In the first blog in this series I discussed the lamentable failure of Europe and the UK to develop start-up companies into large gorilla-sized organisations similar to American companies such as Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Oracle and Google. Apart from a few recent exceptions, such as Vodafone, Nokia and SAP, Europe and the UK have lagged far behind. A number of plausible reasons why UK and European technology companies have failed to become world-beaters on the same scale as their US counterparts have been forwarded and include:

• A lack of appropriate funding and tax arrangements
• The absence of a large homogeneous home market
• An inability to bring products rapidly to market
• A lack of entrepreneurial culture and spirit

Doug Richard.

The current UK scenario, however, is not all doom and doom as the Cambridge University technology cluster, famously known as Silicon Fen, starts to come of age after thirty years of development. According to Doug Richard, founder and chairman of Library House and former judge on Dragon’s Den:

“The Cambridge cluster has just tipped over and a period of explosive growth is ahead. It manages to attract a very large quantity of capital without variation”. 

Cambridge has already spawned a number of successful £1bn companies such as Arm, Autonomy and CSR radio. So do we have a Silicon Valley in the making or is this simply California dreaming? If Silicon Fen is to provide a lead role in nurturing the next generation of “gorillas” there are still a number of obstacles in its way. For example:

• There is a tendency for early stage entrepreneurs to exit their businesses through trade sales rather than undertaking a public flotation (this usually means selling-out to a larger US firm). According to Walter Herriot, head of St. John’s Innovation Centre in Cambridge: “If too many Cambridge companies are acquired by foreign companies the people and the intellectual property will disappear”.
• There is a tendency for European venture capital groups to invest smaller sums than their US rivals. The differential can  sometimes be as high as 50%.
• There is a failure of leading UK companies to invest in entrepreneurial start-ups. Cisco invests in start-up companies which benefit from the funding they receive whilst Cisco gains access to cutting-edge research.
• There has been a failure on the part of European stock exchanges to attract young companies. Neither the LSE nor AIM are considered to be as attractive as the Nasdaq where new listings are able to achieve higher valuations.

Another way of interpreting the superior growth trajectory of US start-up companies is the American business culture itself. Europeans do not lack technical expertise (and Silicon Fen is living proof of this) but does Europe have the same level of ambition and attitude to risk as the USA? According to David Wither, CEO and founder of UK technology company Sarantel:

“In the US, you know from the start you are on your own. Nobody is going to look after you – there is no healthcare or safety net. It breeds a competitiveness, which is part of the culture.” 

It might also be said that UK and European entrepreneurs are acting wisely by avoiding head-on competition with major organisations by adopting niche and complementary strategies, thereby avoiding conflict with larger rivals. This was a lesson that was learned by the pioneering UK personal computer companies such as Acorn, Sinclair and Apricot. Another interpretation is that by selling out early UK entrepreneurs are behaving in a totally rational manner. True serial entrepreneurs are good at starting and growing businesses but not well equipped to professionally manage them, so their early departure is not such a bad thing after all.

The problem is that they are not being acquired by other UK or European companies or as Walter Herriot, head of St. John’s Innovation Centre in Cambridge once commented: “I am slightly concerned that we are selling off the family silver”.

So should Europe be written off as a promising location for technology companies and is Silicon Fen really on hold until key obstacles are removed from the equation? 

Further reading

• 'Fen tries to be a valley' by Maija Pesola in the Financial Times on 16th Feb 2005
• 'The fertile soil of Silicon Fen' by Maija Pesola in the Financial Times on 9th Feb 2005
• 'Why progress requires ambition and risk' by Alan Cane in the Financial Times on 11th Feb 2005

About the author

Nigel Walton is an associate lecturer for the Open University and the University of Worcester, specialising in strategy, entrepreneurship and international marketing. He previously worked as a management consultant, primarily advising medium-sized companies with growth problems.

Subscribe to Nigel Walton's posts

 

The role of innovation in creating and destroying the competitive advantage of modern firms cannot be over-estimated. A report by the European Union in 2002 identified four key drivers of entrepreneurship and small firm development which highlighted the importance of innovation. These included:

1. Continuous technological developments
2. Shorter product life-cycles
3. Increasingly demanding consumers
4. Global competition

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have always been considered to be more adept at innovation compared to larger bureaucratic enterprises owing to their flat structures, absence of functional barriers and the lack of bureaucratic procedures which facilitate the sharing of ideas, information and knowledge.

Innovation is even more important to small start-up firms that need to offer unique benefits in terms of their products and services so as to attract customers who would otherwise buy from their competitors.

Although SMEs may have an advantage over their larger rivals in terms of their ability to nurture innovation-friendly environments, they cannot emulate the large investment budgets of their bigger rivals when it comes to in-house idea-generation and research and development. However, recent developments in the field of ’open-source`, or user-centred, innovation has made it possible for SMEs to compete more aggressively with their larger rivals – sometimes leading to substitute products.

Instead of new product ideas being developed within the research laboratories of organisations (the in-house approach) new products and services are now being sourced from existing customers and clients of organisations. For example, practitioners of extreme sports, from windsurfing to ice climbing, play a significant role in the development of equipment which is subsequently mass-produced by manufacturers. Surgical equipment companies are often led towards new products by surgeons (i.e. keyhole surgery) whilst the Linux operating system was developed by members of the open-source software community. Finally, the toolkits approach has been used by companies including Flavors and Fragrances which supplies customers with the tools to design their own food flavours. Product development is left to users who are in the best position to know exactly what they want.

