He remembered a conversation he once had at a social event with a beekeeper, and decided to seek him out.  He learned that there is a species of bees that requires the hive to maintain a constant temperature in order for the queen bee to be productive.  In order for the hive to maintain a constant temperature at the center of the hive–the queen’s residence–the worker bees go through a process of constructing and deconstructing cell walls throughout the hive at different times of the day.  These changes in the cell walls change the flow of air such that the air temperature in the queen’s residence stays constant.  Upon learning this the architect hypothesized, “I can design a commercial building with retractable walls, that open and close at different times, in order to maintain a constant temperature?”

Psychologist argue that creativity often comes at the intersection of two or more different domains of knowledge.  In an interview with Wired Magazine in February of 1996,Steve Jobs had this to say:

“Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people.

Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have.”

Being a successful innovator requires hard work in two areas.  First, you have to become expert in the industry in which your product or service plays.  Secondly, you have to open the aperture of of your mind enough to learn as much as possible about the world in which we live.  It is not a coincidence that inventors and innovators are “naturally” curious people.

© Mark Loschiavo

The current debt crisis in the U.S. provides ample evidence that starting with common objectives may be overrated.  I would like to believe that there is a common objective to which every member of Congress can agree.  Oh, I don’t know.  How about something like, “we all agree we would like to maintain a AAA bond rating?”  The problem is that finding a common objective that becomes the common denominator is often too far removed from strategies to be useful.  Said differently, the more abstract an idea, the farther it is from concrete strategy or policy.

Over the past two days I was involved in a strategy advance (as opposed to a strategy retreat) with a group of my colleagues at Drexel University.  At the beginning of the first day the facilitator asked each of us to reflect on past meetings or strategy sessions that were particularly productive.  She then asked us to recall if there was an essential ingredient that made it successful.  Upon reflection, I settled on one ground rule that I feel is essential–complete transparency of objectives.

While it is not necessary that we start from a common objective, it is essential that we be honest and transparent regarding our objectives.  Said differently, there should be no hidden agendas.  Often, facilitators argue that everyone must check their egos at the door.  One can check one’s coat at the door.  One can check one’s purse at the door.  One can even check one’s smart phone at the door.  But it is very difficult to check one’s ego at the door. Even if we could, it could prove dangerous.  All those very large egos would likely block the exit, creating a fire hazard! Furthermore, our passion, creativity, drive and intellectual power is often fueled by our egos. How transformative would our strategies be without passion, creativity, drive and intellect?

During those two days, I witnessed a diverse group of very bright, passionate, creative people working together in an energetic and collegial fashion to tackle tough issues toward positive, transformative growth.  As a result, we were able to celebrate the victory of a great start on a long journey.  One reason for the success is that we established realistic ground rules up front.  Not the least of which was to ensure complete transparency of objectives.

© Mark Loschiavo

If the overachievers in an organization become hamstrung by blanket restrictions, budget cuts, or increased taxes, which are often the result of the mediocrity or failure of others in the organization, it stands to reason that total production will drop.

If this argument holds, why do organizations refuse to allow this logic to inform their decision-making during times of crisis?  An obvious answer is that it is much simpler to declare an across-the-board cut.  That way we can offer platitudes like, “everybody is being asked to tighten their belts.”  Sadly, I think the answer is more insidious than that.  I think it is based on the fallacy of CAN and WILL.

The fallacy of CAN and WILL is based in the faulty logic that because overachievers and high performing teams CAN produce more than others with the same resources, they WILL do even more with even less.  What makes this logic so dangerous is that it feeds the turkeys and starves the eagles.  In a backhanded way it rewards mediocrity by not holding it fully accountable.  Moreover, instead of rewarding overachievement it discourages it.  Why pull out all the stops to run a lean operation if it is not going to be recognized?  Why go to all that trouble only to be hamstrung?

Turkeys often store fat in preparation for a cold winter.  Eagles carry little, if any, fat.  If you are heading into a cold winter of crises, it would be wise to keep your eagles well fed!

