On the right education for enterperneur

I came across an interesting discussion on the topic what is the right education for entrepreneurs.

According to the study cited in this article,  most of the entrepreneurs don't have degrees in computer science or engineering but in various other disciplines.   This echos the debated between Bill Gates who thinks that engineering education is the only one matters, and Steve Jobs who said that in Apple the DNA is mixed between engineering and liberal arts.

I have some perspective on this issue since I have enjoyed a diversified education. I did BA degree in Philosophy,  then went for MBA studies and learned the basic of business concepts, and then did PhD in Computer Science.  

More than 10 years ago I participated in the "basic blue" management course of IBM, this was a "private course" given for new managers in IBM Haifa Research Lab, since due to organizational changes, and addition of one more level of management, many new managers were appointed within a short period of time to justify bringing the course to us.   As a preparation of the course, the participants fill a substantial questionnaire, and there are also 360 view questionnaires form managers, peers and direct reports.  When showing the results the course's instructor said that he was surprised to see that 16 of the 18 participants had very similar personality profile.  The common denominator:  all of them studied in the Technion computer science or computer engineering, I was one of the two exceptions.    

While generalizations never properly work,  it seems that there is something in the engineering education that drive people to concentrate on the technical details and see their challenge in doing strong technical work, there is nothing wrong with it, any company small or big in the technology domain requires strong technical people.   

 Entrepreneurs require something beyond the technical skill,  they need the passion to change the world, to believe that they are doing the "next big thing".  This is another mode of thinking.  I have never been an entrepreneur (perhaps it is still not to late), but I have written about intrapreneuring   (trying to do "start-ups" within a big corporate) before. 

   

 If I need to reflect upon my past studies and see what contributed most to me, I view my studies as complementary.  The MBA studies contributed understanding of the basics of the business concepts,  the computer science studies contributed to the understanding of technology and the content of what I've been doing,  but the passion to change the universe, and the contribution to thinking out of the box was definitely been of the philosophy studies.  In retrospect they were most influential on shaping my personality.  

I am not surprised that many entrepreneurs are not engineers, there is something inherent in engineering education that makes people think in boxes.

Participating in entrepreneurship panel

Today was a rare event where people could see me walking around with a tie, this happened due to the fact that I was invited to participate in a panel in a big conference that was organized by the entrepreneurship institute at the Technion, which also organizes a students' entrepreneurship competition. I was invited to participate in a panel that dealt with "entrepreneurship everywhere", which included people who initiated various activities in various areas. I have shared with the audience some of my experience as intraprenuer. I heard that my usual kind of talk which involves humor and some provocative statement, was well accepted, although, as usual, some people were not happy from things I've said.

One person felt strongly that I really don't belong to panel about entrepreneurship, as a real entrepreneur is a person who takes person risks by investing his own money, the panel moderator did not agree with her. Well, I have never claimed to be entrepreneur, but I think there are some similarities and also some differences between entrepreneur and intraprenuer. Another person who did not like what I said approached me when I was leaving. When talking about my background I told the audience that I have been a faculty member in the Technion, and did not feel I have enough impact on the world by just writing papers, he said that there were people who had great impact on the world by just writing papers, like Einstein. I agreed with him and said that I have talked about the fact that I did not think that I can have enough impact on the world by just writing papers, and he said that I should have emphasized that it is possible to have great impact on the world by just writing papers. This is of course true, though in the area of computer software is not that easy.

When asked what is the most important advice for those who want to succeed in achieving things within large organizations, I quoted the rule: Remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

On Research in Industry

I spent 12 years in various roles in the various roles in the IT industry, 10 years in academia, and 12 years ago I moved to the IBM Research Lab in Haifa, and since that time I still wonder what research in industry is all about. Recently, one of the IBM Research colleagues, the director of the IBM Zurich Lab (which is actually located a little bit outside the city of Zurich) has blogged recently about how research in industry in measured,

Research in industry may take several roles, and each of the roles require different kind of organization and type of leaders.

Role one: Research as the "smart arm" of the enterprise: In this case, the research activities are part of the daily (tactical and operational) business of the organization. Research people are going to pre-sale meetings, doing PoCs for customers, providing services to customers, and help product organizations in getting new features to products, typically in cases where knowledge and skills that they possess are needed. The research organization in this case is geared towards the short-term impact on the organization, and is measured by its tangible impact. In this case the research leadership should be geared towards good knowledge of the enterprise business and also well connected internally, to trace opportunities for getting more traction for business; the research is being funded by the business units according to its contribution, and the research leaders should be able to smoothly be able to switch jobs with any other leader in the organization, as organizational business and networking is the main qualification.

Role two: Research as the "scientific arm" of the enterprise: In this case, the research activities are geared to advance science and to research areas that are geared towards impact on the knowledge in the universe, and on long term directions of the enterprise. One of the questions is what is the tangible benefit of the enterprise from this type of research has been investigated recently to view what is the $value on the brand image, as a function of the reputation of research done there, this is also reported in the IBM Zurich Lab Director Blog. In this case the evaluation can be according to research quality metrics common in the academic world, as well as the impact of the research on corporate. In IBM Research the relational database is often mentioned as the most influential research projects both on the science and on IBM business. Funding can come from the enterprise as well as from external and government oriented research grants, similar to academic research funding. In this case the research leaders should be able to switch jobs with Deans of relevant faculties in top universities, or head of independent research institutes, as good familiarity with the research community and ability to lead scientific work, and good acquaintance with the research grant business.

