Thank you to our Network Members

Harrisburg University of Science & Technology
Supporting ITN Sponsor
View Profile

TWEET FEED

NEWSLETTER

Register to receive ITN Newsletters!

Home > Blog > start-ups

Posts Tagged ‘start-ups’

5 Points for Start-Ups from Boston CEO’s & Investors

Posted March 25th, 2011 by admin

In the fast-paced world of tech start-ups, one thing hasn’t changed. It’s all about people. That was the clear message communicated by company founders like Paul English, co-founder of travel site, Kayak, at the Momentum Summit on the campus of MIT this week. During his interview by venture capitalist and Harvard Entrepreneur In Residence, Jeffrey Bussgang, English made the point that he is aggressive (his word) about hiring and firing. He commits to each new hire that every seat around them “will be filled with electric people.”  Anyone who doesn’t measure up gets a pink slip. So what’s at the top of his desired skills list? Bandwidth, attitude, no dysfunctional behavior, broad experience, and no neutrals (meaning every management team member has to be excited about the candidate). If English gets a “rock star” referral, his goal is to bring them in and close the deal within seven days of the referral. People are his secret sauce to generating more revenue per each of his 130 employees. With a run rate of $200 million since their launch in 2004, this has proven to be a prime differentiator for English and his management team.

Once a small team is up an running, Ric Fulop (@ricfulop), co-founder of A123 Systems (an MIT spin out) and General Partner at North Bridge Ventures says “every developer has to be a product manager.” His point was that small teams have to be “aggressive (there’s that word again…) about locking down the first vertical…focus on the least amount of stuff possible and outsource everything!” According to Fulop, “If your first product doesn’t look like a feature, you’re doing something wrong.”

When small start-up teams meet with large partners to discuss a deal, Fulop shared a key point for CEO’s to remember, “These companies are so big, they’re like small countries. They don’t know technology, they’re politicians at the top.” Point being that a highly technology conversation will immediately be lost on the group, however, one centered on benefits and value-add will resonate.

Turning from technology to marketing, Brian Halligan, an MIT Sloan School alum/EIR, as well as co-founder of Internet marketing company, HubSpot, took the stage. He’s your typical high-energy marketing guy, fully caffeinated and passionate about content. He carried his coffee cup around as he paced the stage making his point that “success is equal to the width of your brain, not the width of your wallet.” Eighty-five of his 200 employees blog demonstrating his belief that today’s marketers are publishers. In his world, it’s all about creating a hub on the Internet of valuable content. He understands that not every blog will be a home run, but if 1/10 goes viral, it’s worth it. “Viral co-efficient” was a favorite term from his session representing the growth curve of viral content as it relates to followers, links and ultimately dollars back to the company.

Another favorite term of the day, pivot, was explained by Lee Hower, of NextView Ventures, as the nice way of saying, “near death company experience.”  As an early PayPal employee and founding member of LinkedIn who now invests in seed stage Internet companies, he’ s seen his share of pivot points. Hower interviewed the CEO of Swipely, Angus Davis, who sold his former company, TellMe, to Microsoft for a reported $800 million. Their discussion centered around the three reasons why today is a great time to open a business versus the bubble days of 1999: 1. Open source software makes it dramatically easier to develop at a reduced cost. 2. The ability to “rent” infrastructure (think: Cloud services through Amazon). 3. Access to distribution channels.

During lunch we each selected a relevant table discussion topic. There were several good ones, but in the end I chose to hear from Matt Douglas, CEO of Punchbowl. We bantered about the Top 10 business development issues.

The full session was hosted by the likable tech journalist, Scott Kirsner, writer of the Boston Globe’s Innovation Economy, whom I had the chance to meet at SXSW last year and follow on Twitter (@scottkirsner) for industry trends and interesting company innovation.

The Slippery Slope of Drafting an IP Policy

Posted January 13th, 2010 by admin

Drafting a new Intellectual Property (IP) policy is not for the faint of heart. ITN arranged a conference call this morning between one of our liberal arts colleges and our university partner supporting ITN on IP questions. The Director shared a few items for consideration and potential road blocks for companies, faculty and the universities as they draft new policies. It was interesting to hear the crazy circumstances that creep up in university-based IP development.

Major topics on the call included questions around how to treat students (graduate students vs. undergraduates) as they get involved in  projects. What happens when students move into the lab and begin working on specific research? Are medical and law students treated the same as students involved in research?

The age-old issue of getting agreements in writing appears to be a step people still avoid. It’s a simple step that can eliminate many a sleepless night and large investments in legal battles if parties would simply take the time to document their mutual understanding prior to moving forward. This doesn’t have to invovle the next iteration of search technology either. Issues can be as simple as developing new website designs (created by students) or faculty course design. Laying out who owns the final product in advance can go a long way in saving relationships.

Joint ownership of IP, and assigning patents to companies or back to faculty, are additional tricky and potentially time consuming endeavours. If ownership of IP is between multiple parties (either people or people/colleges/universities), there are specific items to discuss on how those parties can move forward on development. And if outside funding has occurred to support IP development, meaning an NSF or NIH grant for example, then approval for assigning IP becomes more involved - and takes longer.

When faculty members want to pursue starting a company and integrate their IP into the start-up, things get really interesting.  Is the role of the faculty member as company owner or as a key management team member? Will the university take an equity stake to license the technology or not? Will a specific faculty member’s skills translate to strong start-up company leadership? (Most investors say no.) These were all part of the dialogue. 

For colleges and universities looking into a new IP policy, tapping into a qualified IP resource for Q&A early in the process can be a big help, and time-saver.  You might also want to take a look at Wendy Kennedy’s “So What? Who Cares? Why You?” It’s a reader-friendly, colorful workbook for those seriously considering launching a company - whether faculty or not - and can be a valuable handout. The more access everyone has to simple, easy-to-read guidelines and forms, the smoother the process can be for all parties involved.