© Mark Loschiavo

I embrace the idea of celebrating the entrepreneur.  One of the things I enjoy most in my role at the Center is celebrating the entrepreneur.  As a society, we need to celebrate the entrepreneur.  They are as important to the 21^st Century as John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Tom Watson, Sr., and J.P. Morgan were to the 20^th Century.  Today’s entrepreneurs will drive the change, growth and prosperity for years to come.

So, being asked for successful entrepreneurs didn’t bother me.  What bothers me is the relentless desire to write about the successful entrepreneur under the age of 20.  Such articles might increase readership, but they do little to encourage meaningful entrepreneurship.  Instead, they are perpetuating a myth, equivalent to positing that all young people should drop out of college so they can start a Dell Computer, or Microsoft.

Instead, we should be celebrating the entrepreneur who endures the typical experience of countless hours/days/years building and growing a successful business.  We need to herald the entrepreneur that exercises a strong internal locus of control, a need to achieve, ambiguity tolerance, discipline, and a singularity of purpose that increases his or her chances of success.  We need to lift up the entrepreneur who constantly exercises her skills of persuasion, connectedness and networking to build and maintain a fan base around her business.  Our heroes need to be those entrepreneurs with the endurance and perseverance to fail often and early, so they can fail forward.  We need to stop perpetuating the myth that it is easy and it is an over-night phenomenon.

Hopefully, there will always be the Michael Dell and Bill Gates of the world.  They also are heroes of the late 20^th Century. While they are the exception regarding scale, they are not the exception regarding internal locus of control, need to achieve, discipline, ambiguity tolerance, singularity of purpose, persuasion, connectedness and resilience.

© Mark Loschiavo

First, there are the established leaders.  These are often the class officers, top athletes and/or popular kids that everyone recognizes the minute they walk in the door.  Heads turn and other kids observe their every move.  If they choose to dance, they have no problem finding a dance partner.  Peers and parents alike typically admire these students.

Next, there are the “dangerous” kids.  They too are often noticed, and often secretly admired by some of their peers, because of their natural appeal to the “wild side” in each of us.  While we aren’t willing to take the risk, we can experience it vicariously through them.  Some are only willing to observe from a distance, and others are drawn even closer.   Like a mountain ledge without a safety rail, it draws us close.  Have you ever wondered why the “good girls” are often attracted to the “bad boys”?

Then, there are the kids who are remarkable is some other way.  Whether it is the excellent musician, singer or dancer, they get noticed.

Finally, there are the unremarkable kids.  They may be incredibly, smart, caring and talented, but nobody seems to notice them.  They are invisible, not because of who they are or what they are capable of, but because they are not recognized.  They blend into the crowd and go unnoticed.  Even if they accomplish something far more compelling than the darlings, the darlings’ accomplishments will be recognized because everyone is already watching them.

As painful as middle school memories may be, the entrepreneur building his or her startup company must recognize he or she is facing the equivalent of being the new kid attending the school dance.  Unless you are stunningly beautiful you will be invisible.  Being beautiful will require the financial capital to advertise during the Super Bowl, which you do not have.

The only viable alternative is to be compelling.  Creating a solution that is as good as, or slightly better, than an existing solution is a sure path to becoming unremarkable.  To gain traction the entrepreneur can start by ask the following questions:

Are we offering something completely new and different?

Jay Tapper started an interactive candy division of Cap Toys Inc., where he introduces an interactive motorized lollipop called the Spin Pop.  In an industry replete with darlings, Tapper’s product got noticed because it was it was unique.  Rather than focusing on making a lollipop that tasted better than a Tootsie Roll Pop, he focused on a lollipop that was interactive.

Do you have a competency that will allow you to fill a gap in the market?

Rather than rest on his laurels, Tapper decided to leverage the competencies developed with the Spin Pop to attack a gap in a completely different market—oral hygiene.  At the time, there were two kinds of toothbrushes: manual and electric.  While most competitors in this market were either focused on developing a $2.99 manual toothbrush with a more comfortable handle, or developing a $200 electric toothbrush with multiple functions, Jay focused on the gap—the white space in the market.  Since he already had the competency to develop an inexpensive device that spins, why not develop and inexpensive “interactive” toothbrush, at a price that was orders of magnitude cheaper than $200?  Enter the Spin Brush, now known as the Crest Spin Brush, following an acquisition by Proctor and Gamble.

