I’ve written about networking, and how much the very word has been misused, before but I today I had occasion to think again about the same topic. I was at a breakfast meeting which has, as one of its express purposes, the promotion of networking amongst its members. Each attendee gets a chance to stand up and say a few choice words about themselves so as to orient others about their own interests and expertise. Every one of us has, no doubt, been to one of these types of meetings. Far too often it is when we are “looking for our next adventure on the journey of life”. After the meeting people generally hang around and chat with some old friends and try to meet some new ones based on these introductory remarks.
TWO people stood up at the introductions and said “…I am looking for a job so I’m networking here today…” and it struck me! Networking is like planting a TREE. One starts with a sapling. One waters it and nourishes it and makes sure no one accidentally steps on it. In a short while the sapling starts to put down roots. On the surface nothing much happens at first as all of the nourishments go to make better stronger roots below the surface. Then it starts to grow. It becomes tall and strong and withstands some storms and MANY winters. It resists drought and pestilence and even begins to offer shade on those hot summer days. Eventually it bears flowers, leaves… and yes; if it is the right kind of tree it offers fruits.
“I’m looking for a job so I’m here networking…” is like saying “It’s almost lunchtime and I’m hungry so let’s plant a fruit tree…” I just doesn’t work like that. Now each of us is in a rush and have little time to just be friends with EVERYONE we meet but those who have taken the time and made the effort in the right area for the right length of time have shown their commitment to that area over others and it is PRECISELY the reason why their network will pay off in that area eventually. We need to nurture our network like we take care of a plant. We need to nourish it, protect it with constant effort, and shelter it in good times and in bad so that it grows and flourishes. If we are too busy to network we IMPLICITLY say this is not important enough to me to be a priority. There are a hundred urgencies that could EASILY displace this activity from our daily routine. But we do this at our own peril. When we are hungry, or need shelter from the storm we cannot expect the network to sustain us and to do for us what we have not done for it. Far too often young professionals network actively until they find their first job and then simply drop out of the networking scene. They are soon not missed any more and then even forgotten while their employers get full days of dedicated work. Unfortunately, their job situations being what they are these days they soon find themselves dusting off the old rolodex and trying to resurrect old acquaintances. This is like trying to water a plant that one has put in the closet for a few years and forgotten about. People have moved on. They are busy moving their own networks forward and most of all they remember that the last time you used them until you didn’t have an immediate need for them. This implicitly made fools of them and pointed up their inability to judge who to trust and this is something people remember. There’s an old saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on ME”. So more than not being useful, the old efforts may actually act AGAINST you if you pursue a shortsighted view of the networking game. People base their decisions about who to help out on TRUST and RESPECT and that is only built over time and with steady constant effort. I know we are all busy but I’m sorry; there is simply no quick fix to this problem. Make the commitment early and STICK with it. Don’t be on the lookout to harvest what you have barely planted.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Privilege of Mentorship
“No man ever stood so tall as one who stooped to help a child” so the saying goes. This saying sounds simultaneously profoundly touching and somewhat condescending to me. I think of the act of helping the next generation somewhat differently. I think of it as a privilege granted to me by someone who trusts me enough to genuinely expect me to put them above my own life’s agenda.
Imagine a society where the ONLY way to achieve anything of significance in one’s life was to help others to achieve it… where one NATURALLY ascribed all of a person’s achievements to their TEACHER rather than directly to the person themselves. The consequences of having such a societal norm would transform society – no less. In order to succeed in such a society one would have to pick the right people to mentor and then devote oneself to making them better - MUCH BETTER - than oneself. This would be the only way to succeed since nothing we could do ourselves would ever result in acknowledgement to the doer but rather only to the teacher. We would be forced to convey all of what we have learned – not just the essentials – to the next generation and insist that they be better than we ever were. We would have to be sincerely engaged in this or we would have no hope of having achieved anything. Think of the consequences of such a societal norm. The next generation would be sincerely interested in learning from the previous since they could trust that the older generation would genuinely WANT (even for the most self serving of needs) to transfer all of their experience and knowledge to them. It would ensure progress – true progress - of our society, and it would empower all of us with a common purpose – to learn as much as we could from the experiences of past generations so as to be BETTER than them. It would make both teacher and student PROUD when the student exceeded the teacher! It would make us also pick and choose the very best teachers and students so that the possibility of truly moving past ourselves could be realized for both parties.
By now you are probably thinking “This can never REALLY happen! Right?” but history has already proved you wrong. This is the old eastern tradition of “GURU” and “CHELA”. In old eastern cultures a distinguished teacher simply walked the land teaching in villages and at other gatherings as he thought fit. They would naturally gather about a dozen or so younger people intent on learning as much as they could from the guru through experiencing life with the teacher. The guru for his part would carefully select these “chelas” so as to maximize the chances of producing, through them, a generation of gurus MUCH better than the present one since it was the ONLY way they had of truely achieving their lifes goals. Then the teacher would dedicate his life to transmitting as much of what he knew to these deciples as possible in the time left to him on earth. This is actually not such a foreign tradition even in the west. It is at the heart of Christianity itself. In other words not only is it POSSIBLE it is in fact part of the fabric of who we are today. But the tradition has been lost. Somewhere along the line society started to look no further than the performer rather than looking at the teacher. The teacher began to see the student as his “competition” and therefore started to teach them a little less than what they knew so that they would always have the upper hand over their students. One upmanship was born. Who can blame them for this. It is what they had to do to survive. But their survival has put our society at risk today. We are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our teachers. We are slowly – generation by generation – diminishing as a collective. We are all complicit in this evolution and we all have it in our power to change it if we so desire. Mentorship is one of the avenues to do that. If we each start by deciding to GENUINELY help someone realize their dreams by contributing our own experiences to their success – exposing all of the embarrassing mistakes that we have made along the way - with nothing asked in return except the sheer joy of watching a promising younger person succeed better than we ever could hope to, then we will have done something of GREAT significance in the world. We will have changed it forever. Mentorship is a privilege and those who perform well as mentors can be truly proud of their achievements and their legacy.
