Something has been ruminating in my mind over the last few weeks and months and I THINK I have it ready to share now in at least a "strawman" or draft form. The thoughts I have been having, seek to go to the root of what will open our hearts and minds to evil things however we may define them and what will possibly counteract those things.
I have come to a rather simple (but I hope not simplistic) thought that at the root of all things that I consider negative or "toxic" forces in my life are four mental states: FEAR, HATE, ANGER, and DESPAIR. If I examine what the root cause of negative things happening in my life are, they are all reducible to these four "horsemen of the apocalypse" as it were. Fear of one thing or another is by far the most important of all of these in the world even in a historic sense. If one considers the amount of evil that has happened in the world because of this one factor, one is astonished. Even some of the others (hate and anger) can in some ways be thought of as "progeny" of fear. So if one wants to change things one REALLY needs to recognize fear as the "gateway" drug of evil and try one's best to live a life of "No Fear" as the old bumper stickers used to proclaim.
Now if one examines what can be done to counteract these forces that play a role in our lives one sees at once that the counteracting POSITIVE forces are TRUST, LOVE and HOPE (yes unfortunately there aren't conveniently four to help our artificial ideas of symmetry).
We are at a time of the year of making resolutions. What if we decided to recognize the seven forces that play such an important part in our lives and to adjust them so that we achieve a POSITIVE balance in all we do. Would that be something we could live by for the rest of the year? I for one am going to try.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Tech. Tran. and the "Societal Contract"
Let us imagine a one-day brainstorming exercise at a well known Canadian university. I'm going to write it as if it REALLY happened. We were charged with looking at the technology transfer activity of that university from a “zero-base” starting point and coming up with a set of principles and policy guidelines that would make the whole activity better from the ground up. In attendance were all of the major players of the university – a member of the Board of Governors, The President, and most of the Vice Presidents. There were even a representative number of Deans and Chairs.
The day was divided into two parts:
- The morning session (with a break for lunch) would be to get a clear picture of what Technology Transfer meant (or better, SHOULD mean) to this institution and what the major obstacles were in the way of it BEING that optimal organizational machine.
- The afternoon session would then focus on how those obstacles could be removed to clear the path towards actually achieving the state that was envisaged as optimal.
It seemed like a good strategy.
The morning went reasonably well. There was of course the usual discussion about the role of the university in generating funds through commercialization the expectation of the granting agencies etc etc etc. To some “commercialization” is a “dirty” word on campus while to others it is the only path forward, making this a VERY controversial issue on most campuses in Canada. I was galvanized however by a definition that was readily reached by everyone. The role of the University is to enhance the society that feeds it and nurtures it. There seemed to be some sort of a universal agreement that there was an implicit “social contract” that the society would care for ITS university and that the university would in return enhance that society in every way possible. On this there appeared little doubt. The ways in which the university would justify the immense investment (make no mistake we invest our sons and daughters AS WELL AS HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY) from society included putting great minds and trained personnel into that society; great artists and inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians with a set of moral values etc. – and THINGS: improvements in our carbon footprints, ways to live sustainably, cures for diseases, etc etc etc.
Working with this remarkable unanimity we quickly focused in on the WAYS that this social contract can be fulfilled and by lunch we had come up with the definition of the ideal function of Technology Transfer being to put back into society the TECHNOLOGIES that had been invented through public funding as widely, quickly and efficiently as possible. This was clearly at least sometimes at odds with the goals of COMMERCIALIZATION which were centered around making money (sometimes sufficient to run the office, sometimes more than that). So we made a clear distinction between commercialization and Tech. Transfer. The harmony between groups that had disagreed for a long time about a place for any such activity on campus seemed to dissolve into thin air before us as we continued the dialogue. It became clear that the disputes were around the making of money through this activity. Of course I am simplifying greatly a debate that has raged on our campuses for quite a while but the principle is nonetheless true. The major obstacles that were identified seemed to center around two topics and, after a simple process of grouping and consolidation of thoughts, we came up with them just in time to write them on the whiteboard and break for lunch:
The purpose of a university is to better society which supports it and the Technology Transfer activities of a university need to serve this greater “societal contract”.
