Repo and the Store

Hello u.osu.edu fans.  How’ve ya been?  How’ve I been- busy!  Its been nuts as usual in the land of commercialization and the fall storm is headed our way.  This means students, events, techs, startups, deals oh my.  And lots of things are going on.  All of which is mostly good.

I figure I should note something on here’s the state of the pipeline for Dan, as of 8/6/2015?  Well the pipeline is still about 60% healthcare related.  Lotta potential and more players on the medical side of the IP dance.  But the other side, everything non-medical is forming up as well.

We in a time where companies we helped kick out 1-2 years ago are going thru their valley of death as well.  They’re being tested beyond the MVP, they’ve netted some capital, and rolling into momentum, getting customers, hearing customers and pivoting via customers wants and needs.  This is life for a startup, you live and die by customer/market adoption.  These companies are especially in tune for the moment, they are max warp!!

On my wall is the board.  My board dictates- deals (things to be), shaping (things that need to tell their story better), parked (things that are stuck for one reason or another), proto (things being made), playground (things that are bonus to other things but notable efforts), people (people in play or in union with me), vault (things that can go into the vault).

What is the software vault anyways?

When I arrived at Ohio State in 2011, the university didn’t do so much with software.  It was largely kinda ignored or well complicated to view from an IP perspective.  Its not typically patented, so it has that notion of no value, though as a software person, I believe otherwise.  Luckily the university leadership felt the same way and was open to software IP minded thinking.  As such we pondered up some big ideas to help our software IP strategy at Ohio State.  Two main ideas surfaced- 1, storage/accounting of software IP, 2, a store to sell it.

The Repo

The first project was to build our own university GitHub, a place where programmers keep their code.  Its important for the university to have its own repository for what it creates.  This was initially a bit of daunting project, but we at TCO we’re alone- other departments on campus also had eyes on this idea as well.  A central repo for all faculty and staff at the university could address alot of issues- organization, collaboration, IP protection, and more.  One of the key things I kept seeing was that at many times (and likely still true today) there are 4 or more different parties on campus all building the same wheel at the same time with no idea either person exists.  You could say, so what.  But from an efficiency stand point, thats kind crazy.  Imagine how much money we could save if we used the first wheel someone made, tweaked it of course vs $$$ for another wheel that is the same wheel.  The repo addresses this idea.  It also is FREE for faculty, staff, departments.  It gives us visibility, on who’s making what, and we can see more .  It took about 9 months or more to realize but its there and its growth and adoption rate is increasing every day.  code.osu.edu go check it out!

The Store

With the repo in place the next effort TCO took on was the the store, we call it the Buckeye Software Vault.  Early on in 2011-2012 we really dug deep into what software we had at the university in terms of IP.  Software believe it or not, is everywhere.  And from an intellectual property point of view its really everywhere.  Take u.osu.edu for example, that was created by employees of the university, in a sense it is university IP.  Now it doesn’t mean we can sell it right away nor does it mean it should be sold, but if we said is u.osu.edu a thing, we’d all agree it is, if we said, does it have merit or matter, again we’d agree, if we said does it have value for users, we’d agree there, if we said was it designed, architected with a direction or focus in mind, again, agree.  Now it does sit on open source however and a wordpress framework but I would bet you without a doubt that another university would likely find it useful to leverage in their own institution,and as such that itself is licensing and hence commercialization.  We often view commercialization with an intent to profit, and yes thats ideal but not always the case.  Free academic use licensing happens all the time- by design really. You want to share the things you’ve made, especially with your colleagues and academic peers.  But you also want clarity in that sharing- meaning they too will uphold your vision of what that is, TCO helps you convey that vision via terms and makes them essentially part of the deal.

Ok so back to the store.  Again there is alot of software things at the university that fall in between being something that can stand on its own and deliver licensing value and or does not equate the effort of a full on startup wrapped around it.  Normally this kind of IP is not even recognized as IP- which to me is a mistake. Code is not always pretty either, it doesn’t always have an interface, it doesn’t always tell you a story of what it is, but an algorithm to show you how safely land on Mars to the interface of an APP to the workflow that saves you 40 hours of labor doing something manually, all has value.  The question is more so do you believe it has value and are you willing to ask to the sale?   What if there was another way?   What if we had a vending machine of stuff people could view and buy or take for free- the store is that front.  Its a market place of software, content related IP the university has made.

Its really about empowerment as well.  We empower the university to monetize what it thinks may or may not be monetizable.  This is the heart of chance and the web 2.0 approach to the internet today.  You have to try.  And creating software is happening everywhere.  A few years ago the OCIO did a survey and found some 660 programmers on campus across the 15 colleges, departments, units etc.  That number didn’t include grad students i figure.  We’re likely up to some 1500+ people that every day make something in code.

The store front is to showcase those creations in one unified front.  And its purpose is to simple gather, and show- not all of it is for sale at a price, much of it is free.  The store has an added bonus in that its also a test area.  We can see what the traction is for something and then if it goes well thats a solid indicator that the university should really think about doubling down on that idea and doing more, stretching the potential return back to the creators, department and or college unit.

Now it is growing, we shooting for 5-15 new things in the store every quarter and I hope for that to occur even faster.  It should really given that software is everywhere here.  U.OSU.EDU should be “package” on there as well really, it should state the intent of what this site is all about, and of course be sold for X determined by the department that created if they so choose, or be free and provide other universities our IP/design shared.