Role three: Research as the "incubation arm" of the enterprise; In this case, the research activities should be constructed as a collection of start-ups inside the enterprise. Each of them gets some seed money and gets to its way, having the ability to sell and gain customers, in some cases even get external funding as partners. As in any incubator, some of the start-ups may fail, some of them may exit, and develop spin-offs out of the enterprise, and some of them grow inside the enterprise and become business units, in a similar model to the model of acquisition of other start-ups; this is an interesting model that typically enterprises don't really know how to apply, but there were examples of technologies, companies, and business units within the same enterprises that were originated in such start-ups. This also distribute the leadership, since each such start-up requires a leader with intrapreneurship abilities. The funding model is of start-ups where the enterprise is acting as VC, and the overall leaders should be able to switch jobs with VC executives, and they also need to create an atmosphere that leverages the enterprise resources where it helps, and masks the enterprise when it interrupts; The leader of each individual start-up leaders should be able to switch jobs with external start-up leaders (though inside start-up also requires some internal political skills).

Current research organizations try to have a mix of all these, the main issue is the diversity of leadership skills and how work should be organized which is different in each of them vs. the tendency of organizations to have homogeneity both in the organization type and in type of leaders.

More on intrapreneuring

This picture is taken from a NY Times article entitled "who says innovation belongs to the small" showing some system developed in IBM Research dealing with traffic analysis, this article was quoted in Mark Palmer's Blog saying that "Big companies can innovate if they act small". Mark is right, I have dealt with intrapreneuring for years, and recently even talked briefly about it in an internal talk I have given to an internal audience in IBM Haifa Research Lab about the internal recoginition we received. In my previous posting about intrapreneuring, I have quoted the original ten commandments that Pinchot, the person invented this term, has established; Mark mentions them in his Blog as well, however, recently I got Pinchot's follow-up book, "Intrapreneuring in action", and found out that he has somewhat changed the 10 commandments, some were changed, and some were changed order (assuming that the order says something on importance", so for all fans of intrapreneuring here are the revised 10 commandments:

1. Remember, it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission

2. Do any job needed to make your project work, regardless of your job description

3. Come to work each day willing to be fired

4. Recruit a strong team.

5. Ask for advice before resources.

6. Forget pride of authorship, spread credit widely

7. When you bend the rules, keep the best interests of the company and it customers in mind

8. Honor your sponsors

9. Underpromise and overdeliver

10. Be true to your goals, but realistic about ways to achieve them.

Some comments:

• The current first commandment has been promoted from being the 8th in the old list; my experience indeed shows that this is the most useful advice.
• "Recruit a strong team" is new, there was similar one with longer phrasing.
• "Ask for advice before resources" is also a new one
• "Forget pride of authorship" is also a new one, emphasizing the team game.
• #7 is also new one, though I have to say that "best interests" is a very subjective term.
• #9 is also new.
  
  

Some commandments that disappeared. but I thought they are useful:

• Work underground as long as you can – publicity triggers the corporate immune mechanism.
• Never bet on a race unless you are running in it.

And still, the immune mechanism of big corporates is not an easy line to cross, I have also been in a small company, it has other issues, however being entrepreneur is definitely easier than being intrapreneur.

On Intrapreneuring

Back home from my business trip (two hours later than I planned, I had worse..).

Today. catching up on some Blogs, I came across an interesting posting by Mark Palmer which discusses intraprenuring, which is the name of entrepreneurial behavior within a big company. I have spent most of my working life in three big organizations: The Israeli Air-Force, which has a mentality of the public sector, the Technion, which is an academic institute, and IBM, most time in IBM Haifa Research Lab. Counter to any intuitive: the air-force is organization most open to new ideas, and the academic institute is the least open, IBM is somewhere in the middle.

I have never became an entrepreneur, and when I considered it - 12 years ago, I decided to go to IBM and try intraprenuring instead. This may or may not have been the biggest mistake in my life, I don't know what would have happened if I would have chosen the alternative to go as a startup. John Bates started Apama around the same time, also coming from a university, and some times I envy him (some times I don't..).

Anyway - I have an experience of trying to act like intrapreneur in the three different organizations I mention, I also read Pinchot's book, mentioned in Mark's posting, many years ago. I find Pinchot's ten commandments, mentioned by Mark to be very valid. I am copying them again here:

1. Come to work each day willing to be fired.
   
2. Circumvent any orders aimed at stopping your mission.
   
3. Do any job needed to make your project work, regardless of your job description.
   
4. Find people to help you.
   
5. Follow your intuition about the people you choose, and work only with the best.
   
6. Work underground as long as you can – publicity triggers the corporate immune mechanism.
   
7. Never bet on a race unless you are running in it.
   
8. Remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
   
9. Be true to your goal, but be realistic about the ways to achieve them.
   
10. Honor your sponsors

All of these are true, and many of these are somewhat inconsistent with the way that big organizations think. I can write a paragraph about each of these ten bullets, but this will contradict the sixth commandment, so I'll leave it as is, however, at the end the result is what is being remembered, not the way taken to achieve it, go figure..