6. StartupCampWaterloo was launched. It was small. In early 2008 we hosted the second one at it was big, over 100 people attended including the infamous David Crow and future CDL G7 member Jevon MacDonald. Then in the fall of 2008 we got really excited about the Startup Community in Waterloo at StartupCampWaterloo3 even though the economy was falling apart.
  7. TribeHR was unveiled at DemoCampGuelph – that demo had a bad connection to the projector, lots of laughing, and 4 years later it was acquired by Netsuite.
  8. IgniteWaterloo started and I did the opening presentation as a last minute stand in!
  9. The moment I truly felt VeloCity was successful and the startup community in Waterloo is heading to an awesome place with the amazing 7cubedproject.
  10. I learned how important things like fishing with kids are.

In 2013 and 2014 so far my posts have almost been entirely focused on the work I am doing. The last 2 years have seen a big shift in my focus to family but that doesn’t come out in my blog at all. I will work on that.

The next 10 years are going to be fun!

The Market for Credit and Supporting Entrepreneurs

Standard

Over the last few years of growth in Accelerator or Incubator programs, the overall media coverage of early stage tech startups has increased in Canada. The lack of coverage before the programs existed made media coverage a metric of success. For any entrepreneur support program to be relevant there is a requirement to be mentioned in the media resulting in the Alumni Success Metric as a key metric used to identify success of any program.

I think we need to find a better way to measure these programs and the effect on the problem they are solving.

As more and more programs compete on this metric they spend more on marketing to rise above the others which results in an increase in the costs to deliver a program. I believe competing on this metric can foster animosity between programs and hurts collaboration between a large number of extremely talented people.

What is the problem?

Founders are taking advantage of everything offered to them (as they should) which results to this common scenario in Canada (not based on any particular company).

  • Founders went to University of Toronto (and/or Waterloo and/or Ryerson and/or WLU and/or insert school here) and worked out of Banting and Best (and/or the Garage and/or the DMZ and/or any coworking space).
  • Someone else on the team took a pre-accelerter or some other community education program.
  • They are clients of MaRS and Communitech and Halton Innovation and…
  • OCE has awarded them a grant., MaRS IAF will invest in them, IRAP might have had a role.
  • They might get into another accelerator program before they finally get a few key investors at the table and start to grow.

When they get VC funding or something big worth a media push, what happens? Up to 10 organizations want to be listed and each of them release a story about how proud they are. Few if any list the other organizations or programs or people that helped (because the list is huge).

How this may hurt entrepreneurs?

Funding and product announcements aren’t success, they are a milestone that is blown way up in the local media as a result of everyone getting excited (excitement is good, celebrate the good things). It is possible that the positioning of programs media releases could confuse the market that the company needs to reach.

That said, the media coverage froth is likely localized to Canadian media so it probably has no effect on where the companies market likely is: the United States.

This intense market for credit can be frustrating for everyone who delivers programs. In reality it takes a community to raise a startup. From funders that have done it before to programs designed to focus attention, lower the risks associated with getting started, and build peer groups. We should all celebrate the entrepreneur and collectively be excited there is so many people out there helping them.

The metric is good for something.

Where I think the Alumni Success Metric does work is that helps inspire new founders. Knowing that good things have happened for those that come before them in the same program is the same metric Higher Education uses to recruit undergraduate and graduate students.

How do we avoid the zero sum game around credit?

The metric is not useful for defining the success of any program as most of the support happens in parallel in accelerators or incubators. It is extremely difficult to know what helped and when and where or what made the difference. It creates something for programs to compete over when they should be collaborating.

The stories about companies growing shouldn’t be “x program’s y company has done z” but instead be about how the company achieved this milestone and all the people that helped along the way.

A metric needs to exist that can demonstrate how effective a program is without having each program battle it out with marketing.

Step #1 is that we have to stop thinking of service organizations or accelerators or incubators as startups. They aren’t. They are philanthropic organizations offering a support group and networking services for founders, funders, and service providers.

The main goal is not to build sustainable models around these organizations (how can most realistically generate revenue outside of an education or philanthropic model?) but build a sustainable ecosystem that doesn’t require the current level of philanthropic support. Every philanthropic organization should hope that one day the problem they are solving is no longer a problem. That should be no different with supporting entrepreneurs and everyone should work together to achieve that outcome.

Waterloo Region’s LRT: the debate that won’t end

Standard

The Region of Waterloo is undergoing a major public works project that will place Light Rail Transit along the core of two of the major municipalities in the Region: Kitchener and Waterloo. This ambitious project is being sold as an important infrastructure project for the future of a rapidly growing and exciting place to live. I support the idea of it. I see the long term benefits and I think it will help build a better city.

Sadly, even after a decision was made the debate goes on. It will be a highlight of the upcoming municipal election which I fear could get some people elected based on the public’s feeling on a particular issue that will be oversimplified and placed into sound bites. LRT is so much bigger than an election cycle or two.