Like many university efforts, the store is an “effort” it will change in time but its premise remains the same, there is IP all around us.  IP is a door to sponsored research, its a means of communicating value, creating alignment, championing ideas and celebrating our creations.  Free or for sale, thats the particulars we ramble into every day.  Licensed to a big company, or the basis of a future company to be- all possible, even your own company the university helps you make- yep even that too.  A huge range of possibility is before us all.  Of course with limitations but doable.

I’m proud of the Repo and the Store efforts.  Two big projects that many felt we’re impossible, but the university is a canvas of opportunity.  Big ideas can happen when people rally around them and make them real.  Its one of the things that attracts me most to the university- its appetite for possibility is endless.  Major props to all those at Arts & Sciences Tech, OCIO, ODEE, B&F, Communications and all the supportive units that chimed in on these “dude yer crazy” ideas and helped them be realized.  And mad props to the core TCO team that enabled the breathing room to go for it.  Time will tell along with anything but so far so good.

 

 

Making Stuff Matters

 

I’ve been busy lately.

Busy closing the gap- making conversations matter, turning them into manifestations of future visions, road maps to be, while at the same time helping champion crazy ideas, skunk work projects that my gut says will be hugely fun and awesome, all the while participating with the team and making deals happen.

I know its working because my brain has been on fire lately with ideas, strategy, prototypes and goodness.

taste? of course..

Working on..

– software store, going well, working on intake for that

– deals done recently, kinect telehealth rehab startup, foreign language assistance edu startup, mouse lab management on an ipad startup,

– deals in the making, greenhouse management software, more healthcare EMR tools, seriously kickass wound management platform, more and more software, cyber security, math education, oncology tools, UAV for AG, etc

– prototypes, a few patient experience/satisfaction apps, dermatology inventory management platform, outbreak simulation tools, patient discharge app,

– student developers are rocking along side our main dev Paul, who is leading/managing well

– new design intern is KICKING ASS and that is great!! storyboard/ideations are happening VERY fast, me like!

– special projects, best part of the job really, DREAM and help envision next

inspired by?

– lately inspired by new conversations with Pelotonia, James Cancer Center folks, healthcare is evolving at a RAPID pace, so much goodness to come!

– inspired with the level output on storyboards to prototypes, feeling good about them helping the “deal” side of things

– special projects, DAFNi in particular which I’ll ramble about some day

– events/judging/speaking, a few engagements lined up, across the board from the usual startup to wellness events, to other

– music, tunes have been in my head lately, along with rich visual dreams

– new engagements with College of Arts & Sciences, finding some great momentum there

– working up the HACK scene across campus, more on that soon

– thinking, tweeting, CREATING, and writing alot

what’s next?

– continued momentum, double downing on the SPEED of connective goodness

– special projects become more and more SWEET with every iteration of code

– sharing the kudos/inspiration with my team and SHOP devs

– ramping up the tale of success and FAILs so we can collectively learn how to rock on

– working on the intake for software ideas, sure I have “enough” to work on, but I know i don’t see 70% of whats happening on campus, you see something that you think COULD be next, tell me, we have a mission people, make this university BAD ASS!

 

 

 

10 Predictions for 2015

future-crystal-ball

 

Its December 15th and as we ease on into the famed xmas week of insanity and xmas shopping, hanging with family and thinking about the end of 2014 and the new year of 2015 approaching, I always scribble down my predictions for the year ahead.   They’re predictions, based on notions, trends, gut thinking, essence in the air of what I’ve seen, what has come to pass and what I foresee as next.  Loosely based on science, a bit based on patterns, much of it based on the sheer gut.

Last week I jolted down 10 predictions.

  • 5 for Ohio State and the state of technology transfer scene in 2015
  • 5 for the Central Ohio startup scene in 2015

Let’s go!

Five, 2015 Predictions for the Ohio State Technology Commercialization Scene

  1. We Believe.
    There is a aura of belief unfolding on campus today.  Its safe to say that commercialization has taken root in the university.  More people believe in the potential of what they’re working on.  We’ll seen even more positive energy toward “we can do it” in terms of ideas to market hustle.  Its across the board from the highest pillars of senior leadership to the deans, chairs and faculty and staff.  And of course the students, always the first to believe I think, they will continue to impress.
  2. Medical / IT led innovation will continue to dominate.
    Startup health is just getting up to speed.  2014 was a big year for mindfulness, wearables, software, data analytics, and more when it comes to health care.  2015 will continue to be very loud on the innovation around health.  Between the new Neuromodulation Center to the new James cancer center spinning up, a sea of innovation, opened doors and possibility will follow.  Plus digital health is beginning to cross the threshold in adoption in both practice and common placement with medical centers and in administrative and doc acceptance.  Add the applicability in terms of next generation compliance/adherence and you find a sea of opportunities.  Note many solutions will be more “risk mitigation” orientated.
  3. In the Groove on Process.
    2014 was an epic year for commercialization and startup process.  The team jelled under new leadership and really pressed into often difficult territory and laid down many processes and norms and procedures on how to do things, how to make things GO.  2015 will see these efforts streamline and get in the groove.  Process is a big part of success when it comes to starting, when it comes to doing, when it comes to alignment and more.  I see us all in the groove for next, let’s do this!  The new Acceleration Award will help many fill in the gap from clinical trials to prototyping, this will compliment general areas of hustle across campus to make, validate, realize and net traction.
  4. Collaboration Frontier.
    Bigger and better collaborations are afoot.  Thats not always a good thing as they tend to be well, involved… but I see more incubators, more collaborative partners, more groups unifying for what could be, more and more thinking, more people coming to the table, especially as more believe in the effort, and the end game.
  5. New IP Frontiers.
    I believe Athletics, Sports Medicine and Arts & Sciences will be new pools of IP frontier.  Not to say its where the big deals will be but these areas will not be “unknown” any more in terms of IP.  Data Analytics will continue to be in the crosshairs as well but it needs time to nurture.  While the demand for Internet of Things is apparently everywhere, I think that area will unfold slowly as well.  Some of the best IP opportunities I see are based around areas the university has extensive “frequency”, by flow, opportunity, context, expertise.  Also what the market thinks is hot NOW tends to be “oh yeah that, we did that like 5 years ago…” meaning the academics and research folks are further in future than you realize.  Like NEXT on campus is likely more Quantum Computing than say IOT, or VR, etc.  Not to say its not there, but the fringe of next isn’t mainstream- IOT is going mainstream, in labs, dude we’re working on warp drive (ok maybe not but some amazing stuff, definitely!).