Imagine a society where the ONLY way to achieve anything of significance in one’s life was to help others to achieve it… where one NATURALLY ascribed all of a person’s achievements to their TEACHER rather than directly to the person themselves. The consequences of having such a societal norm would transform society – no less. In order to succeed in such a society one would have to pick the right people to mentor and then devote oneself to making them better - MUCH BETTER - than oneself. This would be the only way to succeed since nothing we could do ourselves would ever result in acknowledgement to the doer but rather only to the teacher. We would be forced to convey all of what we have learned – not just the essentials – to the next generation and insist that they be better than we ever were. We would have to be sincerely engaged in this or we would have no hope of having achieved anything. Think of the consequences of such a societal norm. The next generation would be sincerely interested in learning from the previous since they could trust that the older generation would genuinely WANT (even for the most self serving of needs) to transfer all of their experience and knowledge to them. It would ensure progress – true progress - of our society, and it would empower all of us with a common purpose – to learn as much as we could from the experiences of past generations so as to be BETTER than them. It would make both teacher and student PROUD when the student exceeded the teacher! It would make us also pick and choose the very best teachers and students so that the possibility of truly moving past ourselves could be realized for both parties.
By now you are probably thinking “This can never REALLY happen! Right?” but history has already proved you wrong. This is the old eastern tradition of “GURU” and “CHELA”. In old eastern cultures a distinguished teacher simply walked the land teaching in villages and at other gatherings as he thought fit. They would naturally gather about a dozen or so younger people intent on learning as much as they could from the guru through experiencing life with the teacher. The guru for his part would carefully select these “chelas” so as to maximize the chances of producing, through them, a generation of gurus MUCH better than the present one since it was the ONLY way they had of truely achieving their lifes goals. Then the teacher would dedicate his life to transmitting as much of what he knew to these deciples as possible in the time left to him on earth. This is actually not such a foreign tradition even in the west. It is at the heart of Christianity itself. In other words not only is it POSSIBLE it is in fact part of the fabric of who we are today. But the tradition has been lost. Somewhere along the line society started to look no further than the performer rather than looking at the teacher. The teacher began to see the student as his “competition” and therefore started to teach them a little less than what they knew so that they would always have the upper hand over their students. One upmanship was born. Who can blame them for this. It is what they had to do to survive. But their survival has put our society at risk today. We are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our teachers. We are slowly – generation by generation – diminishing as a collective. We are all complicit in this evolution and we all have it in our power to change it if we so desire. Mentorship is one of the avenues to do that. If we each start by deciding to GENUINELY help someone realize their dreams by contributing our own experiences to their success – exposing all of the embarrassing mistakes that we have made along the way - with nothing asked in return except the sheer joy of watching a promising younger person succeed better than we ever could hope to, then we will have done something of GREAT significance in the world. We will have changed it forever. Mentorship is a privilege and those who perform well as mentors can be truly proud of their achievements and their legacy.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Inter-University Collaborations
According to Brian Uzzi, Benjamin F. Jones, and Stefan Wuchty of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management as quoted in Chemical and Engineering News this week http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i41/8641notw11.html the amount of INTER university collaborations is on the rise in the US and also produces better quality research than INTRA university collaborations or single-author papers. It is apparently a very thorough and complete piece of work.
This is worth thinking about as two things happen around us 1: the financial crunch in North America is bound to put the squeeze on research dollars at universities eventually making it all the more important to utilize our research dollars in the best possible way. 2: Fields of research are interacting more and more and the BEST new discoveries now appear to come from those interfaces between previously quite disparate disciplines of science. Given that research dollars will be shrinking one can only assume that travel to meetings (especially meetings in OTHER disciplines) will be on the decline. So one can reasonably ask "How will intelligent, successful scientists in one discipline meet really successful scientists in another so that the most fruitful sorts of cross-discipline collaborations can develop?"
One answer is provided by services like that which ArrowCan Partners Inc provides. Last year we connected more that 100 scientists in Canada with others in seemingly orthogonal fields of science whom they would not otherwise have met. There is a real need for the scientist turned business entrepreneur who will seek out the best and connect them with others through personalized and trusted introductions. Knowing how important a trend this is helps me to continue this work even in the dead of winter in Canada when travel is not at its easiest.
This is worth thinking about as two things happen around us 1: the financial crunch in North America is bound to put the squeeze on research dollars at universities eventually making it all the more important to utilize our research dollars in the best possible way. 2: Fields of research are interacting more and more and the BEST new discoveries now appear to come from those interfaces between previously quite disparate disciplines of science. Given that research dollars will be shrinking one can only assume that travel to meetings (especially meetings in OTHER disciplines) will be on the decline. So one can reasonably ask "How will intelligent, successful scientists in one discipline meet really successful scientists in another so that the most fruitful sorts of cross-discipline collaborations can develop?"