The major obstacles to Technology Transfer (as defined here) are:
1. The need to own IP
2. The need to participate in revenues from our inventions
The session after lunch was actually quite lighthearted and optimistic. It was quickly realized that the two major obstacles were under the COMPLETE control of the university itself. There was a simple clear path to achieving the goals of the ideal TTO. Give up its desire to hold (and of course to DEFEND) IP and simultaneously give up its desire and expectation to gain monetarily DIRECTLY from revenues that may result from the commercialization of one of its inventions. This is not such a remarkably unorthodox or novel idea as it may seem at first. The colleges in Canada owe a large part of their recent success in Technology Transfer (they call it something else and define it much better) to these two simple principles coupled to a third one: "We measure ourselves by the placement of our graduates in your companies". Even the government granting agencies have realized that their mandate to create jobs and improve society is more directly served by the colleges' actions than the universities' TTOs. Such great centers of learning as the major universities even in the US (the heartland of commercialization and free enterprise) have learned this lesson and have imposed limits on what an academic can make in revenues from any invention.
Another convincing argument for this approach is the careful examination of what one would be giving up. Few if any universities have made significant revenues from an invention compared to their general overall budget. For sure there are always the cases which defy the general rule. Taxol, Gaitoraid, WARF, and some remarkable other classical success stories come to mind. But surely the generality of that rule is not challenged by one or two exceptions. The general rule is that, for all of the effort that is expended in the field in Canada, there is hardly a justification for it based on the overall revenues that are received. And lets not forget the cost of obtaining this right to exclude others (that is what a patent is after all) and the damage that a lawsuit or a court battle (even if it is eventually won) can bring to a university.
The second part was a bit more contentious: Give up any claim on revenues. There is always the possibility that an invention will become a blockbuster drug or the new internal combustion engine or the new data compression algorithm for all cell phones etc. Why lose out on the chance to make some money. The reason was clear to this group. IT OBSTRUCTS THE CORE PURPOSE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER. Industry is long past the selfish shortsighted era where it would not decide to nurture the very source of its new ideas and future products. That is amply shown in the case of Waterloo where RIM has been known to write multimillion dollar checks to the university more or less just by being asked and without any contractual tie to do so as a result of a technology licensed from that university.
So now the only thing that lay before us (and our flights home) was a plan of how this would be implemented. And HERE is where the creativity comes in. Take yourself out of the box of conventional thinking for just a moment and play along with me now. After all you have read down to this point haven't you?
If a university were to announce one day that it had the mandate to put technologies as quickly, widely, and efficiently into society as possible and as a result was prepared to GIVE AWAY an exclusive, worldwide right to commercialize (for free!) to that company which could demonstrate that it could do this best, then the table would have been turned overnight. Companies would approach the university instead of the usual unsuccessful approach by the TTO to companies. They would bring a “business plan” to the table rather than a skeptical attitude. They would tell how they could benefit society with the invention rather than asking the TTO to show them how this could be achieved. The nature of the contract would also be very different. It would be built around the promises made in the proposal and it would hold the company to that delivery or else the license would be revoked and all of the information and data generated so far would revert to the university and IT would be free to re-announce the competition – now armed with more real and useful innovative data. It would project the TTO into a place in society which really made a difference – that of the steward of value between the inventor and the societal benefit. The idea is not ENTIRELY new either. Joe Irvine of the University of Ottawa has in fact done this (in part) with some success. I believe that the TTO has announced that it will give away rights to its technologies for a limited time so that industry can take the technology for a “test run” and see what it can do. After that the university would be ready to negotiate a more formal contract. I would suspect that the limitations on the initial success of this approach are because the industry is not ready to trust that the terms will be as advantageous to them after they have demonstrated (to themselves and to the TTO) that the technology has legs. But the principle remains.
Bottom line: If, as people involved with the transfer of technology into society, we want to change the way we impact society we need to admit that the BASIC premises of what we do are not right and that we need to rethink the very foundational assumptions we have relied upon until now. In so doing we don't actually give up that much in reality and we gain a whole new perspective – of ourselves, our purpose, and the metrics by which we measure our success and along the way we align ourselves to the more wide societal contract that is the foundation of a university's success. The two ideas outlined above are a start. I would welcome any and all discussion as usual.
The day was divided into two parts:
- The morning session (with a break for lunch) would be to get a clear picture of what Technology Transfer meant (or better, SHOULD mean) to this institution and what the major obstacles were in the way of it BEING that optimal organizational machine.
- The afternoon session would then focus on how those obstacles could be removed to clear the path towards actually achieving the state that was envisaged as optimal.
It seemed like a good strategy.