Five, 2015 Predictions for the Central Ohio Startup Scene

  1. Traction and Exits.
    Central Ohio startups formed 3-5 years ago will be more notable, recognizable and piling on the traction front.  Some will be exiting.  Of course we rarely hear about the startups that tried and died.  But I see more talk of traction, more tale of how, the people of Columbus will rally to support and exits, mergers and acquisitions will be afoot.  Some of these starts are down right tactical meaning their time for epic glory is coming, provided their ramen will last.
  2. City of Design.
    Columbus is booming with agencies.  Columbus has always been a “design” town but it will be more known and notable in 2015 as the many more agencies spin up, mid sized ones expand into larger agencies, and the pool of talent coming out of the schools kicks of more doers, believers, thinkers and so on.  Columbus is becoming a magnet for hip, interesting, arts, maker, doable, hustle.  The frame of “design” is changing as well as it bleeds into any and all biz related the space- software, PR, creative, maker, experience, research, you name it!   How this factors into the startup scene?  Well more shops crafting and coding meaning more code made here for here.  Plus the talent pools and spill overs forming new groups will be continual.
  3. Power Struggle in the Tower of Influence.
    As more people believe there are more to be told the message.  Of course the message varies and we’ll see that unfold in 2015 as the game of influence.  There are new players in town.  Even more to come.  The battle of influence from everything to how to start to why to start is underway, its been brewing for awhile but the game is getting thicker.  We’ll see more events, more conferences, more blogs, more chatter, more well, everything.  Its not just for VC tho, from casual players to private equity, just about everyone is eyeing on what they see as next in Columbus Ohio.  The long game is definitely apparent.  The prize is what’s ahead in 10 years.  2015 will be a good year for opinion and voices on the subject, as the hustler audience doubles so does the demand for worthy content and commentary.  So influence will be unfolding on multiple tiers, incubator, state level, life style, funding, making, retail, you name it, there is room for curation, authority and influence.
  4. CASH continues to be tight.
    The golden goose of every would be startup is CASH, who can provide it?  Well in 2015, cash will be present but it will still be tight.  Just because Forbes writes an article on Columbus every other month doesn’t mean the midwest just gave us all a blank amex card.  New currency will be passed around from mentorship to space to networking power but CASH will still serve the golden key of survival for many.  Which will make our scene hard to grow within, meaning we’ll be talking out our related states and valley partners to help bridge the valley of death every new business must cross- onward to traction!  The ideas built on transactions today will SKYROCKET in Columbus and serve as early leaders of the space.  The State of Ohio will continue to fuel and encourage the scene as well, and I suspect it will double down in some ways providing more CASH for solid people with ideas that can prove the rainbow of cash on the other side.  More people will turn to crowd funding, angels and more cash enabling ideas to get their start as well.  The big question is whether or not Columbus finds a way to help the big disrupters cross the gap without big cash- which could happen.. if we reduce the impact of where cash goes.  For example the pending tax free zone coming for startups, combined with affordable talent and great ideas and long term players betting on 2025, maybe we can grow that base for the big disrupters.
  5. Foundational Testing.
    With CASH continuing to be challenged and or tight, there will be more foundation testing happening- what the heck is that?  Its basically a means to piece together the fate of a tech/startup without vesting in it.  We’ll see alot of this happening with new incubators spinning up.  It follows along with more people believing as well.  While CASH is tight, hope is boundless and there will be more support (with the hope of influence) to direct the herd of “potentials” into rivers of foundational testing.  This will lead to mixed results.  Testing is good, but so is leaping off the cliff and doing.  Columbus will split between a sea of doers, often insanely crazy or delusional, and later reflected upon as brilliant, to safety net of validation, which can yield good safe results but at what costs?  There is middle ground and we’ll see that play out but get ready for the ride!

Usually I have a few more as well.. like..

  • stocks
  • tech trends
  • startups to watch

but yeah.. we’ll get to that later.  Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!

 

Traits of Successful TVSF Rounds

Every friday I take a sec and fumble through my stack of witty dan’ism’s, assorted ah ha’s and bit brainstorm notes.  They’ve been piling up, so here’s some notes I took at recent meeting where the State of Ohio Third Frontier folks came to visit and talk to us here at TCO about basically, what makes for a successful TVSF proposal.  Which is hugely important stuff.  For the university, actually any university in the state, a successful TVSF round Phase 1 which is 50k match and Phase 2 100k award is a BIG BIG BIG deal, its typically the kickoff point for many would be startups that we’re working on.