One answer is provided by services like that which ArrowCan Partners Inc provides. Last year we connected more that 100 scientists in Canada with others in seemingly orthogonal fields of science whom they would not otherwise have met. There is a real need for the scientist turned business entrepreneur who will seek out the best and connect them with others through personalized and trusted introductions. Knowing how important a trend this is helps me to continue this work even in the dead of winter in Canada when travel is not at its easiest.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
After ALL I’ve done for them…
How often have we heard those accusatory words? They usually convey a bit of a “moral” disappointment in someone. The attitude is that one has put in some effort and time and done a few things and IMPLICIT in that “giving” is a belief that it should come back to the giver. Now here’s the trouble I have with that. Giving with some unspoken (usually too high) expectation of a return isn’t in fact GIVING; it is INVESTING. I never saw anyone go up to a bank window and say “Here’s some cash. Take it!” One usually goes to a bank to make a deposit in one’s account and the terms of the return are clearly spelled out ahead of time (and are usually believed to be too low by the investor). I suspect that if we spelled out what the expectations were in advance for things we did for people two things would happen: (1) The receiver might not want the favor. The cost to them might just be too high. (2) WE ourselves might not feel so proud and self righteous as we do when we supposedly do “no strings attached” favors for people.
The truth is that GIVING means absolutely NO expectation of any return. The funny part is that such giving where the true reward is the feeling one gets from the act ITSELF usually comes right around and rewards you in ways you never thought of. It is the paradox of life I feel that those who don’t want to be REPAID get REWARDED many fold. The other thing I’d like to put out there while I’m on this topic is that WORK or THINGS don’t buy love and loyalty. ONLY LOVE buys LOVE and only genuine loyalty buys that. We all do things for people we don’t feel the slightest bit of either emotion for but we do it because we have to for one reason or another. Our bosses and co-workers don’t LOVE us or imply everlasting loyalty for us just because we do things with and for them. Its part of the work we do. But when we feel someone genuinely cares about us the ONLY thing we can do to show our appreciation is to reciprocate that feeling. No amount of “doing things” can replace that.
The truth is that GIVING means absolutely NO expectation of any return. The funny part is that such giving where the true reward is the feeling one gets from the act ITSELF usually comes right around and rewards you in ways you never thought of. It is the paradox of life I feel that those who don’t want to be REPAID get REWARDED many fold. The other thing I’d like to put out there while I’m on this topic is that WORK or THINGS don’t buy love and loyalty. ONLY LOVE buys LOVE and only genuine loyalty buys that. We all do things for people we don’t feel the slightest bit of either emotion for but we do it because we have to for one reason or another. Our bosses and co-workers don’t LOVE us or imply everlasting loyalty for us just because we do things with and for them. Its part of the work we do. But when we feel someone genuinely cares about us the ONLY thing we can do to show our appreciation is to reciprocate that feeling. No amount of “doing things” can replace that.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Kublai Khan & Marco Polo
Some time back I heard this very educational tale. This guy called Marco Polo goes to work for an organization - let's call it China. the Big Boss is a guy called Kublai Khan - revered by all, feared by many. After a good tenure Marco Polo gets homesick one day and says to the Boss (who by this time thinks the WORLD of him - and THIS is the part of the story that makes sense even today) " It's been REALLY great working for you in your court but I need to get home."
Kublai takes a flat piece of gold and writes on it "This man, Marco Polo, has my blessings" he signs it with his PERSONAL SEAL. The result? Marco travels cost- and difficulty-free from Beijing to Venice. Everyone he meets looks after him like he was the Boss himself. Why? Because there are two consequences and everyone knows them. If you treat the bearer of such a tablet well, the Boss himself will compensate you tenfold. If you MIStreat such a person the Boss himself will be insulted and will bring death not only to you but to your entire family. Small wonder eh?
Why do I tell this story? Because the same principle works in our everyday lives even today. We all work in organizations and if we somehow have the favor of the Kublai Khan of that organization somehow we tend to succeed more than the next guy and the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. If we don't or if we fall OUT of favor we might just as well head for Venice. I have seen the scenario repeat itself in MANY different walks of life and the lesson is always the same. Work to get (and stay) in the best books of the leader of the organization you want to work for or find another organization. I see many young people trying for alternative 3. THERE IS NOT ALTERNATIVE 3 if you need to work for an organization. Oddly enough, it also explains another phenomenon which I have also seen in many places. I call it the "Favor Disease".
Have you ever seen how people react to someone based on their current standing with the Kublai Khan of their organization? If someone is out of favor no one will want to be seen talking to them in the halls or sitting next to them or acknowledging good ideas from them etc etc etc lest they too will come down with the dreaded fatal disease which COULD affect nt ony them personally but also their entire families. Needless to say these folks wither and die away by themselves even if they could have been a great value to their colleagues. If you are in a position of power it behooves you to be conscious about how much YOU can affect the success of others in your organization and therefore of the whole organization itself. In this very competitive world we live in these days it may just make the difference between life and death. Just something to think about. Your thoughts are welcome.
Kublai takes a flat piece of gold and writes on it "This man, Marco Polo, has my blessings" he signs it with his PERSONAL SEAL. The result? Marco travels cost- and difficulty-free from Beijing to Venice. Everyone he meets looks after him like he was the Boss himself. Why? Because there are two consequences and everyone knows them. If you treat the bearer of such a tablet well, the Boss himself will compensate you tenfold. If you MIStreat such a person the Boss himself will be insulted and will bring death not only to you but to your entire family. Small wonder eh?