Ask yourself what, if any, core competency you have that will make your business successful?  Is it a delivery mechanism?  Is it the way you acquire content?  Is it the relationship you will have with the gatekeepers?  Is it the interactive nature of the tool or product you are offering?

What is it about the existing art or current solutions people don’t like?

Weight management continues to be the bane of many American’s existence.  For decades Americans have increasingly understood the need to avoid obesity.  Even though there have been countless solutions offered over that same period, obesity continues to rise.  Why don’t the current solutions work adequately?  Although some programs are scams, most weight management programs follow the sound principle of caloric intake minus caloric burn equals weight change.  Yet these current solutions often do not work for people.  Weight Watchers addressed this by focusing on three inhibitors to effective weight management—lack of support systems, accountability and complexity.  They attacked the support and accountability issues by including, as part of their program, weigh-ins and support groups.  They also introduced the point system, which made it easier to monitor caloric intake, reducing complexity.

While Weight Watchers has been successful, obesity continues to be a problem.   Let’s suppose we want to offer a new solution to improve Americans’ success in proper nutrition.  We might start by asking Nutritionists what keeps their clients from following their advice.  Is it because:

• The information is two hard to follow?  Then find a method for communicating it better.
• Clients fear failure?  Then find a way to eliminate the fear.
• Clients don’t have the proper support through the process?  Then develop effective support mechanisms.
• Clients need accountability?  Then develop a way to introduce accountability.
• Clients find it tedious or boring?  Then find ways to make it fun.

In this era of global competition, building a better mousetrap is not enough.  As a startup, you need to offer a compelling solution.  You need to make your product or service remarkable in some way.  As the new kid in school, it is the only way someone is going to ask you to dance.

©Mark P. Loschiavo

In my travels, I have found music to be a common denominator—the universal language.  Whether it was singing along to a Beatles tribute band at a table in Roppongi with two Koreans and six Japanese, jamming in a karaoke bar in Tokyo with musicians who spoke no English, or jamming with an outdoor market vendor in Bangkok for 45 minutes, playing a stringed instrument called a Thai Pin, that I picked up for the very first time that day, connections were made.  The Thai vendor and I couldn’t communicate with each other in any other way, but we became brothers that day.  When my business associates finally found me they were relieved to learn that I was NOT abducted–just distracted.

I am privileged to serve on the board of LiveConnections (http://liveconnections.org), an organization dedicated to providing innovative music education programs to build bridges and connect cultures.  It was started by a group of people who are passionate about music, but more passionate about making a difference in the world through music.  Now, that is something to sing about!

If this is something that resonates with you, please go to http://liveconnections.org to make a donation.

based on the mastery of standardized tests (PSAT, SAT, GMAT, LSAT, MCAT) that measure an individual’s aptitude for analytical, logical and linear thought. The ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge is valued.  After all, convergent thinking put a man on the moon and returned him safely in the 1960s, and launched us headlong into the high technology world of the knowledge era.   Knowledge is power.

In 1997 engineers and scientists from IBM developed a computer program powerful enough to beat world champion Garry Kasparov in the quintessential logic and strategy competition, chess.  In so doing, is it possible they marked the beginning of the end of the knowledge era?  If technology can beat a world champion chess master at his game, what’s to keep technology from rendering a world-class disease diagnostician—think Dr. Gregory House—obsolete?

Isn’t a diagnostician’s skill derived from a comprehensive knowledge of known diseases, and the possible combination of related symptoms:  knowledge that can be stored in databases, and retrieved and processed at speeds far greater than the capability of the human mind.

While computers have the ability to handle this type of activity with ease, they have difficulty with context.  Discerning joy, fear, anger or anxiety from the expression on someone’s face requires the ability to instantaneously see individual parts of the face in the context of the whole.  In order for innovators and entrepreneurs to develop solutions for today’s complex needs, they need to understand those needs within the context of people’s lives, and/or the whole of society.  This ability to understand context seems to come from the frontal lobe of the brain.