I think there is complex set of reasons why this argument will not end but these are my three big ones:

  1. Population density and how/why people use their cars is a big risk that is being brushed over. The “field of dreams” argument (build it and they will come) can not be a suitable response! Explain it to people in how they get around now and how it will be better. If you can’t there is a problem! Figure out how to manage the problem.
  2. If you oppose it or question it openly you are shouted down as being against “the future.” When a young community leader spoke up at council they tried to discredit him instead of discussing his main point that people won’t switch to transit from cars. What are they so worried about? Engage these people and their different views. Adapt! It will make it better.
  3. A very dynamic and flexible leadership group is needed to ensure the plan can adapt to future realities. One example, it might make more sense to place the GO train in Cambridge. The LRT doesn’t get there and a transportation hub is planned for Kitchener — what if you can’t likely have a 1 hour train on that line for 20 years but you can next year in Cambridge?

There needs to be less storytelling and more practicality in the discussions. Good leadership tells it like it is and deals with issues head on. This community needs to take on the issues like the crippled transportation infrastructure with Toronto and not sweep potential risks out of view with idealistic statements of what they hope will happen. Also, there needs to be a larger theme of a walkable city that isn’t just about tech startups but involves the future of recreation, manufacturing jobs (because the discussion can’t ignore the largest employment sector in the region), research, and retail. Make this future more inclusive.

Lets talk big. Talk positive. Include the young leaders and diverse economy into the discussion!

Otherwise, I fear, something that could be so positive for the Region, the Province, and the country might not become a reality.

 

The “Tech Cluster” discussion must include Hamilton

Standard

There is no doubt in my mind that when we are talking about tech in Canada and the future of the economy, Toronto and Waterloo will play a big role. It is one big ecosystem and it’s growing. There are some limitations to this growth and the big scary one is the relative lack of transportation infrastructure west of the Halton Region. This problem is making people choose between communities which isn’t good for growth.

A recent Huffington Post article where I was featured highlights the problem for technology (and just about any sector really) jobs. For myself I work in Toronto where there is a much larger concentration of research (17 000 grad students, $1.2B in research at UofT alone) which is important for me as I am constantly looking for founders with the potential to build scalable companies. With four kids the quality of life that I would like for my kids would be hard to provide in Toronto.

The quality of life issue is something that can be overcome by living in a lot of different communities outside of Toronto. You can have better access to and from Toronto to areas that have a similar quality of life as Waterloo in almost every direction away from Toronto but not west of Halton Region. Those other communities are 45-60 min train ride which is just another 15-30 min over the average commute if you live in Toronto.

The discussion on tech ecosystems has shifted from Waterloo or Toronto to a larger technology cluster of Toronto AND Waterloo — which is great! The problem, I think, is that only talking about Waterloo and Toronto for technology is limiting the stories being told of the amazing technology companies that exist in a broader cluster around Toronto.

If you are going to talk about a Technology cluster in Ontario it can’t be just about Waterloo, it must include the QEW corridor down to Niagara and it should put more emphasis on Hamilton. This area includes the regional municipalities of Halton, Hamilton, and Niagara (could also include Woodstock, Brant county, and Brantford). Combined they account for roughly 1.6 million people — nearly half the population is in Hamilton and it has the largest urban centre outside of Toronto in the south of the province. 

The conversation has to expand as I think it limits the economic growth by cutting off the story telling in the broader ‘technology’ sector. If all we talk about is Waterloo or Toronto we are distracting people from all the opportunity in a very broad area. Research, Software, and Hardware will be sprinkled around seeding growth everywhere. We also need to talk about and support the next evolution of technology manufacturing otherwise this resource rich country will keep exporting raw materials and be reliant on other countries to build our products.

This is not a zero-sum game.

What is the problem accelerators are solving?

Standard

There is currently a preoccupation with accelerators in the entrepreneur world resulting in a large increase in programs.  Arguably, the result of this frenzied growth is that ‘entrepreneurship’ is as commoditized as college. Unlike college, it is extremely hard to know which programs are adding value and which ones are wasting everyone’s time. This doesn’t mean investors aren’t in the know and they are favouring the programs they like – example, YC or TechStars.

It could become (or has already become) virtually meaningless to be an accelerator born internet entrepreneur so why would you give up 6-12% of your company to do it? For investors it is really hard to cut through the noise. I think this is because few people actually know why accelerators exist at all. In some cases I fear that the people that are creating new ones aren’t likely clear on why they are creating these programs either.

How does anyone know which ones work? What problem are they solving? What metrics should they be tracking in order to get better at what they are doing?

Defining the problem(s) accelerators solve.

There are three problems I think accelerators are trying to solve:

  1. Investors need to identify talent.
  2. Talent needs to find the right investors and coaches.
  3. Education system failure.