Why do I tell this story? Because the same principle works in our everyday lives even today. We all work in organizations and if we somehow have the favor of the Kublai Khan of that organization somehow we tend to succeed more than the next guy and the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. If we don't or if we fall OUT of favor we might just as well head for Venice. I have seen the scenario repeat itself in MANY different walks of life and the lesson is always the same. Work to get (and stay) in the best books of the leader of the organization you want to work for or find another organization. I see many young people trying for alternative 3. THERE IS NOT ALTERNATIVE 3 if you need to work for an organization. Oddly enough, it also explains another phenomenon which I have also seen in many places. I call it the "Favor Disease".
Have you ever seen how people react to someone based on their current standing with the Kublai Khan of their organization? If someone is out of favor no one will want to be seen talking to them in the halls or sitting next to them or acknowledging good ideas from them etc etc etc lest they too will come down with the dreaded fatal disease which COULD affect nt ony them personally but also their entire families. Needless to say these folks wither and die away by themselves even if they could have been a great value to their colleagues. If you are in a position of power it behooves you to be conscious about how much YOU can affect the success of others in your organization and therefore of the whole organization itself. In this very competitive world we live in these days it may just make the difference between life and death. Just something to think about. Your thoughts are welcome.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Survivalism versus "Progressivism"
It hit me suddenly. The sheer obviousness of it is quite stunning. Yet I am sure that a lot of us "know" this without ever having explicitly thought about it. There are in fact two major approaches to life. I will call them the "survivalist" approach which simply wants to finish the day with life being as "same" as it can be to the day(s) before. Those folks simply want to end the day without having made a mistake, without having done something that they would regret. To them not doing the wrong thing is preferable to not doing anything. This is their "safe" zone, their comfort zone.
Then there is a different kind of beast altogether. To this person not doing anything is DEATH. To them it is better to have dreamed the big dream and made an effort to get there. To them the worst day is where they made NO progress, took NO risks, and made NO mistakes. they equate mistakes to "experience" and a day spent without gaining any experience is a day lost out of their lives. These are the "Progressivists". Life is no worth LIVING if it is not worth risking. They mouth phrases like "everyone dies... only few people really LIVE!"
Now the sad part. The world is moving at an ever increasing pace. Progress and risk taking is accelerating to the point where just to SURVIVE (the goal of the survivalists) one needs to try new things every day and at ever increasing odds. Does this mean that the survivalists are now on the horns of a very peculiar dilema? To survive they must take risks? What type of person are you? Do you want to make waves and change the world? Are you a romantic? Are you proud that you will retire in the same job you started your career in? Comments welcome.
Then there is a different kind of beast altogether. To this person not doing anything is DEATH. To them it is better to have dreamed the big dream and made an effort to get there. To them the worst day is where they made NO progress, took NO risks, and made NO mistakes. they equate mistakes to "experience" and a day spent without gaining any experience is a day lost out of their lives. These are the "Progressivists". Life is no worth LIVING if it is not worth risking. They mouth phrases like "everyone dies... only few people really LIVE!"
Now the sad part. The world is moving at an ever increasing pace. Progress and risk taking is accelerating to the point where just to SURVIVE (the goal of the survivalists) one needs to try new things every day and at ever increasing odds. Does this mean that the survivalists are now on the horns of a very peculiar dilema? To survive they must take risks? What type of person are you? Do you want to make waves and change the world? Are you a romantic? Are you proud that you will retire in the same job you started your career in? Comments welcome.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The "Downsized" Disease
It always leaves me feeling the same way - sad for the state of the human race! All of us who have suffered the trauma of being terminated from a position for whatever reason know exactly what I mean and we have all vowed that WE would never do it to anyone else. I am referring to the contageous disease that society at large seems to think all those who lose their jobs for WHATEVER reason immediately contract. Those who still have a position seem to think that even eye-contact with the victim could immediately mark them too for this terrible affiction. They must all seem to feel that ANY association with people who have recently been "let go" from their organization (even private phone calls or personal e-mails) would be "found" and would mark them for the "kill" next time.
I have always believed in PEOPLE. They don't change suddenly if they are terminated. They are the same human beings that we knew, trusted, had lunch with etc. the day before. Their fate is not so uncommon these days and it could befall ANY of us. There is a wise saying about doing unto others... and I am always reminded of it when I see this behaviour.
I want to believe that this behaviour is the result of "not knowing" what to say and how to act with these folks. There is, on one side, a feeling of relief that it was THEM and not you. At the same time there is the guilty impulse that you don't want to show those feelings. One way to deal with this is to simply understand that YOU had nothing to do with the decision (unless you DID in which case you SHOULD think hard about how you handled the whole situation). I always try the direct approach. I say to the person "I am very sorry for your loss. I know you will bounce back because you are the same fine person today that you were yesterday to me. Let me know what I can do to help you in any way." I have found that this direct approach (of course followed with sincere actions to back up what I have just said) usually works and it cements a bond that is hard to break. The truth is that we will all be in such situations sometime. These moments help us find out the TRUE short list of REAL friends we have. And trust me, those are the friends we will help when their turn comes! The affliction is NOT contageous and it may actually be a good opportunity to make some lasting difference on earth.
I have always believed in PEOPLE. They don't change suddenly if they are terminated. They are the same human beings that we knew, trusted, had lunch with etc. the day before. Their fate is not so uncommon these days and it could befall ANY of us. There is a wise saying about doing unto others... and I am always reminded of it when I see this behaviour.
