En la primera parte del post (y en ésta espero no extenderme tanto) dejé en el aire tres preguntas relacionadas con equivocarse y reducir el fracaso empresarial (que no evitarlo, porque de lo contrario no aprenderíamos nunca!)
La primera, la refresco:
1.- ¿por qué seguimos cometiendo los mismos errores una y otra vez?
Cuando nos ponemos a pensar el motivo de nuestros continuos tropiezos (hablo de equivocaciones y no de fracasos) , la primera cuestión es ”¿por qué?” , es decir si tantos y tantas veces se han repetido las pautas de comportamiento frente a un tropiezo ¿cómo es posible que no hayamos aprendido?, ¿es que todos somos imbéciles? La respuesta puede darla el psicólogo Stuart Sutherland, de la Universidad de Sussex de Reino Unido en su libro “Irracionalidad, el enemigo interior”. Parece que el motivo es una característica innata del ser humano, es debida a nuestra “irracionalidad” que está presente en la mayor parte de las personas (de hecho ya en el prefacio, en la página 7 del libro, reza “Con todos mis respetos a Aristóteles, cabe afirmar que la conducta irracional no es la excepción sino la norma”).
Continue reading »
Repeat after me … I failed or I was wrong? … … You’ve failed or you’re wrong? … … He has failed or wrong? … …. ….
There is a difference, perhaps subtle? Between failure and being wrong taken a decision or doing something: both two are “screwing up” but it seems that in the first case, the result is disastrous and the second may still be a solution.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “failure” as:
1 .- when someone or something does not succeed
As for the word “wrong” (equivalent to “a mistake”) its definition is softer:
1 .- If someone is wrong, they are not correct in their judgment or statement about something
Then, it seems that the dreaded “failure” is somewhat stronger (or at least it sounds) just “a mistake” and yet, we just mixed it and that can be dangerous.
“iWeekend is an intensive and innovative experience that brings together talented entrepreneurs and professionals of different profiles to select 3 ideas and bring these ideas to reality by collaboratively developing a business plan and a prototype, all in one weekend.” iWeekend started in Barcelona and it is organized annually all over Spain and now is being exported internationally to Mexico, Russia, India and China by passionate entrepreneurs looking to bring this exciting experience to their communities.
Being able to gather 50 people during a weekend in order to select an idea from all the participants, which will be subsequently analyzed, redesigned and launched to the market is something to be proud of … but being able to get the rest of the participants – that is, those whose idea has not been selected- then stay as volunteers to support the process of relaunching … is a real heroism.
I will not assess the quality or effectiveness of the event itself because it is not the subject of this post, but the time that I invested that weekend made me reflect on the strength that such activities have in generating new knowledge, new innovations based on hybridations .
iWeekend could be seeing as a “Crowdsourced Business Generator” . A set between 20 and 40 people will be breaking their brains to take the selected idea and create some expectations that it will be success at the market.
On the other hand, we might have to start thinking about additional formats such as one that conforms a “Crowdsourced Business Accelerator” as the second phase. By this I mean that the merit is not only in creating a business with the support of all the participants but being able to accelerate a process of “spinning” and thus revitalize it in a market “magmatic” like ours (I like Genis Roca’s view: ”the magma as it cools the terrain change), ie we are moving ourselves in constantly changing environments and therefore the need to adapt ourselves too all the time.
The involvement of other elements (crowdsourcing, user co-creation at the Living Labs) in setting up a business initiative or project from a tangible or intangible asset, that can sometimes arise by serendipity, creates a very special and interesting situation as a source of new knowledge and innovation.
Under this framework, I was looking for models that could explain the generation of new knowledge and innovation by proximity between individuals for the exchanging of ideas, for their continuous interaction, and so I got the concept of “Knowledge Spillover” ( KS).
It’s a fairly old concept, Alfred Marshall defined a theory of Knowledge Spillover in 1890 that was later strengthened by Kenneth Arrow and Paul Romer leading MAR model (1992). They were reinforcing the effect produced by the exchange of ideas between employees of the same organization (internal KS) or between employees of different companies but within the same industry (external KS). Silicon Valley is a good example of MAR spillover.