At this point, a caveat may be in order.   For years, the literature drew the distinction between the way humans’ process information in an either/or fashion, where logic and language activity took place in the left hemisphere and imagination, emotion and spatial awareness occupied the right side of the brain.   In other words a focus on convergent (ala left brain) and divergent (ala right brain) thinking, where focus had been on convergent thinking (evaluative).  Now, there is an enhanced recognition of the importance of divergent thinking (emphasis on generating ideas).   More importantly, we recognize that both sides of the brain work together.   Since this is not a forum on neuroscience, I will ask your forgiveness if I shorthand the discussion a bit by using the left-brain right-brain language.

In his book, A Whole New Mind, Daniel Pink suggests that we are moving from a knowledge economy to a creative economy, requiring a renaissance of divergent thinking.  Is it time to re-engage the often-maligned right-brain?  Are we in an era where competitive advantage will be determined as much or more by creativity, design and context than by knowledge, analytics and logic?

In an interview with Ted Koppel, Dave Kelley, founder and CEO of the Palo Alto, California product design firm, Ideo, said, “Look around.  The only thing that is not designed by someone is nature.”  While this has been true since the beginning of time, the importance of design for the products and services we consume has not always been paramount.

Prior to the 21^st Century the demand for one product over another was largely driven by utility and price.  Terms like “price performance” were coined to indicate the importance of the price/utility relationship.  Typically, the product with the most functionality at an affordable price carried the highest competitive advantage.  Recognizable slogans like, “the quicker picker-upper”, “the ultimate driving machine”, “we bring good things to life”, “like a rock”, and “don’t leave home without it”, speak to the importance consumers and advertising firms assigned to function and utility.

As developed countries become more affluent—particularly the U.S.—consumers are demanding more than just utility in the products they purchase.  They want beauty, elegance and significance.  In short, they want good design.

Daniel Pink goes on to say that, “While Harvard’s MBA program admits about 10 percent of its applicants, UCLA’s fine arts graduate school admits only 3 percent.  Why?  A master of fine arts, an MFA, is now one of the hottest credentials in the world, where even General Motors is in the art business.”  Pink argues that product design has become a vital ingredient for competitive advantage, creating the need for a whole new mind in business.  Business leaders, who have traditionally valued convergent thinking, need to embrace the importance of divergent thinking in building competitive advantage.

Think for a moment about the hottest new products of the last decade.  What were they, and what distinguished them from their competitors?  What role did design play in the product’s success, and what do we know about the companies that designed them?  They are usually viewed as innovative, but are they also viewed as entrepreneurial?  This begs the question.  As we move into the creative economy, will entrepreneurial firms have an advantage over established corporate giants and why?

©Mark P. Loschiavo

The panel discussion was led by Sherry Hoskinson, Director, McGuire Center for Entrepreneurship; Co-director, Business / Law Exchange, The University of Arizona.  Panelists included:

• Tom O’Malia, Director Emeritus, Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Southern California
• Michael Morris, Professor and N. Malone Mitchell Chair in Entrepreneurship Head, School of Entrepreneurship Spears School of Business Oklahoma State University
• Anthony Mendes, Director, Murphy Center for Entrepreneurship, University of North Texas
• Laura Hollis, Director, Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of  Notre Dame

The discussants ended up focusing on five specific topics:

1. Red Herrings regarding peer evaluation and best practices
2. Most pervasive obstacles to success, and ways to overcome them
3. How to balance/manage stakeholder support to achieving center goals
4. The value of the business plan as a tool
5. Ideal outcomes and measures of success

Red Herrings

Centers have many decisions to make about engagement opportunities and models, collaboration, and new initiatives.  There is a great deal of attention paid to “peer practice” regarding trends across the industry.  The problem comes when centers chase red herrings—activities/initiatives that seem to be “all the rage” but, in fact, provide little return on investment.  The two red herrings that emerged in the discussion were false gurus and rankings.

There is an old saying among jazz musicians.  “If you make a mistake while improvising, do it a second time and folks will think you did it on purpose.  If you play it a third time, others will try to copy it.  While this may work for a jazz improvisation, it does not translate well to entrepreneurship centers.  Unfortunately, the entrepreneurial community has its share of “gurus” making assertions based on opinion rather than results.  Ask for evidence or stay away from them.