I want to believe that this behaviour is the result of "not knowing" what to say and how to act with these folks. There is, on one side, a feeling of relief that it was THEM and not you. At the same time there is the guilty impulse that you don't want to show those feelings. One way to deal with this is to simply understand that YOU had nothing to do with the decision (unless you DID in which case you SHOULD think hard about how you handled the whole situation). I always try the direct approach. I say to the person "I am very sorry for your loss. I know you will bounce back because you are the same fine person today that you were yesterday to me. Let me know what I can do to help you in any way." I have found that this direct approach (of course followed with sincere actions to back up what I have just said) usually works and it cements a bond that is hard to break. The truth is that we will all be in such situations sometime. These moments help us find out the TRUE short list of REAL friends we have. And trust me, those are the friends we will help when their turn comes! The affliction is NOT contageous and it may actually be a good opportunity to make some lasting difference on earth.
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Advertizing Invasion
Yesterday, I listened to an interesting discussion on CBC radio about the "Ad Pollution" that is going on in our society especially in urban settings. There was a lot of back and forth that boiled down to whether there were rights of INDIVIDUALS that superseded the rights of corporations to get their message out there etc. And as I listened to this discussion I was reminded of a recent car trip to Montreal. The trip involved three fillups on the road and, being a slave of convenience and a holder of the speed pass for ESSO I stopped at one of those stations for each of them. By the end I was tired and quite annoyed by the incessant visual and audio bombardment of ads that starts as soon as you take the pump handle in your hand. I thought back to the great days when we could still use those little do-hickies that allowed us to set the gas flowing and walk around the car testing air pressure and washing the windshield etc. Ironically, these devices were considered safe for about FOUR DECADES before they were suddenly too risky to use just around the time when the TVs were installed at the pump. Is there any correlation? Who knows!
After a bit of imprisoned rumination with my hand welded to the pump handle I started to use the time to think of OTHER ways that the advertizing company could achieve its own purpose without intruding so openly and aggressively on my "quiet time". Wouldn't it be nice, in these days of ever rising gas prices, if you pumped your gas in relative silence and at your own pace and then when that receipt came out it had, printed on it, something like " Thank you for using ESSO. Your tatal bill WOULD HAVE BEEN ___ (fill in a huge and ever increasing number here) but our sponsors (say CADBURY for example) have reduced that by $___ (fill in the cost of advertizing via those infernal TVs) as a token of their appreciation. have a GREAT day!" I think I would rush in to the shop and BUY a Carburys chocolate bar right away. I would do this for several reasons: first I would be thinking of one right at the time I could go in and DO something about it, and second I would FEEL like doing something back for the company that had just reduced my gas bill AND given me some peace at the same time! And after all the cost of the chocolate would be covered by my savings in the gas bill! Who knew that lurking inside me was an advertizing "expert"? Of course I could just switch to another chain that did not (yet) have those TV infomercial machines installed at the pump. That would be quicker and more effective.
After a bit of imprisoned rumination with my hand welded to the pump handle I started to use the time to think of OTHER ways that the advertizing company could achieve its own purpose without intruding so openly and aggressively on my "quiet time". Wouldn't it be nice, in these days of ever rising gas prices, if you pumped your gas in relative silence and at your own pace and then when that receipt came out it had, printed on it, something like " Thank you for using ESSO. Your tatal bill WOULD HAVE BEEN ___ (fill in a huge and ever increasing number here) but our sponsors (say CADBURY for example) have reduced that by $___ (fill in the cost of advertizing via those infernal TVs) as a token of their appreciation. have a GREAT day!" I think I would rush in to the shop and BUY a Carburys chocolate bar right away. I would do this for several reasons: first I would be thinking of one right at the time I could go in and DO something about it, and second I would FEEL like doing something back for the company that had just reduced my gas bill AND given me some peace at the same time! And after all the cost of the chocolate would be covered by my savings in the gas bill! Who knew that lurking inside me was an advertizing "expert"? Of course I could just switch to another chain that did not (yet) have those TV infomercial machines installed at the pump. That would be quicker and more effective.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
TechConnect is the place to be seen
So often in my travels to various Tech. Transfer offices across Canada I am confronted with one variant or another of these two questions : "Amongst the folks you know, who is going to Meeting X?" and a corollary question "With limited budgets for travel which meeting is the one that one shouldn't miss?"
I thought that I would pose this question of one of the shops I regard as very successful in the business of commercializing the technologies of the institutions it serves during my recent trip to Montreal. The Univalor folks had one unequivocal response : TECH CONNECT was the place to be seen. They have been participating in this conference for the past four years now and felt that it attracted the companies that TTOs want to be known to, namely the companies INTERESTED in early stage technologies (yes they really are out there!).
This year in an open competition ten technologies of theirs (5 Life Sciences and 5 non) were selected to be presented. Given that the total number of technologies selected from North America was something like 90 this is impressive. By comparison the other TTOs in
Canada stacked up as follows: Waterloo 1, Laval 1, and UBC 4 THAT'S IT! This year Tech Connect will be in Boston (June 3 to 5) Next year it will be in san Diego.
Who knew!!
I thought that I would pose this question of one of the shops I regard as very successful in the business of commercializing the technologies of the institutions it serves during my recent trip to Montreal. The Univalor folks had one unequivocal response : TECH CONNECT was the place to be seen. They have been participating in this conference for the past four years now and felt that it attracted the companies that TTOs want to be known to, namely the companies INTERESTED in early stage technologies (yes they really are out there!).
This year in an open competition ten technologies of theirs (5 Life Sciences and 5 non) were selected to be presented. Given that the total number of technologies selected from North America was something like 90 this is impressive. By comparison the other TTOs in
Canada stacked up as follows: Waterloo 1, Laval 1, and UBC 4 THAT'S IT! This year Tech Connect will be in Boston (June 3 to 5) Next year it will be in san Diego.
Who knew!!
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The R in Revolution is Silent!