Additionally two slightly different models appeared: the Porter (1990) and Jacobs (1969) ones. The first reinforces the MAR model but insisting that the Knowledge Spillover in the geographic concentrations of similar industries and specialized, but in a competitive perspective, stimulates business growth and generates innovation.
Moreover, Jane Jacobs extends the model postulating the need for corporate diversity, interaction between employees of different industries close geographically, to generate innovation and business growth (could be considered as the main basis of the current Henry Chesbrough’s Open Innovation process ).
It is quite clear that the three types of Knowledge Spillover are identified in environments such as Scientific-Technological Parks: MAR or Porter type models in those formed as clusters or as Jacobs ones in the most plural confluence of different kinds companies and industry (such as of our Science and Technology Park in Castellon, espaitec).
From this perspective, iWeekend event also could fit into Jacobs model, not only for its meaning but for its involvement in the entrepreneurship environment as a generator of business opportunities for the creation of new shared knowledge (Acs and Audretsch, “Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship “in November 2006, details very well the landscape. I recommend it to be read)
Furthermore, in one of my last posts (and which was later improved version published in the online journal “Innovation Management”) I reflected in an advanced model of the classic dynamic clusters named Porter’s “Convoy Model.” Well, the Knowledge Spillover effect is derived from a process in which Convoy hybridization between disciplines are able to generate direct innovation spontaneous and / or induced.
The questions that now I wonder myself are:
1 .-Am I able to manage Knowledge Spillover innovation generation through procedures or protocols ?
2 .- Is it possible to measure the generation of innovation by objective KPI that could allow me to compare with other models and assess their effectiveness and under what elements can be accelerated?
Perhaps the key can be found in the processes of Ideas Management that could be extrapolated to manage knowledge spillover and not generated directly. Interesting question in which I am still working on.
En ocasiones he escuchado las más diversas interpretaciones de lo que es un Parque Científico-Tecnológico, asociándose a elementos puramente físicos (infraestructuras) o incluso con poca diferenciación respecto a otros agentes como son las incubadoras o viveros de empresas. Cada agente tiene su lugar en el Ecosistema de Innovación y, por tanto, su relevancia y por ello he querido abrir esta reflexión al respecto.
Los parques científico-tecnológicos (PCT) son parte de las estructuras complejas multidimensionales ubicadas en territorios (de forma física o virtual) denominadas Ecosistemas de Innovación, y cuyo objetivo es establecer una conexión eficiente y eficaz entre la región (el tejido empresarial, los centros de conocimiento, entes sociales,….) con el Sistema Global de Innovación (SGI) a través de lo que podemos denominar: inno-conectores con carácter multidireccional y que, en última instancia, permitirán la creación de valor añadido y consecuentemente riqueza en el entorno.
El acceso a los recursos necesarios(innovación, financiación, capital humano-talento-networking, infraestructuras, internacionalización, mercado, integración territorial y cultura científica) para acelerar el crecimiento de una iniciativa empresarial les convierte, debido a su dinamicidad, en agentes brownianos de innovación.
Los PCT son idóneos, por una parte, para favorecer la incubación de ideas y por tanto de creatividad (Thinkcubators) y su posterior puesta en el mercado, innovación, a través de modelos de aceleración de negocio (BAM: Business Accelerator Model) y ello requiere de una dedicación importante, una inversión en tiempo considerable en el seguimiento del proceso de incubación-crecimiento-consolidación.
Por otra, los PCT son un lugar ideal para facilitar las sinergias simbióticas entre las empresas ubicadas en su área de acción, es decir que la coopetición (cooperación + competición) de las empresas permite la generación de un valor superior así como el crecimiento de las mismas.
Los PCTs son entornos altamente creativos y por tanto motores de aprendizaje continuo (CLE: Continuous Learning Engines).
The figure of the cluster (widely used in business and economic environments) has served twenty years since M. Porter introduced in his book “The Competitive Advantage of Nations“ in 1990 but the underlying concept of agglomeration economies has already been used by economists in the 1890s and especially in the work of Alfred Marshall.