Reminiscent of the Senior Superlatives back in high school, where students were voted everything from most likely to succeed to best dancer, the US has become obsessed with rankings.  If you don’t agree, consider the popularity of TV shows like American Idol and Dancing With the Stars, where everyone has the opportunity to vote for their favorite.  As such administrators in higher education have also become somewhat obsessed over rankings, mostly because of the potential impact on enrollment.  While the group saw center accountability based on results as a good thing, the expressed concern was with the credibility and accountability of the ranking processes and methodologies.  Results based accountability is one thing.  A popularity contest is quite another.

Obstacles

It was agreed that institutional inertia was the most formidable enemy of entrepreneurship centers, and that it usually manifests itself in the form of committees.  Once the enemy was identified, the discussion quickly turned to the most effective ways to overcome this obstacle.  The two key takeaways from this discussion were to first, know when to engage the institution and when to act independently, and secondly to follow the very advice we often give entrepreneurs—quickly build, test, and refine (or kill) each new product, solution or initiative.  Not all ideas, activities, initiatives are the same.  Some require institutional buy-in to be implemented; others do not.  As such, the ideation, decision-making and implementation should vary accordingly.  When in doubt, it is usually more effective to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.

Balancing Stakeholder Support to Drive Results

First it is important to identify the many stakeholders associated with a university entrepreneurship center.  Start by recognizing there are internal (academics, researchers and university administrators) and external (entrepreneurs and business professionals) stakeholders.  Each has different needs and expectations and must be dealt with differently.  One way of avoiding schizophrenia in the process is to find commonalities and translate accordingly.   For example, it makes sense to establish metrics that measure and communicate ROI for your external stakeholders, since that is the language they speak.  It also makes sense to communicate external stakeholder benefits to internal stakeholders in a language that translates well to their desired outcomes.

Two additional take-aways:

1. Regarding new programs and initiatives, it is best to take a bottoms-up approach to ideation, combined with a tops-down approach to implementation.  In other words, it is good to reach agreement on overarching goals and strategic direction with stakeholders up front, but during the implementation process, too many cooks can spoil the broth.
2. Create multiple mechanisms to communicate with stakeholders.  Far too often, if stakeholders do not know what you are doing, they assume you are doing nothing.

The Value of the Business Plan as a Tool

There is a growing sentiment among center directors that the business plan as a tool is obsolete, and that business plan competitions’ time may have passed.  The arguments surrounding this debate are often as divisive as those surrounding healthcare reform, but I will try to provide the essence.

The business plan exemplifies the best and the worst of the current state of entrepreneurship education.  At its best, the business plan provides aspiring entrepreneurs with a framework for, and an understanding of, all the elements necessary for starting and building a venture.  The building a business plan forces discipline and provides focus—characteristics often found in successful entrepreneurs.  At its worst, it provides a teaching model that implies the process of starting and building a new venture is a linear process that looks something like:

Idea=>Research=>Fund=>Develop =>Make=>Sell=>Grow=>Exit

Anyone involved in a new venture knows, only too well, that there is nothing linear about starting and growing the venture.

As such the business planning and education process should be an inquiry process focused on de-risking key assumptions.  As one panelist put it, “Don’t tell me what you think.  Tell me what you know, and how you intend to exploit it.”

Ideal Outcomes & Measures of Success

Generally speaking, an ideal outcome is to identify student needs, meet them where they are in their understanding, and build from there.  In order to do this effectively there must be a proper balance of both academic and experiential learning opportunities for them.   To accomplish these measures of success the following desired outcomes were identified.

1. Force accountability in rankings standards.
2. Focus on preparing aspiring entrepreneurs with both the toolset (best practices) and the mindset (interest/passion and appreciation) necessary for success.
3. Provide students with a multidisciplinary exposure to entrepreneurship by developing meaningful partnerships with other colleges and programs.
4. Develop/provide the necessary resources—both academic and clinical—for students and entrepreneur that will help them navigate the entrepreneurial ecosystem effectively.