The other day I pondering AGAIN the much touted revolution in innovation that is supposedly taking place in Canada when a thought suddenly appeared in a blinding flash of (misguided?) insight and I wanted to share it right away. Truth is that despite the HUGE investment from all levels of government the Innovation Revolution is not delivering on the set goals in the required timeframe. The "R" is silent and we are progressing on what is really an Evolutionary course of random selection and survival of the most politically astute grant application writers.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Network's Networth
Again today, like so many days in the past few weeks and months, I was asked several times whether I could be part of someone's network on LINKEDIN or Facebook. While it is flattering to be requested so many times I can't help but wonder if this signifies a new recognition of the philosophical fact that the network (and by inference one's REPUTATION) is everything in these changing times or whether it signals a more "tactical" (read cynical) realization that pharmaceutical companies (the top of the food chain for so many years) are now changing from their previously held positions of trust and power. Many are losing comfortable and secure jobs held over many years as the large companies re-organize and merge etc. Those same people who were so aloof and unapproachable find themselves in the unenviable position of now having to ask favors from those they might have shunned in the past.
I have leaned that if you want to harvest from the connection tree, like any other plant, you need to care for the whole thing, spend time in GOOD times to nurture it and look after its upkeep. Otherwise when you need its fruits you may find yourself out in the desert. Connection trees are self pruning If a branch is not kept alive through frequent contact it whithers and dies away. The second lesson I have learned through life is that one makes connections with people because of WHO they are not WHAT position they occupy at the time. Life is in a constant state of flux but by and large good people remaingood people. As always your comments are welcome.
I have leaned that if you want to harvest from the connection tree, like any other plant, you need to care for the whole thing, spend time in GOOD times to nurture it and look after its upkeep. Otherwise when you need its fruits you may find yourself out in the desert. Connection trees are self pruning If a branch is not kept alive through frequent contact it whithers and dies away. The second lesson I have learned through life is that one makes connections with people because of WHO they are not WHAT position they occupy at the time. Life is in a constant state of flux but by and large good people remaingood people. As always your comments are welcome.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
MediCure Down for the count?
How many times have we Canadians in the Biotech area heard about a biotech company that was full of promise one day that suddenly took a dive the next. Most of our financings, especiallly on the "early startups" are based on providing JUST enough cash to get the critical experiments done. When they fail the whole company goes down the tubes.
For some years now I have been advocating another approach and that is to have SOME funding set aside to expand the "line" of possible things or "products" that the company could be seen to be developing. That way at LEAST some chance remains to survive the inevitable downs in this business.
While visiting Winnipeg yesterday I was confronted with yet another example of the wisdon of this approach. There is scarcel a better respected person than Bert Friesen but his company MediCure had a cliical trial fail and the company that stood at more than $2 a share the day before now traded at about EIGHT CENTS. Almost a year ago.
Now I fully understand the value of keeping a tight hold on the "purse strings" of an early company and may also see where the old stereotype of mistrust of "academic types"from the VC community comes from but I think that this view needs to be "matured" somewhat by the reality that the curret model of financing by Canadian VCs simply is not producing enough successes. Maybe it is time for another model?
For some years now I have been advocating another approach and that is to have SOME funding set aside to expand the "line" of possible things or "products" that the company could be seen to be developing. That way at LEAST some chance remains to survive the inevitable downs in this business.
While visiting Winnipeg yesterday I was confronted with yet another example of the wisdon of this approach. There is scarcel a better respected person than Bert Friesen but his company MediCure had a cliical trial fail and the company that stood at more than $2 a share the day before now traded at about EIGHT CENTS. Almost a year ago.
Now I fully understand the value of keeping a tight hold on the "purse strings" of an early company and may also see where the old stereotype of mistrust of "academic types"from the VC community comes from but I think that this view needs to be "matured" somewhat by the reality that the curret model of financing by Canadian VCs simply is not producing enough successes. Maybe it is time for another model?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Yale grants Chinese License
The Sunday Feb 17 issue of Biospectrum Asia http://www.biospectrumasia.com/content/150208CHN5535.asp
had the following announcement.
"SurExam commercializes ovarian cancer detection technology in China
Singapore, Feb 15, 2008: The Yale University Office of Cooperative Research has granted an exclusive license to Chinese biopharmaceutical company SurExam Life Science & Technology for the commercialization of the university's blood testing technology for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). "
For those who are interested in expanding their reach from University TTOs and those interested in simultaneously doing some good in the world this is a very strong wake up call. Congratulations to the Yale TTO team! (Lita are you still there?) It shows us again that there may be great value to what is done in early research in the right markets. The traditional thinking is simply out the window! It is all the more ironic to me to see this article since the CECR grants were announced only DAYS ago and I came to hear that Peter Singer et al from the University of Toronto, who had proposed to do VERY similar things along these lines for all of Canada, were turned down. No doubt more informed minds than mine have made that decision but to me this was very confusing. Your comments are always welcome.
had the following announcement.
