These days I am spending a lot of time on business development. How
to take an idea and move it thru all the bits and turns from the
idea to a $100M business. (01)
We see bundles of external money coming into universities to fund research.
At OSU it is $250M or so. Each year. (02)
And yet, the side effect of businesses that come out of that work is
relatively low. (03)
Part of the reason is the word "prototype". (04)
When a researcher has had an idea , done the basic research and then
done extra work to get to a "prototype" of the process, which proves
that it works, then they are done. They think this is just a hop,skip and
a jump from having a business selling it. We will call this a research
prototype. it demonstrates the idea. Often it is not a "product prototype",
which is the process of reworking the research prototype into a product
format and solving all the boring niggley problems of space, energy ,
battery life, form factor, user interface, etc. (05)
This is what R+D departments do at companies. They take a research prototype
and move it to a product prototype. However, This is often not what is needed
for making a business. Often this product prototype really is not
manufacturable at a cost that is acceptable. And it is not really
tested enough with the audience to be a good product. And so what you really
need is a "production prototype". This has the next round of niggley
issues like economics and user testing and so forth done. (06)
Venture capitalists really want to fund a business development AFTER
the "production prototype" is done. (07)
Universities want to stop working on the project BEFORE the Research
prototype is done. (08)
Hence a gap. A gap in understanding. A gap in vocabulary. And a big
gap in funding. (09)
What I see peter doing is the pointing to the "research prototype"
Build an early example of it and then "wing it" (010)
But if you actually slog thru the niggley work of the details of
economics, and form factor and efficiency and user testing... You actually
get something that works a whole lot better and which has serious traction. (011)
We have been at the "wish it would work phase for some time" , it is time
for us to do the dirty hard work of moving the research prototype to
a production system that has traction..... (012)
"Peter P. Jones" <ppj@concept67.net> writes: (013)
% Ok,
% I was wondering if I am just a radically different kind of person, and
% perhaps in this arena at this moment that is true.
%
% I see us looking at:
% 1) an entirely new scenario
% 2) a need to believe in human potential, because otherwise we definitely
% shouldn't bother
% 3) a need to move forward fast (agreeing with John in essence)
% 4) a need to step off into uncharted territory and wing it (the point
% John doesn't appear to be happy with)
%
% It has always seemed to me that the essence of bootstrapping is not a
% bunch of birds sitting around poring over perfecting aerodynamics
% equations to work out how to fly.
%
% I see us birds, I see wings, I see lots of poring over aerodynamics, and
% I wonder about that.
%
% Imho, the very essence of the thing/feeling/trigger for people that we
% need to tap into to make things happen has never been captured in an
% equation. It has never, to my knowledge, been captured by hunters and
% bottled. It tends to have gone when they get to where they thought it
% ought to be. It [the magic] is not really in the tools, it seems to me.
%
% So when John poses all these questions about detail I'm wary of ruling
% out futures by attempting to predict them so that they become dulled
% before their time.
%
% --
% Peter
%
%
%
%
%
% John Sechrest wrote:
% > "Peter P. Jones" <ppj@concept67.net> writes:
% >
% > % John, Jack,
% >
% > % Are you folks typing without listening to yourselves?
% >
% > Yes, I am very specifically paying attention to it. I think
% > that we have to get to details to understand things. And I think
% > that things we have now and are already in place do not seem to be
% > sufficient to actually move things. And therefore if we have things
% > that are not currently working, that we need to do something different.
% >
% >
% > % Half the questions John has posed that I have been ploughing away at
% > % have already contained the answers John is now seeking again.
% >
% > If you think that, then I am not being clear enough. I am trying to
% > push down to detail each of the items that it will take to make
% > progress. And to find out what about what we have needs to be different
% > to make progress.
% >
% >
% > % And there's a hint of damning all souls in advance because of a few,
and
% > % because of presumptions about points of failure before starting. What
if
% > % those points don't fail? What if it turns out that you are the key
% > % individual whose flip choice either saves or damns us all? What would
% > % you choose?
% >
% > It is not the presumption of failure that I am pointing at. It is the
% > idea of "and then a mircle occurs" that I am pointing at.
% > IE, if we have a portal and we get all the right people together
% > and they can link and create great discussions and they can find
% > meaning in the choas of it, then Poof, we get a result.
% >
% > It is more than Open Hypertext document systems. It is more
% > than marketing. It is more than web portals..... Why? Because
% > we have all of those and we don't see traction.
% >
% >
% > % Orkut is just a gathering place, it is not a purposeful activity place.
% > % But it contains useful pointers.
% >
% > Great. Given Orkut is a useful pointer place, what actions should I take
% > with it that will cause traction on the issue of siberia/methane and
% > global warming and the comming consequences?
% >
% >
% >
% >
% > % Jack said:
% > % > The problem, as I see it, is that the ant theory requires a kind of
% > % > extremely large scale highly distributed coordination system that
% > % > humans seem to miss.
% >
% > % Yes, a networked improvement community system. Cf. the work of Douglas
% > % Englebart.
% >
% > Ok. Having taken the Engelbart bootstrap class and working on the
% > C community idea for a while, they do not seem to have traction after
% > the events. Certainly improving how we do improving of specific
% > processes is a good thing. But it lacks urgency and therefore always gets
% > a short end of the stick in terms of attention, funding and resources.
% >
% > A primary task like adapting to climate change seems like an important
% > "A Task" to attend to. With the "B task" of improving how we respond
% > and the "C task of improving how we improve" can be done as well.
% >
% > But the money will go into the A task, because it is the motivator.
% >
% >
% > % John has already outlined what the objectives fed into it should be.
% >
% > Thank you for the kind optimism. I perhaps pointed at a couple
% > of the possible things to focus on. I am sure it is both incomplete
% > and narrow. But it does serve as a starting point.
% >
% >
% >
% >
% >
% > -----
% > John Sechrest . Helping people use
% > . computers and the Internet
% > . more effectively
% > .
% > . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
% > .
% > .
http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
% >
%
% --
% This message is archived at:
%
%
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=43174705.2020607@concept67.net
% (014)
-----
John Sechrest . Helping people use
. computers and the Internet
. more effectively
.
. Internet: sechrest@peak.org
.
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest (015)
--
This message is archived at: (016)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=E1EAudM-0003gq-0b@jas.peak.org (017)
|