The morning went reasonably well. There was of course the usual discussion about the role of the university in generating funds through commercialization the expectation of the granting agencies etc etc etc. To some “commercialization” is a “dirty” word on campus while to others it is the only path forward, making this a VERY controversial issue on most campuses in Canada. I was galvanized however by a definition that was readily reached by everyone. The role of the University is to enhance the society that feeds it and nurtures it. There seemed to be some sort of a universal agreement that there was an implicit “social contract” that the society would care for ITS university and that the university would in return enhance that society in every way possible. On this there appeared little doubt. The ways in which the university would justify the immense investment (make no mistake we invest our sons and daughters AS WELL AS HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY) from society included putting great minds and trained personnel into that society; great artists and inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians with a set of moral values etc. – and THINGS: improvements in our carbon footprints, ways to live sustainably, cures for diseases, etc etc etc.
Working with this remarkable unanimity we quickly focused in on the WAYS that this social contract can be fulfilled and by lunch we had come up with the definition of the ideal function of Technology Transfer being to put back into society the TECHNOLOGIES that had been invented through public funding as widely, quickly and efficiently as possible. This was clearly at least sometimes at odds with the goals of COMMERCIALIZATION which were centered around making money (sometimes sufficient to run the office, sometimes more than that). So we made a clear distinction between commercialization and Tech. Transfer. The harmony between groups that had disagreed for a long time about a place for any such activity on campus seemed to dissolve into thin air before us as we continued the dialogue. It became clear that the disputes were around the making of money through this activity. Of course I am simplifying greatly a debate that has raged on our campuses for quite a while but the principle is nonetheless true. The major obstacles that were identified seemed to center around two topics and, after a simple process of grouping and consolidation of thoughts, we came up with them just in time to write them on the whiteboard and break for lunch:
The purpose of a university is to better society which supports it and the Technology Transfer activities of a university need to serve this greater “societal contract”.
The major obstacles to Technology Transfer (as defined here) are:
1. The need to own IP
2. The need to participate in revenues from our inventions
The session after lunch was actually quite lighthearted and optimistic. It was quickly realized that the two major obstacles were under the COMPLETE control of the university itself. There was a simple clear path to achieving the goals of the ideal TTO. Give up its desire to hold (and of course to DEFEND) IP and simultaneously give up its desire and expectation to gain monetarily DIRECTLY from revenues that may result from the commercialization of one of its inventions. This is not such a remarkably unorthodox or novel idea as it may seem at first. The colleges in Canada owe a large part of their recent success in Technology Transfer (they call it something else and define it much better) to these two simple principles coupled to a third one: "We measure ourselves by the placement of our graduates in your companies". Even the government granting agencies have realized that their mandate to create jobs and improve society is more directly served by the colleges' actions than the universities' TTOs. Such great centers of learning as the major universities even in the US (the heartland of commercialization and free enterprise) have learned this lesson and have imposed limits on what an academic can make in revenues from any invention.
Another convincing argument for this approach is the careful examination of what one would be giving up. Few if any universities have made significant revenues from an invention compared to their general overall budget. For sure there are always the cases which defy the general rule. Taxol, Gaitoraid, WARF, and some remarkable other classical success stories come to mind. But surely the generality of that rule is not challenged by one or two exceptions. The general rule is that, for all of the effort that is expended in the field in Canada, there is hardly a justification for it based on the overall revenues that are received. And lets not forget the cost of obtaining this right to exclude others (that is what a patent is after all) and the damage that a lawsuit or a court battle (even if it is eventually won) can bring to a university.
The second part was a bit more contentious: Give up any claim on revenues. There is always the possibility that an invention will become a blockbuster drug or the new internal combustion engine or the new data compression algorithm for all cell phones etc. Why lose out on the chance to make some money. The reason was clear to this group. IT OBSTRUCTS THE CORE PURPOSE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER. Industry is long past the selfish shortsighted era where it would not decide to nurture the very source of its new ideas and future products. That is amply shown in the case of Waterloo where RIM has been known to write multimillion dollar checks to the university more or less just by being asked and without any contractual tie to do so as a result of a technology licensed from that university.
So now the only thing that lay before us (and our flights home) was a plan of how this would be implemented. And HERE is where the creativity comes in. Take yourself out of the box of conventional thinking for just a moment and play along with me now. After all you have read down to this point haven't you?