"SurExam commercializes ovarian cancer detection technology in China
Singapore, Feb 15, 2008: The Yale University Office of Cooperative Research has granted an exclusive license to Chinese biopharmaceutical company SurExam Life Science & Technology for the commercialization of the university's blood testing technology for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). "
For those who are interested in expanding their reach from University TTOs and those interested in simultaneously doing some good in the world this is a very strong wake up call. Congratulations to the Yale TTO team! (Lita are you still there?) It shows us again that there may be great value to what is done in early research in the right markets. The traditional thinking is simply out the window! It is all the more ironic to me to see this article since the CECR grants were announced only DAYS ago and I came to hear that Peter Singer et al from the University of Toronto, who had proposed to do VERY similar things along these lines for all of Canada, were turned down. No doubt more informed minds than mine have made that decision but to me this was very confusing. Your comments are always welcome.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
McMaster develops Viral Diagnostic
Today's newswire announcement that McMaster's star researcher James Mahoney's diagnostic panel had received FDA approval
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165659.htm
was, for me, a bit of a bittersweet piece of news. On the one hand it showed AGAIN how Canadian researchers take their rightful place at the top of the pyramid of creativity and innovation. Viral diagnosis is such a common problem that I would venture to guess that there is not a single reader of this column who has not, at some point or another, had a persistent cold, gone to the doctor, and been told that they cannot easily pinpoint what the cause is (even whether it is viral or bacterial sometimes) and therefore prefer not to precsribe some medication or course of action that can take care of the problem. Diagnosis traditionally took so much time and cost so much that the infection would likely be over before it was diagnosed.
Along comes a researcher from Canada (eh?) and finds a way to do this quickly and inexpensively. How wonderful!! Here's the pinacle of the glory now ... wait for the drumroll! The work is commissioned by a (then) CANADIAN company TM Biosciences.What a great story of how we can make a difference and make money at the same time. Now the "bitter..." part. JUST before this could happen the company - strapped for cash and unable to get its CANADIAN VCs to support it - was sold for pennies on the dollar to a larger US conglomerate Luminex. Today this is Luminex's success story. Don't get me wrong; I'm happy that it got out there and I CERTAINLY congratulate Luminex for its vision in seeing the potential and having the GUTS to back it. I am just sad that such guts don't exist in our country. Canadians can be happy about our inventivness and our innovation bt we should be embarrassed by our VC community.
Your thought s would be most welcome.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165659.htm
was, for me, a bit of a bittersweet piece of news. On the one hand it showed AGAIN how Canadian researchers take their rightful place at the top of the pyramid of creativity and innovation. Viral diagnosis is such a common problem that I would venture to guess that there is not a single reader of this column who has not, at some point or another, had a persistent cold, gone to the doctor, and been told that they cannot easily pinpoint what the cause is (even whether it is viral or bacterial sometimes) and therefore prefer not to precsribe some medication or course of action that can take care of the problem. Diagnosis traditionally took so much time and cost so much that the infection would likely be over before it was diagnosed.
Along comes a researcher from Canada (eh?) and finds a way to do this quickly and inexpensively. How wonderful!! Here's the pinacle of the glory now ... wait for the drumroll! The work is commissioned by a (then) CANADIAN company TM Biosciences.What a great story of how we can make a difference and make money at the same time. Now the "bitter..." part. JUST before this could happen the company - strapped for cash and unable to get its CANADIAN VCs to support it - was sold for pennies on the dollar to a larger US conglomerate Luminex. Today this is Luminex's success story. Don't get me wrong; I'm happy that it got out there and I CERTAINLY congratulate Luminex for its vision in seeing the potential and having the GUTS to back it. I am just sad that such guts don't exist in our country. Canadians can be happy about our inventivness and our innovation bt we should be embarrassed by our VC community.
Your thought s would be most welcome.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
"Just-in-time" business model for TTOs
On my way back from Thunder Bay yesterday where I visited my friend Barb Eccles in the TTO at Lakehead University (and where, by the way, I encountered several very good people doing interesting things in nano-materials for example amongst other things), I pondered Robert S. Macwright's article in Les Nouvelles (vol XLII, #4, pps615-620). The unapologetic statement that, in his view, "academic technology transfer is a business" in the opening lines was - in a bizarre way - refreshing to me. It simply got better from there. There were some attempts to quantitate approaches that are used in one form or another by MANY of our Canadian institutions and which I had not seen so well compared face-to-face, before. I know that there are those who hold strong beliefs on BOTH sides of this table and I thought that this article formed a very good basis for the continuing debate.
There were also a number of statements that I wonder about and would like some feedback about from the readers of this blog. It is claimed that a reasonably trained TT officer can routinely get 25 disclosures in a year and translate them into 10 deals. This sounded a bit high from my experience (albeit in another system) and I wondered if there were any comments on this number (and other numbers quoted in this article) out there.
There were also a number of statements that I wonder about and would like some feedback about from the readers of this blog. It is claimed that a reasonably trained TT officer can routinely get 25 disclosures in a year and translate them into 10 deals. This sounded a bit high from my experience (albeit in another system) and I wondered if there were any comments on this number (and other numbers quoted in this article) out there.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Dalhousie U. has a MILLION DOLLAR club member!
One of the themes I am constantly aware of in the "consumer" market for early technologies is the sentiment that if one covers the BIG universities (U of T, UBC, McGill and a few others) that one has the best chance to get all of the useful technologies available in Canada. I usually argue that this is ESPECIALLY not the case in Canada because of Government funding policies that have spread the funding and the talent across the country.
So it was particularly pleasing for me to read that Dalhousie University (Dal to most who know it) recently announced it's first member of the "Million Dollar Club" - an inventor whose inventions have provided in excess of a million dollars in revenue to the university. http://innovation.dal.ca/news.php?id=107&update=1 . Congrats to Ron Leydon (TTO) and to Dr. Jana Sawynok, Professor and Chair of Dalhousie’s Department of Pharmacology and her research associate, Allison Reid and former collaborator Dr. Mike Esser of Calgary for this great achievement and for showing us that great inventions (and its successful commercialization) can happen everywhere.
