The panelists were many and varied. They came from all the sectors of the field: Industry, Government, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), Community Colleges, National Network Centers of Excellence (NCEs),and of course Universities from all across the country. We numbered about EIGHT HUNDRED people. I am talking about the INNOVATION 2010 conference that was held on Monday and Tuesday of this week in Ottawa. This was the FIRST combined meeting of the Association for the Commercialization of Canadian Technologies (ACCT),the Federal Partners for tecchnology Transfer (FPTT) and one or two other umbrella organizations. It was the largest conference of its kind apparently in Canada.
As the three simultaneous tracks proceeded with members of all of the different sectors serving on panels to stimulate discussions about key issues for this group one theme became apparent - and this theme is what gave me the warm and fuzzy feeling that I refer to in the title of this blog. The theme I am referring to? RELATIONSHIPS MATTER!!! MAYBE EVEN MORE THAN THE TECHNOLOGIES THEMSELVES. (OK OK that last part is my own addition but the first was loud and clear!).
Now most who know me today know that I have been on that particular theme for as long as ArrowCan has been in business. It was tough in the early years to convince the Technology TRANSFER people who were focussed on selling me the latest TECHNOLOGY that I was not actually as interested in the technology per se as I was in meeting the stars on campus and building lasting relations with them. They could not believe that client companies would actually PAY me to develop relationships with the stars on campuses across Canada in ALL disciplines so that when they needed the right talent with a technology they could simply ask me who that was. My business was BUILT on knowing the right people and being able to make VETTED introductions to the right experts based on MATURE relationships that ArrowCan had cultivated already. "But what technologies are your companies interested in today?" they asked. "None!" was my stock answer. But I made sure that I helped every person I met with something that made a difference to them whether it was a contact of someone I knew in some related field or an interesting observation about some interest that the person had or simply a shared experience that may be relevent to something they were doing. I tried to carry best practices from one place where I had observed them to another office or researcher that might not have had the chance to observe them first hand. And all the time our database of GENUINE and respect-based contacts grew.
The crowning statements on this topic for me came from the last panel I attended on the second day. I drove home in a cloud of happiness that even the snow storm could not dispell. Natalie Tokers from Nigara College said something that I am sure many will resonate with. She said that when a new person starts in her office she says to them "get coffee with the people in the college, buy them a donut, get to know them, get to know their kids names". RIGHT after her came Johhny Xavier from the University of Saskatchewan Technology Transfer Office and he said that his number one "secret for success" was to develop lasting RELATIONSHIPS with the people he interacts with from industry and from the campus. Part way through his talk he suddenly turned to me in the audience and asked "Don't you agree Adi?" I could barely stammer out "100%!!" my emotions were running so high. I felt that warm glow.
I had struggled along for five years by this time. The first 18 months were at times without clients and I was not even sure if the approach would work. I had spent part of the first year's travel money out of my own pension savings but I was determined to go on. Many doubted that I would ever get enough visionary clients who could see the value proposition. Today the old saying that has adorned my e-mail signature file for all of these years "Good deals are a CONSEQUENCE of good relationships and not the other way around!" was resonating through this community. I believe we may have turned a corner. I am filled with hope again.
Johnny went on to explain that the relationships he was talking about did not happen overnight and that they took time to build and then MORE time to maintain. Turnover in both the industry business development sector and particularly in the university TTOs acts against this desire to build lasting relationships. I was reminded of why ArrowCan was formed. Those relationships we have built have lasted, they have survived many changes in TTOs (mandated from above and chosen by the frontline people as well) because of the CONSTANT visits and effort to help each and every time we visit. Today they offer us an edge that no one can easily challenge without putting in the time we have to initiate, build, and maintain these very important and personal relationships on BOTH the industry and the academic sides. There was a genuine need for a third link to make the connections possible, sensible and trust-based. We saw it and we filled it out of a genuine belief about the value of doing just that. It gives us an edge that we pass on each and every day to our industry clients and our academic partners alike.