Now you have to get this money, its just nice to have money given that its a big win, few if any strings and its like do good for Ohio, make jobs, and we’ll help ya do it.  However, there is one bit thing, your proposal needs successful “traits” as I would call it.

These are my RAW notes, so dan’ism’s are fully included, no charge, as are my interpretations on what I heard.

You can read more about Ohio Third Frontier’s program here, which btw, is a really kick ass program.   For transfer offices we get windows of opportunity to apply for Phase 1 (usually early early stage funds, funds that need to be matched either by the university or another party) and Phase 2 (start a new biz funds, this the grail startups chase, and for good reason, 100k few strings, and go go go).  Phase 2’s are typically an indicator for follow on support funding as well.  Getting a Phase 2 is like shooting a flare gun in Columbus, or for VC its like the Bat signal, people notice, and incubators, accelerators and related funds engage as everyone is looking for the deal to be.

My notes are focused more around Phase 2, because my deals, what’s in my pipeline are typically technologies that while they could be direct licenses and we’re always working that, are also startup worthy targets.  Sometimes you need to go startup to get a big licensee to pay attention, at least thats what I think.

Keep in mind that these “traits” I talk about are not slam dunk material.  Its not a check list, its a “have the right mindset”.  TVSF btw stands for Technology Validation Startup Fund.  To apply, you have to write a 6 page proposal, explaining all the usual aspects of why you, why this tech, how you make money, etc etc to the TVSF board which is has its analysis and reward recommendations done by a third party.

Traits of Successful TVSF Proposals

1, links, so the gist here is give the reviewers MEAT in the proposal, give them places to go, things to do, they will research, give them link material.  They did say they don’t always look at them but the point is that if ya got’m throw them in.

2, anticipate the problems you’ll have and how you will handle them, Every startup is filled with a degree of BS.  You will have problems.  Stating those problems and how you handle them, gives the reviewer a better sense of whether or not you’re delusional in what you’re doing.  Accepting a challenge and noting where the challenges are and then how you’re the one to tackle them and with x method- is what they want to see.

3, litmus, do you lack the acumen?  Here the reviewers I get a sense is a bit like #2, I mean these guys are gonna add it up as well and if the risk is just too wonderland material, passing is unlikely- which is one of the big questions I hear alot in the university setting- would typical “I can’t believe” startups of the valley really fly here.  Like would AirBnB ever get TVSF if we rewinded way way back to the start of that biz?  Would the midwest take the risk?  Any my notion is no.  And the question is- is that bad?  Thats where the real debate seems to be.  But thats for another blog post.

4, budget narrative, the budget needs more info, explain it better, what you need and why vs the typical, we need x for doing stuff.

5, 90% of TVSF Phase 2 proposals fail on the biz model, I’d add that the model fails for a few reasons, 1 it bad, 2 it doesn’t exist, 3, you’re crazy see #1, 4, its ok for you but for TVSF

6, too many gaps in the biz model is bad, again this goes back to you recognizing where the issues are and calling them out in the proposal with the overwhelming awesome hammer of how you’ll rock them

7, notable biz leads engaged, Ok lemme state this, to me TVSF folks never came out and said it, but its in my impression that having notable mentors/VCS in your proposal increases the odds of “mmm yeah, could be good”.  I figure the state kinda doesn’t like risk that much, if at all, but if there’s a so and so on there, well i know so and so… and comfort comes and it doesn’t feel as risky though its sure as heck is.

8, partners and first customers are KEY, While so and so is good, what’s even more convincing is a first customer, partner that is gonna either test and validate your concept, or be your first paying customers.  Nothing brings money to the table faster than “I have orders can can’t meet demand!”.

9, be CLEAR, well written proposals are noted.

10, common pitfalls, a pure license deal where theres a sense you wont generate jobs or grow, ROI that is not apparent or so far way meaning that you’re a project but not a biz yet, location issues- you intend to take the operation out of state, parent company doing well but this new arm or new company thats related to the big company needs the funds- basically red flag

Where Proposals Fall Down

  • path to market issues (#2, #3, #5, #6)
  • lack of company backing (#7 #8)
  • Proof to raise additional funds (#7)
  • Have customers (#8)
  • Have people that want to invest (#7)

So what do my notes tell me.  RISK is risky.  State of Ohio is pretty decent at taking risk but it likes to shore up the odds as best it can and for good reason, thats our tax bucks afterall?  Even so, the other compelling clarity is that you need people to make things work in Columbus.  Out a 100 startups that apply, nearly all of them need a sense of overwhelming traction to them in the sense of venture and mentors engaged, first customers, and a compelling prospect for state funds.

The more I look at my notes the more I feel the pain on my side of the fence.  Need more entrepreneurs.  Have tech, yes lots, have entrepreneurs to help craft the gap between tech to realized opportunity, not so much.  Some of the tech i have is obvious in its model, obviously those ones go quicker than the bigger more risky ones.   But alot of the things I have are dog food techs, they’re techs I love because the university swims in the context, it feels the problem and has addressed it and will feel the problem every day, hour and minute of the day.  In any given time frame here at TCO there are some 15 startups in states of possibility but without entrepreneurs they are well.. challenged.  Heh.  Mostly cause we don’t give up too easily.

Personally I’m as much of a fan for biz models as i am successful traction metrics (see TPS report earlier blog post), I’ll take startups that are converting on users, netting traction and getting sitting on a defined “sauce” any day.  A model will appear in time.  Usually its there already but its not as $$$ obvious, like big data, etc.