If a university were to announce one day that it had the mandate to put technologies as quickly, widely, and efficiently into society as possible and as a result was prepared to GIVE AWAY an exclusive, worldwide right to commercialize (for free!) to that company which could demonstrate that it could do this best, then the table would have been turned overnight. Companies would approach the university instead of the usual unsuccessful approach by the TTO to companies. They would bring a “business plan” to the table rather than a skeptical attitude. They would tell how they could benefit society with the invention rather than asking the TTO to show them how this could be achieved. The nature of the contract would also be very different. It would be built around the promises made in the proposal and it would hold the company to that delivery or else the license would be revoked and all of the information and data generated so far would revert to the university and IT would be free to re-announce the competition – now armed with more real and useful innovative data. It would project the TTO into a place in society which really made a difference – that of the steward of value between the inventor and the societal benefit. The idea is not ENTIRELY new either. Joe Irvine of the University of Ottawa has in fact done this (in part) with some success. I believe that the TTO has announced that it will give away rights to its technologies for a limited time so that industry can take the technology for a “test run” and see what it can do. After that the university would be ready to negotiate a more formal contract. I would suspect that the limitations on the initial success of this approach are because the industry is not ready to trust that the terms will be as advantageous to them after they have demonstrated (to themselves and to the TTO) that the technology has legs. But the principle remains.
Bottom line: If, as people involved with the transfer of technology into society, we want to change the way we impact society we need to admit that the BASIC premises of what we do are not right and that we need to rethink the very foundational assumptions we have relied upon until now. In so doing we don't actually give up that much in reality and we gain a whole new perspective – of ourselves, our purpose, and the metrics by which we measure our success and along the way we align ourselves to the more wide societal contract that is the foundation of a university's success. The two ideas outlined above are a start. I would welcome any and all discussion as usual.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
The EASt may be the solution
In the last four days I have visited no less than TWO of the three cities rated as the top on the scale of unemployment in Ontario if not CANADA as a whole. The three cities are Peterborough, Oshawa, and Windsor. It strikes me that the auto crisis in North America is hitting some people really hard. All that infrastructure that goes into an auto plant, all those highly skilled people and all of that support structure from the towns and provinces going to waste hit me hard. I began to think "What can I do?". It would have been easy for me to dismiss this thought and just forget about it. After all I am a mere CHEMIST. I have never been involved with the auto sector professionally except VERY recently and that too in only a peripheral way. But the thought kept nagging at me.
It was a long drive back from Windsor and this gave me time to rethink a conversation I had had there and to refine it. Somewhere we were discussing developments in India in the auto sector and how they are producing now (after the success of the Tata Nano)a car that will run 300 miles on a tank of... (wait for the drum roll) COMPRESSED AIR! They are setting about solving THEIR problems and addressing THEIR needs. It struck me that we in Canada are actually NOT doing that. Rather, we are allowing ourselves to be absorbed by a marketing campaign that is suited for the US and generated by the US and that actually doesn't suit our needs in Canada in this sector in some key ways.
I recalled that almost a half century ago some bright mind in India had thought about the needs of the middle class. They had decided that a STABLE manufacture of a relatively good but not "fancy" or "stylish" car at a reasonable price was the MAIN need. They went to the Austin company (in the UK) and bought the details for the manufacture of the model of the Ambassador car for the year just completed. They then made a commitment to make this SAME EXACT car for the next decade, year after year. Think what that did for the price. Think what that did for the "after market" industry for this particular make and model. Think what that did for the RELIABILITY of service - literally every auto-mechanic in the COUNTRY would eventually know this car like the back of their hands. Almost fifty years later in 2005 I stepped off a plane from Canada to India. There, to greet me was a brand new company car from the host company. Guess which one it was??? YES the SAME one that had been made there year after year for that long. The so-called Hindustan (the name given by these astute folks to the Austin Ambassador). I got into a conversation with the driver and he said that the after-market industry in this car had flourished to such a point that it was unthinkable that anyone would be able to stop its manufacture. You could quite literally do almost ANYTHING with these cars now.
I wonder if the Canadian minivan is not that sort of a car for Mums all across Canada. Think what they want: Reliable, easily serviced, reasonably priced, roomy enough for the 2.5 kids and high enough to be safe in the traffic. Of course reasonable on gas would be a plus but really that is getting much better these days for even the minivan. And there is no end to what one can think of to do in this category in after market add-ons.
What if some enterprising moneyed person were to buy this years minivan details and take one of the minivan factories that is now being abandoned and commit to make the SAME minivan for the next decade. Would that turn our auto sector around? Could it make jobs where today there is despair? Could its inevitable success spill over to say... the Pickup Truck sector? Who knows. But it is an experiment that has succeeded somewhere else in the world. And lest you are thinking "That could work in a DEVELOPING country but not in a DEVELOPED country like Canada."; that same experiment worked with taxis in London some years before the Indian experiment.