©Mark P. Loschiavo

Since I thought my adult children would get a kick out of the photo, I immediately forward a copy to them.  My son, Brian, quickly responded with, “You’ve got some swagger there, pops.”  My first reaction was disbelief.  Although 1963 was a while ago, I still remember all the insecurities that came with being an eight-year-old boy.  At eight, my hands, feet and ears were clearly designed for a body much larger than mine, and my hair was curly, when curly wasn’t cool.  Clearly,  God either had a sense of humor, or was just having an off day when he designed me.

Then, I decided to have another look at the photo.  Sure enough, there was definitely a swagger.  If a picture tells a thousand words, the words coming from this young boy was, “welcome to my house and my team!”  Where was the insecure kid I knew myself to be?  How could this be?

Upon further reflection, a story started to form, providing context for the photo.  When I was eight, swimming was a big part of my life.  In addition to swimming in two summer leagues, I competed year-round on an AAU team, which involved interstate travel.

A typical summer day consisted of me waking at the crack of dawn, walking about ½ mile to the swim club where morning practices occurred.  Every morning, I would arrive about one hour before the rest of the team.  Upon my arrival, I would give the swim coach his wake up call, by knocking on the door of his apartment located at the club.  While the coach enjoyed breakfast, my job was to prepare the Olympic size pool for morning practice.  I would start by swimming behind a 2’ X 2’ window screen in order to skim the bugs off the water’s surface.  Usually, the coach and the rest of the team would show up just about the time I would have the lane dividers in place.

Following a two-hour practice, I would stay in the water to swim an extra mile.  I did this for endurance.  I didn’t know what endurance was.  I just knew that, if I wanted to be the best swimmer in the league, I needed it.   Following lunch, I would spend most of the day playing in the pool until late afternoon, when someone would pick me up to drive me to a nearby country club where I was on another team that practiced every evening.  As I got older, these daily routines were accompanied by weight training routines designed specifically for swimmers.  No, I didn’t do this because I had overbearing parents driving me to be an overachiever.  I did it because I was good at it, and I wanted to be the best.

That same “need-to-achieve” and “internal locus of control” is something I have experience time and again in successful entrepreneurs and business leaders.  It is a self-confidence that is rooted in hard work and dedication to a specific industry, customer set or domain.  It comes from working hard to be the best, not from an over-inflated view of self.  It is a swagger that says, “welcome to my house, and my field of expertise!”

©Mark P. Loschiavo

I recently had the honor of hosting a delegation of entrepreneurs and economic development officials from Africa at Drexel University’s Baiada Center for Entrepreneurship.  During the dialogue one of our guests commented on the difficulty of obtaining financial support within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, be it private or public funds, for programs to incubate ideas, entrepreneurs and companies in Africa.  As she was explaining the situation in Nigeria, it brought to mind a similar conversation several years ago, while I was with a North American delegation to the United Kingdom to share best practices in entrepreneurship education and incubation.

When describing that the success of our programs at the Baiada Center are made possible through generous gifts from private individuals and companies, my colleagues from the UK informed me that private individuals/companies in the UK are not accustomed to contributing financially to endeavors like ours, rendering the government the only viable source of funding to operate their programs.  Said differently, the private sector in the UK looks to their government agencies to ensure growth of a healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Recent events in China punctuate the impact of political systems on the state of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.  Baiada Center benefactor, Mel Baiada, recently visited a number of mega tech parks recently constructed in China.  With the full weight of central government behind it, entrepreneurship is becoming a booming industry in China.  Just a few short years ago, an educator visited me from China who was lamenting the difficulties of building momentum for entrepreneurship in China.  It is yet to be seen how government architected entrepreneurship will look.

Armed with a restless spirit and a longing to innovate, this country has prospered from its earliest days based on a strong belief in the power and ingenuity of private citizens over the wisdom of a central government.  That very spirit has propelled Drexel University’s Baiada Center to achieve top rankings in entrepreneurship.  I am grateful to the countless individuals and private companies for their contributions in helping us pursue our purpose of incubating ideas, entrepreneurs and companies.  It is a glowing example of the power and ingenuity of private citizens pursuing a common purpose over the wisdom of government.