The first is a relatively easy problem to solve. It is hard for investors to identify talent at an early stage, accelerator programs offer a filtering tool for investors as they can take the top talent that applies and narrow it down to those that have the highest potential based the criteria of the particular program. If an investor trusts the filtering job done by the accelerator than that accelerator is providing value.

A suggested metric for this: measure how many alumni of a program receive funding, from what type of investor, and in what time span?

The second problem that talented people and teams have is finding the *right* investors and coaches. By the right investor I mean someone that will give you enough money and coaching that you can slowly de-risk your startup a little more and build momentum as you grow towards being a sustainable business. Founders need coaches to apprentice under while they build their company. The right investor is someone who will put in enough of their own money and time and they can help you get your business through the major milestones it faces. This likely means that party rounds are bad. What I think should be the goal are 4-6 investors and/or an individual (not a VC) has a 1/2 to 1/3 of the total round.

This should result in the person(s) who put in significant capital also have a board seat and have their sleeves rolled up ready/able to help.

A suggested metric: track who put in the most personal money in the round and are they on the board of directors or some other significant role in the company? How much time a week/month do they spend with the founders?

The failure in education is a much harder problem to solve. Is it the traditional silos that are limiting education or is it the expectation that you go to school to be trained for a job or a bit of both or something else? Is the failure the education system (K-12) or is it the students or both?

In higher education you have environments that are designed to encourage independent thought that is backed by facts and thinking. You should be exploring and developing your networks. At no other point in your life will you be surrounding with that much leading edge research and thinking. Just because a school doesn’t hand you your first startup with funding and office space does not mean the education system is failing entrepreneurs!

There is also already a process for very smart people to apprentice under others that have already developed their ability to take massive amounts of information and focus it on an outcome. It also happens to come with a filtering mechanism built right in that improves the likelihood that the person that finishes is relatively in the top few percent. It’s graduate school.

The process is not perfect but it is a process that works. Educating people is hard. Coaching people is harder still. If an accelerator is going to solve the failure of the education system in educating entrepreneurs it should take that part very seriously and not dismiss the education system as having nothing to offer.

A suggested metric: Does the accelerator have qualified educators and coaches that put in a significant amount of time (more than 1 hr a week) with each entrepreneur? Are there measurable outcomes expected on the entrepreneur? Are there consequences for not meeting expectations?

Accelerators should be more than marketing to the entrepreneur and placing them in a zoo for the public to see them in action. Education is serious business and it is about people’s future. Entrepreneurs need to have realistic expectations and enter with a clear idea of what they want out of the opportunity.

Everyone around accelerators is still learning about how to make them work and for whom. It is an exciting time in education — just be sure to track stuff that matters while you run the experiments!

Looking at Canadian Startups and What University Founders Came from According to Angellist

Standard

Using a bit more than simply searching Angellist a student working with the Creative Destruction Lab took a look at where ventures are located in Canada and are on Angellist. By no means is this super accurate as it only includes companies that have made a profile but what is interesting is that Toronto has over nine times the startups listing it as home over Waterloo with the University of Waterloo having a slight edge over University of Toronto in terms of what schools the founders went to. There are 46 different schools on this list.

According to Angel.co there are this many number of ventures in a certain city:

  • Toronto: 765
  • Waterloo: 81
  • Vancouver: 426
  • Ottawa: 93

The numbers below are the schools these founders have gone to (still working on this) and it isn’t restricted to Canadian only. This is just from the founders of companies that are in Canada:

  1. University of Waterloo: 42
  2. UofT:  33
  3. Ryerson University: 14
  4. Queen’s University: 14
  5. McGill University: 13
  6. University of Western Ontario: 11
  7. York University: 10
  8. McMaster University: 6
  9. Wilfrid Laurier University: 5
  10. University of Guelph: 4
  11. University of British columbia: 3
  12. University of Calgary: 3
  13. Columbia University: 3
  14. Sheridan College: 3
  15. Auckland University: 2
  16. Dalhousie University: 2
  17. George Brown College: 2
  18. Harvard University: 2
  19. Laurentian University: 2
  20. Seneca College: 2
  21. Simon Fraser University: 2
  22. University of Alberta: 1
  23. Boston University: 1
  24. Brock University: 1
  25. Concordia University: 1
  26. Dominica College: 1
  27. Durham University: 1
  28. Indian Institute of Technology: 1
  29. Institut national des science: 1
  30. Instituto technologico: 1
  31. Lakehead University: 1
  32. Michigan University: 1
  33. University of Montreal: 1
  34. Navarra University: 1
  35. University of New Brunswick: 1
  36. Northwestern University: 1
  37. OCAD University: 1
  38. University of Ottawa: 1
  39. University of Phoenix: 1
  40. Quest University: 1
  41. Rollins University: 1
  42. Ruskin University: 1
  43. Southern California University: 1
  44. Stanford University: 1
  45. University of Vancouver: 1
  46. Wolverhampton College: 1