Today I am deeply grateful to all of those people on BOTH sides of this equation who saw that vision with me in those early years and who supported the effort (each in their own way)and encouraged me on. This moment belonged to all of us collectively. I am THRILLED that we are now all involved with really getting to know one another before we actually do deals. I do believe that this is going to pay off in a BIG way for Canada in the long run.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Is it REALLY indentured Servitude if....?
A seven hour drive from Sudbury to Kingston today with Nature's STUPENDOUS tapestry of reds, golds, and greens that was the Autumnal Landscape formed the fitting backdrop to ponder a question that has been rolling around in my mind for some decades now.
I have often said to myself that the chief PRODUCT of a center of higher learning is the STUDENT. The inventions and the creations and the IP, valuable as they may be, are in the end only VEHICLES to train and develop the students in many facets of life. If the university were to think like a business it would be asking how it could derive VALUE from the putting out of this valuable product. After all, many industries have said to me that the REAL interest they have is in the graduating students who could become highly qualified and valuable members of their workforce one day. They still seek out the best because they realize that without the infusion of the latest understandings and talents they will fall behind and eventually be consumed by their competition. Oddly enough these same companies do not have that angst about the latest new TECHNOLOGIES comong out of the same university labs.
On the other side the STUDENTS come to universities trusting in the knowledge of those who are paid to develop them into the good professionals that they eventually become. They honestly believe that, armed with the experience of graduate studies they will be able to get better jobs and lead more satisfying lives.
Third parties such as recruiters etc. make a healthy living finding the best candidates for a given opening in industry. They hardly know the students as well as those who have taught them. But they serve a need in the marketplace to find for the companies the candidates that would be suitable for them to hire.
So I come to my question. If universities sought to properly market and "sell" their most valuable product - the student - would they be able to tap into a good revenue stream? Say for example (and I offer this only as ONE possible model) that universities were to go to their best "consumers" (the top ranked companies or the best local ones or some combination of that) and say to them "For a fee we will make sure that you get to interview the top 10 of our graduating class." What do you think they could command as a fee? My guess is that this number is large. Now they would have had to inform the incoming class that the condition of their acceptance is that the top 10 graduates would have to FIRST interview with the best industries (the ones they have chosen). Which student would rebell at that thought?
I know that we in Canada are VERY sensitive to anything that looks even VAGUELY like a required pre-commitment. We worry that this may be "coersive" in nature and we therefore eschew such activities claiming that this somehow keeps us pure. But my question is "IF two rational adults decide of their own free will to undertake this activity, both being not just willing but EAGER to do it, does this STILL constitute Indentured Servitude?" If so we ought to re-examne the sports scholarships that we so glibly hand out. We ought to re-examine several things that we do at universities such as undertaking contract work for industry and foreign exchanges of students etc. Surely if students WANT it and Industry WANTS it and the universities can realize a good revenue stream from it; it is at least worth THINKING about? As always your thoughts are welcomed.
I have often said to myself that the chief PRODUCT of a center of higher learning is the STUDENT. The inventions and the creations and the IP, valuable as they may be, are in the end only VEHICLES to train and develop the students in many facets of life. If the university were to think like a business it would be asking how it could derive VALUE from the putting out of this valuable product. After all, many industries have said to me that the REAL interest they have is in the graduating students who could become highly qualified and valuable members of their workforce one day. They still seek out the best because they realize that without the infusion of the latest understandings and talents they will fall behind and eventually be consumed by their competition. Oddly enough these same companies do not have that angst about the latest new TECHNOLOGIES comong out of the same university labs.
On the other side the STUDENTS come to universities trusting in the knowledge of those who are paid to develop them into the good professionals that they eventually become. They honestly believe that, armed with the experience of graduate studies they will be able to get better jobs and lead more satisfying lives.
Third parties such as recruiters etc. make a healthy living finding the best candidates for a given opening in industry. They hardly know the students as well as those who have taught them. But they serve a need in the marketplace to find for the companies the candidates that would be suitable for them to hire.