But back to the notion of Air BnB would it ever been “funded” via something like TVSF?  I suspect not.  Mostly because we’re talking state funds, and they need more.  But I think they want the challenge- amaze them.  Thats the gist really.  You need to show that you need TVSF, you need x, you need y and why you’re the one to bet on.  Vision, conviction and the power to make a convincing argument is powerful.  Additionally in Columbus, for these funds, you gotta use the network.  Which means you need to let people in and you need to make room for them in your brain.  Get ready for thoughts and opinions, win some lose some and don’t lose yourself.

Take-aways for faculty remain the same, the invention is one thing, the value/market is another, lets work together to cross that gap.

The Monetization of Process and Protocol

The earlier I get brought into an idea/concept/deal etc the better I seem to perform and align with the end objective, make $ for the university.  Working at TCO is basically a sea of meetings.  You’re constantly navigating the variables, most static, some dynamic, many poured in concrete unable to be blown with basic tactics, no these variables take a serious amount of dancing to make them work.

Coming out of a meeting this afternoon, a good one, a staging meeting basically, getting everyone in line for what could be is key.  Overall, I played a full hand of “here’s what we know, here’s how the university works, and here’s where we want to go” to the fullest extent.  Looking back on the conversation I may of revealed too much, but there are so many IP deals that are actually not really about IP at all, they’re about the perception of IP, and more about the leverage of knowledge, the applicable extent of that knowledge, the advantages in that knowledge, the context that the university swims in, then perception of where that knowledge, and context and related IP could be with the said player that unifies that footing- nuff said, its complicated.

The mission before me now is pretty clear, stay connected to the conversation, frame/tag/bag the IP today, tomorrow and to be made, push the “papering” of the conversation as far into the possible as you can and drop the lure of university engagement and the benefits.  Make no mistake, we’re always selling.  And you’d be crazy not to given that there is much to gain from a university connected deal.

Ideas hit me in waves at times.  After a 56 minute meeting with my brother Matt catching up on all things in his life, my life, the family etc, I opened up a browser tab and scribbled down “monetization of process and protocol”- whats that all about?

Many of the ideas I really like at the university hover in and around process, our process, our way of handling the context, the problem at hand, then we have protocol, our methods of handling that problem, the formula to address it.  If one could look at commercialization in a different light one could see where the intersection of value could be- a the juncture of context, where process and protocol thrive.  At those intersections is IP to be un-earthed, recognized, monetized.

Likely the real opportunity snowballs from the context, process and protocol flex point riding along the path of needing to change or disrupt based on pending circumstances- regulation, market/value opportunity recognized, saving money, etc.  I like framing my deals this way.  Thinking about the meat and factors in and around the obviousness of the IP.  We paper the IP part but the extended context of how that IP is leveraged in conversations, in alignment, thats the more interesting elements.

Its often weird to be an agent of economic disruption for the university, to make something out of a passing conversation, to leverage the now into next and frame it such a way that you push toward that objective- kinda fun, all the while navigating the variables, anticipating the drops and highs in the road ahead, leveraging every piece of known goodness that can benefit both you and your intending party so that you can uphold and meet the metric, you make a deal happen, it benefits, it creates value, it makes difference in peoples lives, it makes a difference in Ohio, it fuels the ecosystem to do more.

Just as investors need narratives, and customers need to be sold, the university needs stories of success and failure so that we constantly get back up the next day, get to that meeting, apply our learnings, innovate and go.

Your homework, identify a sea of process and protocol near you, note it, think about how much frequency it experiences, think of what IP you may be standing on, talk to me!

 

The Traction Potential Score – Part 1

It’s been a busy summer.  Even while students were away the halls of TCO were packed with inventions, patents, and hustle.  The machine of invention is relentless.

I did alot of ideation this summer, which is one of my favorite things to do at TCO.  Take something, shape it, make it better.  Course I still like the dance, the art of the deal, and the ramp up to awesomeness.  But ideation lets you create.  And that has me thinking about new ways to triage and assess ideas.

I look back on successful techs that I have been a part of that turned into deals for the university and I think about common aspects in and around those deals and techs, what are the factors that made those things fly, or was it all by chance?  For as much as I perceive and believe that some technologies are more valuable then others, I can’t help but think of the crazy things that come out of Silicon Valley that no sane person would believe had any potential and in mere years some of them have become juggernaughts of disruption and billion dollar pay days.

I like to think that part of my skill set is believing and overcoming the odds of no that befall all technologies attempting to get to market.  Its like a mission.  And it is a roller coaster.  And its pretty unpredictable.  And all these things I think freak out just about everyone in for the journey. You need to be insanely resilient to start a biz.  You have to have more optimism than most and you have to know your customer, your product, the market and have a nose for traction.

This has me thinking about triage and assessment of technologies in a new light.  Of course there’s the basics of assessment, how big is the market, who or what is the gold standard and the competition questions.  Then there’s patents and protection.  None of my deals have ever had any protection, no patents in my neck of the woods, not to say i don’t like them, but I tend to favor techs or shall i say i’ve had more success with techs that had inherent momentum to them, ie traction potential.

On the way home today from work, coming out of an ideation session with a team of inventors part of the Arts & Sciences CAPS group, where we dabbled with some feature mapping and tales of traction, got me to thinking that traditional assessment is good but in software, for me, what I need to see is “traction potential” or a TPS, yes thats right Office Space people, I need a TPS report.  What is that technologies Traction Potential Score?  It should be noted that i’m solely speaking to a tech’s TPS score in the view of a deal to be, not a TPS score in the sense of its overall success in the market.  Tho they are related, like anything however, especially in making things come to life, there are phases, ie the journey.