A Perspective on Investor/Mentor Whiplash

Standard

The other day Fred Wilson posted an opinion and some tips on Investor/Mentor Whiplash. He took the position that that is a big problem for accelerators as well as early stage and seed environments. Brad Feld took this as a bit of a misunderstanding on accelerators, he insists that TechStars creates an environment where early stage companies can learn to manage the whiplash. Brad Feld states:

I disagree with Fred. It’s not a big problem. It’s the essence of one of things an accelerator program is trying to teach the entrepreneurs going through it. Specifically, building muscle around processing data and feedback, and making your own decisions.

On the surface this seems correct. A problem (one of many) new founders face is the overwhelming barrage of mentorship (good and bad) and information mixed with the inability to filter. An accelerator should be able to provide the environment where a strong group of peers with some guidance can help to build the “muscle around processing data and feedback.” In the last 6 years I have noticed that is a common problem founders face and their ability to manage it is important to their success. It wasn’t until I experienced the whiplash myself a 2nd and 3rd time that I fully appreciated the damage it can do even if you are prepared for it.

Generally what I tell early stage founders:

  • Only talk to customers once you have something to show them — but that shouldn’t take you a long time, don’t go heads down for months. Asking people what they want and not focusing on something specific they can touch/feel is a path to busy work and infinite sadness.
  • Avoid the mentor parties/socialization. Find two (or three) good people with opposing views and bounce specific data off them but only when you have done something that requires fresh eyes to advise you how to interpret the results.
  • Focus on what isn’t working when getting feedback from mentors. Founders need to be positive but you need to focus on the bad things when talking to your close mentors that have been through it already. If they can’t help you with the tough stuff why are you spending a lot of time with them?
  • Don’t expect a direct answer. Experienced mentors know you are the best person to run your company, not them, and they have developed a way of not telling you what or how to do things but instead challenge you to figure it out in a positive way.

Whiplash from mentors doesn’t just happen in startups, it happens everywhere people are giving you advice or have something to gain by influencing the decisions you are about to make or the opinion you develop on something.

Being prepared and learning to manage the whiplash isn’t just the essence of accelerator programs, it is the essence of education that culminates in the top level you can achieve to filter information – a phd program. At the phd level the filter muscle is almost too strong but that is a topic of a whole other blog post.

The scary thing for entrepreneurs is that accelerator programs are too often run by people that don’t know how to effectively educate people and/or they have something to gain financially by the decisions founders make.

I think this *is* a big problem in accelerators. I wonder if the ability to teach that skill to founders (or select founders that already have that skill) is the difference between a successful accelerator (which is really only TechStars and YC) and one that isn’t (pretty much everyone else)?

What is the Value of the ‘Alumni Success’ Accelerator Metric?

Standard

There is a rapidly growing number of support groups and organizations that fit into the category of accelerator or incubator. What is the value one of the core metrics many accelerators use today ‘Alumni’ success and what does success mean? That success metric can be a funding event, exit, or some other significant milestone that has been made public. Each has a different value but the purpose is to say something positive about the accelerator which is, for many, a key ‘metric’ used to report back to those that back the program.

Why is it a metric at all? After all, shouldn’t accelerator/incubators be focused on making money? The role of accelerators in Canada according to Mark MacLoed:

…these programs are not meant to help investors discover the next giant. They are there to help investors and mentors identify, nurture and develop talent. In smaller markets like Canada’s, we are sorely lacking in proven, been there, got the t-shirt talent.

I generally agree with Mark as the purpose of all these programs is to build a funnel of qualified talent which has a value to those that back the accelerator. That could include investors and/or the government (the tax payer). I will add that what happens with all this support is self guided experiential ‘business education’ but that is another blog post.

When an accelerator releases something that states “congrats to cohort company x on raising money from y” how should future applicants weigh those releases when the company is an alumni of more than one program? How should the people that support these organizations value those announcements?

As a recruiting and reporting tool I can certainly see the value in getting the organizations name out there. The problem is that it starts to sound like a ‘party round’ where so many people have been involved in some way it is impossible to say who made the difference. The truth is they all helped. The value for any one organization is not as high as it would be if the company only worked within a tiny controlled system. That simply isn’t happening and that is a good thing. It takes an early stage business ecosystem to build more frequent and bigger success which includes all points between here and the valley.

This is something very similar to the education system where every school at all stages of education can share in celebrating success of their alumni. If a higher concentration of success is coming from a particular school then that won’t go unnoticed and it should be supported and enhanced.

What I hope will happen peacefully and relatively unnoticed by the entrepreneur is that the organizations that have more success grow, those that low success fail, and new ideas are injected into the process as everyone keeps learning.