So it was particularly pleasing for me to read that Dalhousie University (Dal to most who know it) recently announced it's first member of the "Million Dollar Club" - an inventor whose inventions have provided in excess of a million dollars in revenue to the university. http://innovation.dal.ca/news.php?id=107&update=1 . Congrats to Ron Leydon (TTO) and to Dr. Jana Sawynok, Professor and Chair of Dalhousie’s Department of Pharmacology and her research associate, Allison Reid and former collaborator Dr. Mike Esser of Calgary for this great achievement and for showing us that great inventions (and its successful commercialization) can happen everywhere.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Research Institute Industry partnerships
This morning's FDA News bulletin bore yet another example of a big company extending its research capabilities by making a long term relationship with a chosen research institute. This is a growing trend as companies downsize their in-house efforts and look elsewhere to continue their needed research activities. The announcement (see below) gave me pause. The world is turning towards this mechanism and away from an ever increasing thirst for government sponsorship. To all intents and purposes it looks like it is working as judged by the size of the deals that are being made in this category (both in terms of timeframe and in terms of the dollars involved). These are not simple technology collaboration agreements. They are LONG TERM relationships between a company and a whole university of research establishment. They provide relatively unrestricted money over a longer time frame and they usually take an option to look at the technologies emerging first - not much more.
I wonder if there are any research institutions in Canada that have already entered into such broad and lucrative arrangements yet. Is this something to ponder? Should we put the ghosts of petty company interference to bed and exorcize the demons that prevent us from seriously considering this growing trend before the best partners have already made their bets with other - mabye even less qualified - institutions around the world. Food for thought. Anyway Here's the quote.
From the FDAnews DRUG DAILY BULLETIN V:5 #8 Monday Jan 14 2008:
Salk Finds a Partner in French Drug Firm In the latest example of a nonprofit research center teaming up with private industry for money, the Salk Institute will announce a partnership with a Paris-based drug company that hopes to benefit from Salk discoveries. SignOnSanDiego.com
I wonder if there are any research institutions in Canada that have already entered into such broad and lucrative arrangements yet. Is this something to ponder? Should we put the ghosts of petty company interference to bed and exorcize the demons that prevent us from seriously considering this growing trend before the best partners have already made their bets with other - mabye even less qualified - institutions around the world. Food for thought. Anyway Here's the quote.
From the FDAnews DRUG DAILY BULLETIN V:5 #8 Monday Jan 14 2008:
Salk Finds a Partner in French Drug Firm In the latest example of a nonprofit research center teaming up with private industry for money, the Salk Institute will announce a partnership with a Paris-based drug company that hopes to benefit from Salk discoveries. SignOnSanDiego.com
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
C&EN's list of Best Chemistry Highlights
OK. I'm a closet Chemistry Geek! And of course as everyone knows I am also a Canadian. So when the latest issue of Chemistry and Engineering News arrived at my doorstep today it was not long in its pristine plastic cover. In this last issue of the year 2007 there was an article citing the "best" chemistry highlights of the year. Two things impressed me. The first was the sheer SCOPE of developments where chemists have made a huge difference to or understanding of things this past year. The second was that, of the roughly 20 or so things reported on from the world over, THREE (count them) were from CANADIAN contributors. These were as follows:
1. The first "structural snapshot" of a penicillin binding protein which might just make a huge impact on the design of the next generation of antibiotics. This was contributed by Natalie C.J. Strynadka and co-workers at UBC (improved later by a Harvard group)
2. Todd L. Lowary and co-workers at the University of Alberta Edmonton synthesized key oligosaccharides from the cell walls of TB bacteria providing new insights AGAIN into possibly novel approaches to combat drug resistent strains. This one continues in aLONG tradition of leadership in the chemistry of sugars that was pioneered by such Canadian legends as Ray Lemeiux at Alberta more than three decades ago.
3. Frank A.P.C.Gobas, Barry C.Kelly and co-workers at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby BC had a new take on the traditional methods of looking at toxin acumulations in food webs that may well cause us to rethink many of our former conclusions about some compounds. Apparently they have shown that the usual analyses of the absence of accumulation in fish may not ALWAYS be a good indicator for what happens in humans.
There is of course more on the C&EN website in the December 24 issue (yes THERE's a geek for you publishing on Xmas eve!) at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/ It is very interesting reading. Who knew about these science altering contributions from Canadian academics? My question is: "Did we appropriately commercialize them?"
Your feedback and commentary is always welcome.
1. The first "structural snapshot" of a penicillin binding protein which might just make a huge impact on the design of the next generation of antibiotics. This was contributed by Natalie C.J. Strynadka and co-workers at UBC (improved later by a Harvard group)
2. Todd L. Lowary and co-workers at the University of Alberta Edmonton synthesized key oligosaccharides from the cell walls of TB bacteria providing new insights AGAIN into possibly novel approaches to combat drug resistent strains. This one continues in aLONG tradition of leadership in the chemistry of sugars that was pioneered by such Canadian legends as Ray Lemeiux at Alberta more than three decades ago.
3. Frank A.P.C.Gobas, Barry C.Kelly and co-workers at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby BC had a new take on the traditional methods of looking at toxin acumulations in food webs that may well cause us to rethink many of our former conclusions about some compounds. Apparently they have shown that the usual analyses of the absence of accumulation in fish may not ALWAYS be a good indicator for what happens in humans.
There is of course more on the C&EN website in the December 24 issue (yes THERE's a geek for you publishing on Xmas eve!) at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/ It is very interesting reading. Who knew about these science altering contributions from Canadian academics? My question is: "Did we appropriately commercialize them?"
Your feedback and commentary is always welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