How do you compute a Traction Potential Score?

Well for me, first we have to qualify what I like to work with.  It has to be copyrighted content, software orientated, and or problem that is addressable by software.  So what I need to see is either software thats been made, or content that could be something and or a problem articulated with a notion that software could fix it.

Then there’s factors that get weighed in the mix.  Some are more critical than others.

They are: Team, Alignment, Audacity, Conviction, DogFood, Enablement, Narrative, Sauce, Customer, Baselines.

Team, people matter.  I often hear this from investment, they lead their investment based on people first not technology.  Why?  Because you want to bet on the person with the idea to overcome the journey and pitfalls ahead.  This is why so many investment groups end up placing their own people into deals i figure, control is one aspect i’m sure, but its also a sense of can the guy/gal at the helm take the hit that will hit hard- hr, tech, customer – related fails etc.  For us at the early stages of idea, tech, to license arena, team matters in that licensing is also a journey.  So a team needs to be there hand in hand to get the job done.  The university is not a solo quest.  You need people to make things happen.

Alignment, likely the most important thing early on in getting traction.  If you are aligned you’re ready to do things, crazy things, you’re ready to dream and fail, you’re willing to get back up and pitch, you are willing to be smashed, twisted and then wham you just re-take shape and are good to go.  You align well with others.  You may not always agree, but you’re in it.  With teams are not aligned, all traction stops.  This is a big deal because you’re trying to drive the ball down the field and if the team isn’t working the ball stops and the clock runs, and runs, and runs.  What’s worse is that the team can falsely project that alignment is there but its not thus you don’t realize the clock is running and the ball has gone no where.  For TCO alignment doesn’t come easy.  We’re often a rock in a hard place by a factor of 10.   We’re attempting to help inventors navigate a sea of constraints, legal, conflict, protection of the tech, situational awareness of whats needed to make the tech to go further, optics, politics, dynamics, people stuff, you name it.  But successful deals are born on the backs of alignment.  Sometimes we can’t control the alignment because its outside parties, our would be license’s are often at odds with the universities directive.  This is to be expected really, you don’t want to fault someone for being hustle orientated, you want the economic engine to roar and go fast.  In the end, to me, thinking about TPS, alignment is a big factor.  Luckily it can always be address and tweaked thru communication, best practices, and willingness to bounce back.

Audacity, I use this word alot.  I like techs that have the audacity to change things.  They say, why walk when you can teleport across the room.  Thats a cool tech, lets harness that one and run with it. Audacity helps the marketing and competitive conviction of a concept.  It feeds the essence of the software to change your perspective of what you thought “was” before.  In the valley, everything is change orientated.  Investors love change, to a degree, especially in the sense that this change brings on the potential for new standards, new real estate of which they own or are a player of.  Techs need a degree of audacity.

Conviction, follows alignment, but is really centered on the sheer will factor of a tech.  Sometimes I see techs that communicate conviction.  Then I meet the people that invented them and I see conviction in their eyes, their mannerisms, the way they quickly attain alignment, become a part of the team, and invent additional IP nearly on the fly or manifest it for the one goal, to make this tech move, make it fly.  These people are self starters.  They are the mover and shakers the university is working to cultivate, to unearth and likely find.  Odds are they are already known in their groups and departments, but not always.  A big part of the resiliency you need to go.

DogFood.. heh, this refers to the likely-hood that the university or inventor will use the technology themselves. I still stand behind the notion that some of our biggest deals to date are based on the Dog Food factor, ie, we ate it ourselves.  This is great for the traction score because you’re gonna do the idea regardless of commercialization.  This allows the TCO to work in parallel of your efforts.  Plus its a nice big indicator of interest to biz leads when they realize the university is going to see it thru.  Of course most take that wrong though.  They see that the university needs that thing they made, cool, i’ll license it and sell it back to them, awesome- but thats not how it works.  It hasn’t happened on my watch at least.  Plus thats the wrong thinking I want from a biz lead.  I want them to think about new customers, beyond the buckeye walls.  What is good however is that technically their is a first customer, the university, and that in marketing and telling people the tale of why they need x thing is huge early on.  So many startups fail to get a first customer, in techs with high Dog Food factor, we got you covered on that.  The Dog Food factor also means the tech has more widgets and wheels, there’s more meat on the bone, and that makes the IP richer and a better healthier hand for the university, meaning more likely to net $ in my opinion.  A strong Dog Food factor also means the administration, the higher ups stand to benefit more in that these techs represent a often infrastructure need that is converted into cash.  I also like them because the university is a sea of possible context.  I tell people Ohio State is a city.  You name it, we have it.

Enablement, how well is the technology currently enabled.  Meaning, do you have code, do you have an app, do you have content?  Traction is about speed, time, time to get to market, can you get it, you have to iterate and roll, fast.  If the tech has no current enablement, thats unfortunate, it doesn’t rule it out of the TPS, though likely downs the score a bit.  Some IP is tricky, its conversational, its someone recognizing the need, and that seems meh at first until you realize theres more to that need. I often gravitate toward ideas with code however but are part of a story that I see enabled.  There are a handful of techs that purely content and or just stories of customers and needs, that I see the end game on.  I already see the software.  I know it can be made, thus it factors into my enablement score be it lower often than sitting on existing code.  Its hard to explain, but sometimes you see it, you know everything to make, and its not hard to you, you still people to make it, but you see it.  Thats why i think I like prototyping so much, is because seeing it in my mind and then seeing it in code, no matter how crude is an amazing feeling of awesome.  In those instances I become inventor in some ways.  I enjoy helping people see their ideas realized, its why I’m at TCO.