A business cluster (Wikipedia) is a “geographic concentration of business initiatives, suppliers and associated institutions in a particular field.” The role of a cluster has been crucial in enhancing the productivity between companies that allow them to achieve an important competitive edge in national and international framework.
Porter eventually opted for the model cluster as a key to promoting innovation in the target sector or stimulate new business initiatives and with this vision have created a myriad of clusters in diverse areas of expertise: biotechnology, ICT, health , environment, etc. scattered around geography on the basis of the differential values of each one.
A clear example of cluster is the famous Silicon Valley in California, created in the 90s as a result of a group of technology companies that have attracted investment firms in venture capital and other companies with similar characteristics to a greater or lesser extent, it has created a process of partnerships (cross pollination) that have been able to generate new business initiatives.
Another close example is the cluster created in the tile industry in the province of Castellón (appointed on several occasions by M. Porter as an example of competitive cluster with Saussuolo Santa Caterina in Italy or Brazil) for the analysis of which I have found a very interesting study published by the Jordan Competitiveness Team
My conclusion by analyzing various scenarios of clusters is:
- They are static elements capable of growth, of course, but by approximation, that is, entrepreneurs are released to be located in clusters in its sector to “absorb the aroma of innovation environment“ and even the hope that by serendipity come to generate new business with other entrepreneurs but without a specific driver or director, without elements “pull-driven” to generate dynamism in the environment.
- They are very vertical. They focus a lot on specific products or services and specific knowledge areas that should be fully aligned with the economic and industrial needs of a region. As Ketels states: “The necessary condition for any kind of empirical work on clusters is to find a consistent definition of what economic activities belong or should belong to the cluster”.
- The movement that businesses follow when they land in a cluster of its sector is rather “Brownian“, ie without previous planning and spinning around looking for business opportunities.
Another important aspect that affects Ketels (2003) in his paper “The Development of the cluster concept – present experiences and Further Developments” is to resolve the issue of efficiency and effectiveness in creating a cluster, ie whether the money spent to create an economic value greater than its opportunity cost and, of course, if the cluster is sustainable once the initial support has been consumed. And so it seems, it is found that the creation of a cluster is long term and the cost may be higher.
So far I have not said anything new, anything that has not already know, although, of course, can agree or disagree with my interpretation.
Also by serendipity, we met a very special person, Prof G. Mensch with a very unique idea also which we are working hard with. Prof. Mensch put forward a new concept: “The Convoy Model.”
The “Convoy Model“ revolves around one key element: the element tractor. We are not talking about specific sectors but that the whole weight of the traction element rests on a single director, the “locomotive” of the convoy of cars. This element is dynamic model tractor compared to the static cluster model, but not unpredictable but planned. Never stops and creates an aura of attraction around which facilitates the approximation of companies / initiatives that will improve the process of creating value and synergy between them always based on a set of objectives.
The “Convoy Model” project management requires a totally different perspective from the classic, here the projects are not implemented to be able to meet the initial requirements of the user but on the contrary, projects must be capable of adapting to the requirements changes creating new products which in turn modify the changes. This requires great flexibility. It is the philosophy of the HIST projects (High Impact, Short Time)that continually get feedback of their own performance to become better.
It is interesting how it is possible to find synergies between the definition of “Convoy Model” from a business perspective, the same model from an educational perspective and social networking. In her book “Social Relations in Childhood and Adolescence: The Convoy Model Perspective“, Mary J. Levitt referred to the term convoy, rather than network, such as the entity that captures both the protective function as the dynamic nature of social networks as the individual moves together throughout their lives.
This is considered the Convoy Model as a set of concentric circles, three, representing the degree of closeness and dependence on the elements that move next to the item tractor and has many similarities to that occurs in an individual and his immediate environment .
Can it really be an alternative generating positive impact on the environment versus Cluster model that has been proven as an effective tool to foster the economy of a region? Everything points to it. Let’s keep talking …