So I come to my question. If universities sought to properly market and "sell" their most valuable product - the student - would they be able to tap into a good revenue stream? Say for example (and I offer this only as ONE possible model) that universities were to go to their best "consumers" (the top ranked companies or the best local ones or some combination of that) and say to them "For a fee we will make sure that you get to interview the top 10 of our graduating class." What do you think they could command as a fee? My guess is that this number is large. Now they would have had to inform the incoming class that the condition of their acceptance is that the top 10 graduates would have to FIRST interview with the best industries (the ones they have chosen). Which student would rebell at that thought?
I know that we in Canada are VERY sensitive to anything that looks even VAGUELY like a required pre-commitment. We worry that this may be "coersive" in nature and we therefore eschew such activities claiming that this somehow keeps us pure. But my question is "IF two rational adults decide of their own free will to undertake this activity, both being not just willing but EAGER to do it, does this STILL constitute Indentured Servitude?" If so we ought to re-examne the sports scholarships that we so glibly hand out. We ought to re-examine several things that we do at universities such as undertaking contract work for industry and foreign exchanges of students etc. Surely if students WANT it and Industry WANTS it and the universities can realize a good revenue stream from it; it is at least worth THINKING about? As always your thoughts are welcomed.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Givers and Takers
It seems to me that the human race can actually quite EASILY be divided into two categories (actually there are probably several different binary divisions of that same biomass possible but I want to concentrate on this particular categorization today) - GIVERS and TAKERS.
Every one of us has been on one side of this divide AND the other at different times of our lives. None of us would, for example, have even survived the earliest part of our lives without being shameless Takers. After all there is precious little MATERIAL that a newborn gives to the world (well, not counting the mountains of human excrement of course). There are correspondingly moments in everyone's lives where they have been selfless Givers too. So one might quite justifiably argue that NO ONE is a Giver or a Taker but that we pass through these states at different times of our lives. This thought, coupled with the concept of “forgiveness” (which in turn is itself coupled with the concept of some value-judgment attached to one or the other of these states), confused me for some time in my life until recently it became more clear to me that these are not “better” or “worse” states or “right” or “wrong” states. They are simply STATES that one can be aware of and that one can adjust one's own actions towards. If one sees a charging bull and a dove one does not think one is right and the other is wrong. One simply adjusts one's own behavior and either runs for cover or reaches out. They are both creatures of the universe and no doubt they have a rightful place in that universe. But our actions towards them are different. In a steady-state universe there is a balance between Givers and Takers. After all how can one give without someone or something there to accept that action?
So now, armed with the realization that Givers and Takers are simply a classification of the human race, and not encumbered with any value-judgment about those who are one or the other, I can ask myself two questions:
(1)How can I easily classify those I know into one or the other from a purely anthropological point of view?
(2)If I can actually create some criteria that help me classify those I know into one or the other category what can I do with that information that would help me survive better?
The answer came to me recently in an interaction I had with someone in the business world. The classification is not based on the actions (which are so tangible and easy to measure, and which I still place a very high value on over the words of people). This particular classification is based on our own personal estimate of the INTENT of the person. Although this is often tougher to ascertain, I feel that it is in fact how our minds work.
I believe that GIVERS want to leave the world a bit better than when they came into it. Now sometimes they may take things from their environment but they have the genuine belief that this incurs some sort of Karmic debt and they feel a need to repay that debt in their lifetime. TAKERS on the other hand have the intent that they want to THEMSELVES be a bit better off than when they came into the world. Again, this doesn't mean that occasionally they won't do something for someone or show some act of kindness. But, at the core they believe that this somehow sets them back a small amount and they feel that somehow they deserve some compensation (preferably MORE compensation that thye have invested in the act of kindness) for this action. If one interacts with a person for some time it becomes clear on some intuitive level which philosophy they espouse. There is no set of ten questions that will help one decide (or at least I have not yet found them. If you have maybe you wouldn't mind sharing).