I think I can venture a guess as to where your mind is going at this time. You are probably thinking "Yeah but I like the fact that I get "new features" with each new model. That after all is the thrill of getting a new car." Let me point out that this is a marketing ploy invented by big companies with the PRIMARY aim of squeezing out the after-market industry so that those dollars spent there are funneled back to the big companies in the first place. Every one of us doesn't get a new car each year. And when we do we like some of the new features but I can't think of anyone who likes ALL of the ones they got and NONE of the ones offered by the competition. With the purchase of a simple relatively cheap "standard" model and a thriving after-market industry (need I point out that this could be UNIQUELY Canadianif such a canadian minivan were to be manufactured!) we could all get the features we WANTED - and only those - and we could get them as we could afford them not being forced into buying them all of them at the same time. Think of the eco-friendliness where car parts that have NOT outlived their useful lifetimes can be simply reused and the parts that have come to their useful limits could be simply replaced. We do some of this tese days but the used parts industry is very redundant. Look at the scrap yards in the country if you have any doubts.
Who knew that sometimes old and foreign is a possible solution to today's domestic problems. Your thoughts would be most welcome.
It was a long drive back from Windsor and this gave me time to rethink a conversation I had had there and to refine it. Somewhere we were discussing developments in India in the auto sector and how they are producing now (after the success of the Tata Nano)a car that will run 300 miles on a tank of... (wait for the drum roll) COMPRESSED AIR! They are setting about solving THEIR problems and addressing THEIR needs. It struck me that we in Canada are actually NOT doing that. Rather, we are allowing ourselves to be absorbed by a marketing campaign that is suited for the US and generated by the US and that actually doesn't suit our needs in Canada in this sector in some key ways.
I recalled that almost a half century ago some bright mind in India had thought about the needs of the middle class. They had decided that a STABLE manufacture of a relatively good but not "fancy" or "stylish" car at a reasonable price was the MAIN need. They went to the Austin company (in the UK) and bought the details for the manufacture of the model of the Ambassador car for the year just completed. They then made a commitment to make this SAME EXACT car for the next decade, year after year. Think what that did for the price. Think what that did for the "after market" industry for this particular make and model. Think what that did for the RELIABILITY of service - literally every auto-mechanic in the COUNTRY would eventually know this car like the back of their hands. Almost fifty years later in 2005 I stepped off a plane from Canada to India. There, to greet me was a brand new company car from the host company. Guess which one it was??? YES the SAME one that had been made there year after year for that long. The so-called Hindustan (the name given by these astute folks to the Austin Ambassador). I got into a conversation with the driver and he said that the after-market industry in this car had flourished to such a point that it was unthinkable that anyone would be able to stop its manufacture. You could quite literally do almost ANYTHING with these cars now.
I wonder if the Canadian minivan is not that sort of a car for Mums all across Canada. Think what they want: Reliable, easily serviced, reasonably priced, roomy enough for the 2.5 kids and high enough to be safe in the traffic. Of course reasonable on gas would be a plus but really that is getting much better these days for even the minivan. And there is no end to what one can think of to do in this category in after market add-ons.
What if some enterprising moneyed person were to buy this years minivan details and take one of the minivan factories that is now being abandoned and commit to make the SAME minivan for the next decade. Would that turn our auto sector around? Could it make jobs where today there is despair? Could its inevitable success spill over to say... the Pickup Truck sector? Who knows. But it is an experiment that has succeeded somewhere else in the world. And lest you are thinking "That could work in a DEVELOPING country but not in a DEVELOPED country like Canada."; that same experiment worked with taxis in London some years before the Indian experiment.
I think I can venture a guess as to where your mind is going at this time. You are probably thinking "Yeah but I like the fact that I get "new features" with each new model. That after all is the thrill of getting a new car." Let me point out that this is a marketing ploy invented by big companies with the PRIMARY aim of squeezing out the after-market industry so that those dollars spent there are funneled back to the big companies in the first place. Every one of us doesn't get a new car each year. And when we do we like some of the new features but I can't think of anyone who likes ALL of the ones they got and NONE of the ones offered by the competition. With the purchase of a simple relatively cheap "standard" model and a thriving after-market industry (need I point out that this could be UNIQUELY Canadianif such a canadian minivan were to be manufactured!) we could all get the features we WANTED - and only those - and we could get them as we could afford them not being forced into buying them all of them at the same time. Think of the eco-friendliness where car parts that have NOT outlived their useful lifetimes can be simply reused and the parts that have come to their useful limits could be simply replaced. We do some of this tese days but the used parts industry is very redundant. Look at the scrap yards in the country if you have any doubts.
Who knew that sometimes old and foreign is a possible solution to today's domestic problems. Your thoughts would be most welcome.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Warm Glow of having been heard!
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.
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, 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)