As customer expectations are increasing it is logical to use their input when designing and shaping new products and services. Not only are such inputs invariably free but they are a natural source of incremental innovation and therefore differentiation.

Since one of the strengths of being an SME is the closeness of the entrepreneur to the customer, an `open source` / user-generated approach is an ideal way of overcoming the obstacles of high R&D budgets and at the same time creating a differentiated unique selling proposition (USP). Knowledge is now so widely distributed via the Internet and travels so fast that great ideas can come from customers over a wide geographic area which is not confined purely to large organisations.

Moreover, as it becomes increasingly difficult to protect new ideas for any length of time, lead–time advantage and speed to market become key areas of competitive advantage. The agility and fast responsiveness of small entrepreneurial firms therefore places them in a very strong position when it comes to exploiting the advantages of pro-active consumers or prosumers.

3M, the industrial products group, has had programmes in place since 1996 to harness ideas generated by lead-users. Working out where great ideas come from is one of the big mysteries of modern management. Corporate research laboratories and in-house product development groups are only part of the answer. Breakthrough products and processes can come from start-ups, competitors, university campuses and rank-and-file employees. So open source innovation is  another route to innovation that doesn’t cost the earth as the likes of MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia will testify.

Further reading

• Open Innovation by Henry William Chesbrough, published byHarvard Business School Press
• Experimentation Matters: Unlocking the Potential of New Technologies for Innovation byStefan Thomke, published by Harvard Business School Press
• The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler, published byBantam
• Democratizing Innovation by Eric von Hippel, published by MIT Press

About the author

Nigel Walton is an associate lecturer for the Open University and the University of Worcester, specialising in strategy, entrepreneurship and international marketing. He previously worked as a management consultant, primarily advising medium-sized companies with growth problems.

Subscribe to Nigel Walton's posts

 

The word entrepreneur has become one of the most commonly used terms in the modern business vocabulary as the British economy has undergone a major period of restructuring  following the launch of the enterprise culture in the early 1980s.

Despite these developments there still appears to be considerable doubt as to what the word actually means and what characteristics distinguish successful entrepreneurs from the more conventional and possibly less successful business figures. In the UK an entrepreneur is differentiated from an owner-manager of a small business (a lifestyler) on the basis of their ideas being highly innovative, the fact that they adopt a strategic approach to the running of their businesses and they are driven by motives of high growth. In the USA the definition is more generalised insofar as an entrepreneur is anyone who establishes a start up business  irrespective of whether it is based on a innovative idea or not.

Entrepreneur Duncan Bannatyne.
[image © copyright BBC]

Another important question is whether there is a typical person who becomes a successful entrepreneur, an archetype on which we can base our judgements about someone’s aptitude for entrepreneurship? Can anyone become an entrepreneur or does it require a certain type of person to make it really work? If it does require certain attributes are they innate or can we acquire them – in other words are successful entrepreneurs born or made?

The influence of the business founder or nascent entrepreneur  on a small business is crucial, particularly in the early days when enterprises are inseparable from their founders. They are conceived by them and survive (or not) because of their personal commitment and dedication. In later stages of growth, a management team may emerge which makes the enterprise more autonomous and capable of surviving without the founder.

Since this impact is so vital to small business survival it is important to identify and encourage the personality types who are most likely to succeed and to discourage those who are not. A number of traits or personality characteristics have been put forward such as the `Big Five` personality dimensions which include: the need for achievement, the need for autonomy (or independence), an internal locus of control (or self-determination), a risk-taking propensity and self-efficacy (or self-belief). Since these entrepreneurial traits are formed during childhood  and cannot be developed later there is and strong implication that entrepreneurs are born not made.

A further characteristic of the entrepreneur is their ability to innovate. According to the late Peter Drucker, entrepreneurship and innovation are tasks that can be and should be organised in a purposeful way and are part of any manager’s job whether he or she works in a small or large enterprise. The entrepreneurial manager is constantly looking for innovations through an organised and continuous search for new ideas. Drucker presented entrepreneurs not as people who are born with certain character traits but as managers who know where to look for innovation and how to develop it into useful products or services once they have identified the strategic space or market gap. Drucker therefore believed that these competencies could be learned and developed and involved a continuous purposeful search for new ideas and their practical application.

There are also other personality traits associated with entrepreneurs which include: a proactive approach, self-motivation, a tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, opportunistic behaviour, creativity, vision, impatience, energy and charisma.

It is therefore hardly surprising that successful entrepreneurs appear to be superficially so diverse. This may also have something to do with the socio-economic characteristics of their environment in terms of both the national and market conditions in which they operate and compete. These will also vary greatly from country-to-country and from sector-to-sector.

Finally, if Peter Drucker was right then perhaps the enterprise initiatives that have been launched across the UK have a high probability of success or is it more complicated than that?

Further reading

• Organisations Evolving by H Aldrich, published by Sage
• `The Entrepreneurial Personality; Past, Present and Future` by E Chell, in Occupational Psychologist number 38
• Innovation and Entrepreneurship by P Drucker, published by Heinemann.
• The Achieving Society by D McClelland, published by Van Nostrand
• `The Dark Side of Entrepreneurship` by M Kets de Vries, in Harvard Business Review November-December 1985  

About the author

Nigel Walton is an associate lecturer for the Open University and the University of Worcester, specialising in strategy, entrepreneurship and international marketing. He previously worked as a management consultant, primarily advising medium-sized companies with growth problems.

Subscribe to Nigel Walton's posts