The ugly fact seems clear to me (based on where we are today in this world) that the universe is NOT in a steady state yet. Takers outnumber Givers or at least outperform them. This also makes evolutionary sense (survival of the fittest). But it doesn't make sense from the sustainability point of view. So what can people who self-classify as Givers (and don't we all think we are in that category) do about it? It seems to me we can do three things:
(1)we can work harder to do MORE for the universe we live in. I call this the “outperform” approach.
(2)We can try to find others who we genuinely believe to be other Givers and help them to achieve synergistic things with each other. I call this the “kindling the forest fire” approach.
(3)We can identify for ourselves those we believe to be in the Taker category and either try to win them over or run the other way from them. I call this the “survival” approach.
When I think back about my human interactions over my own lifetime I find that most of my grief in life has been because I misclassified someone into one of these categories or used one of these approaches with a Taker when I should have used another. I have used the third approach much too infrequently. From now on as soon as I firmly establish in my mind that someone is a Taker by the above definition, I will RUN the other way! Hopefully it will help me survive what I see as an increasingly tough world.
Every one of us has been on one side of this divide AND the other at different times of our lives. None of us would, for example, have even survived the earliest part of our lives without being shameless Takers. After all there is precious little MATERIAL that a newborn gives to the world (well, not counting the mountains of human excrement of course). There are correspondingly moments in everyone's lives where they have been selfless Givers too. So one might quite justifiably argue that NO ONE is a Giver or a Taker but that we pass through these states at different times of our lives. This thought, coupled with the concept of “forgiveness” (which in turn is itself coupled with the concept of some value-judgment attached to one or the other of these states), confused me for some time in my life until recently it became more clear to me that these are not “better” or “worse” states or “right” or “wrong” states. They are simply STATES that one can be aware of and that one can adjust one's own actions towards. If one sees a charging bull and a dove one does not think one is right and the other is wrong. One simply adjusts one's own behavior and either runs for cover or reaches out. They are both creatures of the universe and no doubt they have a rightful place in that universe. But our actions towards them are different. In a steady-state universe there is a balance between Givers and Takers. After all how can one give without someone or something there to accept that action?
So now, armed with the realization that Givers and Takers are simply a classification of the human race, and not encumbered with any value-judgment about those who are one or the other, I can ask myself two questions:
(1)How can I easily classify those I know into one or the other from a purely anthropological point of view?
(2)If I can actually create some criteria that help me classify those I know into one or the other category what can I do with that information that would help me survive better?
The answer came to me recently in an interaction I had with someone in the business world. The classification is not based on the actions (which are so tangible and easy to measure, and which I still place a very high value on over the words of people). This particular classification is based on our own personal estimate of the INTENT of the person. Although this is often tougher to ascertain, I feel that it is in fact how our minds work.
I believe that GIVERS want to leave the world a bit better than when they came into it. Now sometimes they may take things from their environment but they have the genuine belief that this incurs some sort of Karmic debt and they feel a need to repay that debt in their lifetime. TAKERS on the other hand have the intent that they want to THEMSELVES be a bit better off than when they came into the world. Again, this doesn't mean that occasionally they won't do something for someone or show some act of kindness. But, at the core they believe that this somehow sets them back a small amount and they feel that somehow they deserve some compensation (preferably MORE compensation that thye have invested in the act of kindness) for this action. If one interacts with a person for some time it becomes clear on some intuitive level which philosophy they espouse. There is no set of ten questions that will help one decide (or at least I have not yet found them. If you have maybe you wouldn't mind sharing).
The ugly fact seems clear to me (based on where we are today in this world) that the universe is NOT in a steady state yet. Takers outnumber Givers or at least outperform them. This also makes evolutionary sense (survival of the fittest). But it doesn't make sense from the sustainability point of view. So what can people who self-classify as Givers (and don't we all think we are in that category) do about it? It seems to me we can do three things:
(1)we can work harder to do MORE for the universe we live in. I call this the “outperform” approach.
(2)We can try to find others who we genuinely believe to be other Givers and help them to achieve synergistic things with each other. I call this the “kindling the forest fire” approach.