Narrative, can the tech be spoken to in a narrative form that people get.  What most people don’t realize is that whatever big idea you’ve got, if you can’t articulate it in 5 minutes or less, odds of you netting any traction is near zero.  Its not to say we want noncomplex ideas, its just that our audience does.  I still recall my first day at TCO going around campus leaping from complex context to complex context.  It was crazy, insanely complicated battery technology, polymers, to medical this and that.  A primary TCO mission is to inform the planet of the insanely awesome invention we have at Ohio State, to do that, techs have go from complex to meaning in marketing.  And its a super fine line.  You dont want to dumb it down but you also dont want to alienate.  A conversation of huh is still better than no conversation, so i’ll take a huh any day, but when the other party declines to connect based on confusion, thats not good.  In 5 minute pitches, the audience actually views the speaker more than the deck.  So the narratives are key.  People have heard this before, the elevator pitch.  But whats more accurate in todays scene is the taxi pitch, meaning you’re pitching to people distracted, looking to get in another vehicle to take them somewhere, and you need to have enough appeal for them to either pass on the taxi or invite you in for the ride.  Techs with a low narrative score can hinder traction because the language of understanding is unknown.

Sauce… hmmm this is like techs having an angle to them.  I love it when I come across a tech/idea that has angle.  The angle refers to a secret sauce aspect of the idea, like for example, pending law changes will impact this market causing these people to freak out because this will be mandated.  Building for that pending change, regulation etc, is a nice angle.  It doesn’t rule out others can target it as well, however.  Sometimes sauce is purely technology awesomeness, xyz tech does it better than anything out there, or maybe its the patent.  Every tech has a sauce, the special, the one thing the inventor pulled from the heavens and infused into their creation.  Sometimes we can’t see the sauce, but we feel it as it moves thru the vibes of the inventor, its fuels their conviction, and we get it, and more so it plays to narrative in a big way.  TCO isn’t meant to be an all knowing league of extraordinary people (though we are) we’re about having the right mixture of people to take IP further, and the mission is not to run these new companies, tell established ones what to do, but help set them and the IP in motion.

Customers.  Ya gotta know the customer.  You have to have a sense for who they are.  I like to know what they eat for breakfast, I wanna know frequency of use with the said thing you made for them.  I want to know what inspires them.  What they read, who they hang with, and why they want your product.  With customers come a sense of transaction, which in itself is a worthy factor but I bundle it in with Customer.  Transactions, moments of engagement between customers and your said thing is what drives your IP in the end.  That value that customers see in your IP, and transact accordingly is the crowning achievement of commercialization.  Can an idea with no customers have traction?  The crazy thing is yes.  Why because technology is an ever oozing entity in itself.  Technology is like force and things like the internet help spawn patterns of random weirdness, like strange fragments or residue left over from human interaction, I believe sometimes these fragments themselves are things that get traction regardless of a known customer or not.  Whats more crazy is that those things snowball, especially online and they themselves reveal whole new markets and customers that feed them.  This is the power of software, especially when it fades to near zero cost, technology doesnt ask why, and there for it breeds an army of doers that don’t ask why either.  That lack of why or lack of customer orientated thinking runs rampant online and cannot be underestimated.  It doesnt appear in our halls too often however, as inventors invent IP typically for a reason, but we as an org, as a university, need to champion discovery, we have to nurture the possible, especially the force of technology, its a cult.  I mean you can ignore it, but why?  There’s a hundred would be Zuckerbergs on campus, why and what would the university stand to gain in limiting the dreams of people? Nothing. So dream on customer or not I say.  But for our TPS score, we like ya to have a customer in mind.

Baselines.  Are there norms to compare to?  Baselines are like competition but I don’t want to use that word any more because it spooks people into the wrong line of thinking.  Too many times would be startup or inventor thinkers get caught on the its gotta be something that no ones done before mindset.  They obsess over newness, but that is a terrible pit of badness.  For me on the traction score, if you have no competition, that is a huge red flag.  With no known baselines, you’re really on to something or you’re in a scary unknown un-investable space because with no baselines, ummm whats up or down?  Plus the “i gotta be the only one” thinking is really really bad for the whole traction story, for the narrative it means you’re super unknown, for enablement it means the tech is either really hard to understand, and or going down a path of squiggly uncertainty because we’re not customer focused as much as being totally new and unique focused. But is there a line of good competition and bad?  Yes but its case by case basis really. Baselines include more than competition, they speak to the norms or patterns in and around the tech, perspective of market, market size, willingness of that market to embrace new things, typical costs, team makeups, likely investors in that space etc.  Computing this factor is tricky as well, its like a gut score.  There’s some but not overwhelming odds.  The perception of ODDS against you is also dangerous, which is why you need a high conviction, audacity, enablement and alignment score to overcome those ODDS, which are purely suggestive, its not like you feel them, they are thrown at you by others.  When you pitch an idea, you pitch it a 1000 times to a sea of nos until you net that ok lets talk.  Through pitching you gain confidence, more data, and help hone your narrative, heighten your sauce, brag about your dog food and shine thru enablement.