(3)We can identify for ourselves those we believe to be in the Taker category and either try to win them over or run the other way from them. I call this the “survival” approach.
When I think back about my human interactions over my own lifetime I find that most of my grief in life has been because I misclassified someone into one of these categories or used one of these approaches with a Taker when I should have used another. I have used the third approach much too infrequently. From now on as soon as I firmly establish in my mind that someone is a Taker by the above definition, I will RUN the other way! Hopefully it will help me survive what I see as an increasingly tough world.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
... and the goodness is coming BACK!
Those who know me have often heard me refer to the way I like to lead my life as follows:
"I step into the stream of life each day and start casting good deeds on the waters without expecting anything in return. The stream carries them away without so much as a trace. I do this for a long time and then ALL OF A SUDDEN I look behind me... and there they are GOOD THINGS COMING BACK MY WAY!! Its a round small planet and no one gets out alive"
I had just such an experience yesterday. I am helping a young and brilliant gent through one of the mentorship programs that I help out with. Let's just call him Chris. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet his wife Somyia for the first time as we got together for a dinner with spouses. My wife spotted it first. She is usually so cautious and so discrete that I was somewhat embarrassed as she kept staring at this young lady's blouse and nudging me. Finally she blurted it out "you have an RHB pin on!" she said. Then I noticed it there proudly on her blouse. She had attended one of Dave's seminars in Waterloo, heard the story and thought that this was a "movement" that was worth being a part of. The best thing about it was that she is a lawyer who is starting fresh in this great land of ours having come from India only 3 short years ago and qualified in Canadian law. She's now practicing corporate law in the Waterloo area AND has a young son!! It was so great to see such an accomplished person think that this was something worth proudly being a part of.
For those of you who don't know about it the RHB movement is something that a close friend and GREAT marketer - Dave Howlett - started some years ago based on a story I once shared with him from my life. Dave is the REAL hero but I could not help but feel a feeling of "goodness" from the stream of life coming back to me... and the wave was almost overwhelming. It will certainly be a long time before I forget that feeling of the "circle of life completing itself". Thank you Dave for your global evangelical work in bringing common values and humanity back into our lives! You are indeed making this a smaller better planet!
If you want to check out Dave's web page or attend one of his many GREAT seminars go to http://www.realhumanbeing.org/
"I step into the stream of life each day and start casting good deeds on the waters without expecting anything in return. The stream carries them away without so much as a trace. I do this for a long time and then ALL OF A SUDDEN I look behind me... and there they are GOOD THINGS COMING BACK MY WAY!! Its a round small planet and no one gets out alive"
I had just such an experience yesterday. I am helping a young and brilliant gent through one of the mentorship programs that I help out with. Let's just call him Chris. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet his wife Somyia for the first time as we got together for a dinner with spouses. My wife spotted it first. She is usually so cautious and so discrete that I was somewhat embarrassed as she kept staring at this young lady's blouse and nudging me. Finally she blurted it out "you have an RHB pin on!" she said. Then I noticed it there proudly on her blouse. She had attended one of Dave's seminars in Waterloo, heard the story and thought that this was a "movement" that was worth being a part of. The best thing about it was that she is a lawyer who is starting fresh in this great land of ours having come from India only 3 short years ago and qualified in Canadian law. She's now practicing corporate law in the Waterloo area AND has a young son!! It was so great to see such an accomplished person think that this was something worth proudly being a part of.
For those of you who don't know about it the RHB movement is something that a close friend and GREAT marketer - Dave Howlett - started some years ago based on a story I once shared with him from my life. Dave is the REAL hero but I could not help but feel a feeling of "goodness" from the stream of life coming back to me... and the wave was almost overwhelming. It will certainly be a long time before I forget that feeling of the "circle of life completing itself". Thank you Dave for your global evangelical work in bringing common values and humanity back into our lives! You are indeed making this a smaller better planet!
If you want to check out Dave's web page or attend one of his many GREAT seminars go to http://www.realhumanbeing.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