Traction is a battle, but going forward I’ll be thinking more about the TPS report!  The next post will be applying the TPS to some past deals and ones i’m working on now to thinking about TPS in terms of what I see in the valley and more.

Commercialization is a bit like Real Estate

200310310-001

 

This morning I had meeting at the College of Education.  Meetings often start through the typical dance of someone gets an inquiry, calls the office, finds me, we dance a bit on email with some questions, still hazy on what the gig is, so I go to them and learn more about the IP in question.

After a 90 minute meeting, high on the energy of possibility regarding the IP I walked out of the office, into my car and quickly mused to myself that working in commercialization is a bit like real estate.  Now I’ve never sold houses but the metaphor i’m pulling up is that property varies, sometimes is an apartment, a simple clearing, maybe a house, not literally mind you but IP comes in all shapes and sizes.  The opportunities vary, and the true enablement varies as well, remember this is all a try effort, there are no assurances.

Coming out of that meeting I felt the rush of witnessing what seemed like a 40 room mansion with 17 pools, a total workout gym, a helipad, underground railway and heck lets toss in a whole pro bass fishing team and lake reservoir.  It was considerable.  The idea was intact, beautifully executed and the sparks flew in the meeting where we could go with it.

One of THE greatest assets Ohio State often has in the world of copyrighted content and software is CURATED content.  When we curate, when our authority through expertise, with meaning and attached value as to who cares and why is applied, enabled through software, rolled downhill to gather a ton of data and momentum and then amplified through continued improvements and side super ideas, well folks, thats a seriously tasty mansion to sell.

Now keeping the real estate cap on, next steps are well, similar, lets get a docket of info on that mansion, we gotta know everything.  Next we need to value it.  Then we need to talk about who likes mansions, whos our customer for this home.  Then we start crafting that tailored narrative to that audience, or “audiences” in which case this particular house likely will see multiple bidders.

Course there’s no clear sale in sight at the moment.  Thats part of the dance.

Remember that home buyers have their tactics as well, they’ll tell me, “who wants a mansion with artificial lake, and ok sure a pro bass team, and a light rail system, i mean really.. who could really use that, take the lower offer.. move that thing today”.  Thats the trap.  There’s always pressure to sell your homes, move those assets, but some assets need more measures, otherwise, your easy buck today becomes the flip of the century.

Commercialization Myths

New series of thought here folks, thinking of calling this “commercialization myths”, essentially bits that people think its this and to me, in what i do, i think its that.

kids_fishing_by_jd_photowork

 

So lets get in…

Myth #1, Commercialization is about technology

Traditionally when we think about commercialization, this act of taking one intellectual property to market, we think assets, ie technology, go to market, thats it.  In actuality, its less about the technology and more about the people that make the technology work.  Ideas don’t occur in a vacuum.  Ideas form from the minds of those that will them into existence.  Our role is help foster those ideas toward a path to commercialization, creating an additional return on the effort applied to realize the idea.

Additional return is important.  Its one thing first to have an idea, that in itself is a return.  Its another to work on the idea with others, bringing you yet another return.  Then you apply for grants, win additional funds, write papers, do research and your idea and efforts are recognized, thus another return.

Commercialization is the parallel process that works along side your efforts and attempts to take your ideas to market, for additional returns.

Everything is an effort, we try.  We try and have ideas, we try and collaborate, we work together as a team to foster the momentum around ideas.

In all these statements the heart of them is a person, people equal the momentum around ideas.  You get enough people, the right people, the open people, the people that want to change the world, and change occurs.  Its really that simple to me.  So again to me, this business is less about the technology, yes thats clearly what I do, but its more about who brought it to the table and how I can help them be successful with it.

Thats the mission.

So when people ask me, I tell them, Technology Commercialization is a people business.  We’re taking people to market.  Their ideas, their passion, enabled.

btw: this isn’t meant to be marketing verbiage here, this is how i think, my thoughts alone, one needs a kind of manifesto to work and live by, this is mine

Only way to win is to PLAY!

This morning faculty member, inventor, all around amazing hustling for her big ideas, Melissa Bailey, OD, PhD in the College of Optometry presented her IXM Eye Exam application in an iPad at the College of Medicine’s Big Idea’s for Health event.

Melissa has been one of our stellar faculty members working on the commercialization of one of her inventions, essentially doing eye exams on an iPad.  Her story for me started many many months ago.  Disclosed to our office as a mathematical algorithm to do specific types of eye phoria test measurements easier, our office engaged, I went out to meet her, we rambled on ideas and talked about implementation examples.

Lets see we need a camera, a computer, and a light ok… so… ummm what about an iPad?  Lets try it.  Melissa had already been experimenting but we needed more.  Convert the code, try some examples, wow that works, validate the science a bit more.  Hey we’re on to something.  Add a dash of ok what is this business, even better!  Next up the narrative, gotta work on the narrative.  Then its pitch time.  We’ve done dozens of pitches.  The more we tell the story the more people see the potential.  This morning’s debut for her at Big Ideas on campus, was another resounding wow from audience members along with tons of questions, all of which is good.

After hear of her excited “I won!!” this morning, which means she moves on to a final round of pitches and a potential to win 10k.  I thought of the many steps we had to take to get to where we are today.  And every tech idea has to do this.  It all starts with a conversation, and then a ramble, a brainstorm of what could be.  Sure we get into the dance of patents and code and concept and validation etc, but vision is key, (no pun intended!) for realizing the big idea.

Melissa is hopping her way down and soon her idea will go to full execution and a business will be formed and will take her hopes and dreams to market.  Good times!