Tag: Rice

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Development of Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

On May 4, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner stated his support for building a data science center. The next day, he endorsed plans for an Innovation District. How would these types of development promote entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth in Houston?

The Basics

What are Research Parks, like the proposed data science center, and Innovation Districts?

Research Parks promote research, technological development and commercialization by creating a high density of universities and research institutions within a small area. By placing many innovative researchers and developers in close proximity, Research Parks encourage growth of new companies and collaboration across fields, driving technology-based economic development.

The Brookings Institution defines Innovation Districts as dense areas that bring together research institutions, high-growth firms and startups through thoughtfully designed and resource-rich commercial and residential spaces.

Research Parks and Innovation Districts slightly differ in their implementation, but both spaces aim to accomplish similar goals; they want to create physical hubs for innovation and entrepreneurial development. Typically, developers build Research Parks on new land, cultivating previously undeveloped space. Innovation Districts, however, use old land. This land was previously developed but is no longer in use.

Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Silicon Valley is a well-known Innovation District.

Both Research Parks and Innovation Districts are generative and can be helpful in stimulating local economies. Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto and Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham are some of the most well-known examples in the United States. Research Triangle Park is the largest in the country and one of the largest in the world. Stanford Research Park played a key role in the creation of Silicon Valley.

Successful Innovation Districts include Kendall Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, South Lake Union in Seattle and Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati.

What Makes These Areas Special?

Research Parks and Innovation Districts are highly productive areas. Innovation leads to new ideas and job creation. According to the Association of University Research Parks, each job in a Research Park generates approximately 2.57 additional jobs. Thus, the more than 300,000 Research Park employees in the United States lead to 700,000 additional jobs.

Innovation Districts can also produce strong results. By placing many innovators in close proximity to one another, they facilitate collaborative interactions. As Innovation Districts vary greatly in size and productivity, an accurate estimate for job creation is unavailable.

Key Factors: The Capital Stack

Layered financial tools known as a “capital stack” are necessary to promote the development Research Parks and Innovation Districts. For a capital stack that attracts investors, an area must have access to multiple types of equity, incentives and debt to provide flexibility to developers and innovators.

Developers may be able to secure planning grants through the U.S. Economic Development Administration to create the Research Park or Innovation District. These are “designed to leverage existing regional assets and support the implementation of economic development strategies that advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.” Even though Innovation Districts are built on previously developed land, the government still issues planning grants because they “advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.”

Tax credit bonds are also common debt instruments. Instead of taking on loans, municipal governments sell bonds, which provide tax credits in lieu of interest payments. Some examples are Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Economic Bonds and Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.

Equity is also an important necessity. Investment can be incentivized from a variety of sources, like New Market Tax Credits. These give tax credits to investors who make equity investments in Community Development Entities in developing and low-income communities. Housing and Urban Development community development grants and state or federal tax relief programs can also incentivize investment.

Key Factors: Social Factors

The final piece of the puzzle to create a Research Park or Innovation District is social organization. In order to facilitate collaboration and innovation, physical, intellectual and social resources need to be readily accessible.

Networking assets—“the relationships between actors—such as individuals, firms and institutions—that have the potential to generate, sharpen and accelerate the advancement of ideas”—are essential for the development of Innovation Districts. The lines of communication between developers, researchers and sources of funding must be open and easily accessible. This synergy is enhanced in Innovation Districts through the close proximity of ecosystem participants and access to shared meeting and collaboration spaces.

The Potential for Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

Many cities have developed Innovation Districts in effort to grow local entrepreneurship and innovation. Turner’s announcement of the planned Innovation District earlier this month mentioned the 40,000 jobs created by Chicago’s efforts to spur innovation. Turner noted, “It is now time for us to be more competitive, to further diversify and expand our economy. What Chicago can do, Houston can do better.”

In 2015, the University of Texas bought 332 acres of land in southwest Houston with the hopes of developing it into a small Research Park. However, in March 2017, UT Chancellor William McRaven canceled the site’s plans for development. The Houston Chronicle cites timing and lack of transparency as the main causes for the cancellation.

However, there may still be potential for a Research Park in Houston. Mayor Turner also expressed support for the proposed data science center, urging the University of Houston to take the lead. The Chairman of the University of Houston Board of Regents, Tilman Fertitta, has spoken positively about this idea, mentioning excitement about the prospect of collaborating with Rice University, Texas Southern University, Texas A&M University and the University of Texas through the development of a data hub.

Bill Gropp, the acting director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, recently stated that there is far more demand for Research Parks than there is supply. It is clear that the development of a Research Park or Innovation District would stimulate the economy and create jobs. If Houston wants to take advantage of these opportunities, the time to act is now.

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs Startup Ecosystems

How to Make Texas More Startup-friendly

profileOver the last decade, Blake Commager (@commagere) has raised over $12 million in venture capital funding, started seven companies and sold five—including the first version of Facebook Causes and some of the most popular apps on Facebook, such as Zombies and Vampires. Born and raised in Midland, Texas, Commager graduated from Rice in 1999 and moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in 2003.

Commagere is the CEO of MediaSpike and an angel investor, advising several startups in the Bay Area. His varied experience in the tech startup space, from founder to investor and mentor, gives him a comprehensive perspective on the Silicon Valley startup ecosystem. As Commagere worked at a startup and tried to start a company in Austin before moving out to Silicon Valley, I was interested in learning why he chose to move out to the Bay Area and what Texas could do to better support startups.

Iris Huang: What brought you to the Silicon Valley?

Blake Commagere: I had always been interested in solving the problem of address book updating. In 2003, a friend of mine and I were working on our own company in Austin, and while doing competitive analysis, we found out Plaxo, a startup in Mountain View, California, was trying to solve the same problem. I liked their solution and they already had funding so I moved here to join the company.

I also felt the pressure to move to the Bay Area. By virtue of having a high concentration of tech talent, the Bay Area created a gravitational pull for even more tech talent. You see that with a lot of industries—they blow up largely in a few cities and as the ecosystem develops around them, the momentum increases, which makes it harder for other cities to compete. The more talent it has, the more successful the industry becomes in the region, the more new talent comes. The concentration of talent creates a virtuous cycle—in the Bay Area, the former successful startup founders become the next generation angel investors and venture capitalists, who fund and help more startups succeed.

The concentration of talent in the Bay Area has two main advantages:

The sheer concentration of talent and ecosystem make the process of building a startup easier, not a lot easier, but even if it’s just 2 percent easier, that makes all the difference. Given how hard it is to build a company, anything that makes it a little easier can be incredibly important. The high concentration of talent in the Bay Area makes it easier for startups to hire good employees. Startups will also have an easier time meeting people who can provide advice and introduce them to investors.

The large tech community in the Bay Area also provides a lot of emotional support, which turns out to be extremely important for startup founders. What’s unique about entrepreneurship is the combination of the high level of stress and lack of experience and resources. It’s very intimidating as an entrepreneur when you have a dozen things you have to do today but you have no idea how to do any of them. No business school teaches you what you need at a startup day to day. Sometimes other founders can’t help you either, but at least, you can commiserate with them. For example, after you pitch to a dozen VCs and no one wants to invest, you can talk to your community—they’ve all been through the pain so they understand how you feel. The therapeutic value of the commiseration is really important. You won’t feel so lonely, which, in addition to the hardship of building a company, could be overwhelming.

IH: How can Texas cities become more friendly to founders?

BC: A good ecosystem for startups cannot be developed overnight. It takes several entrepreneur/venture capital cycles—maybe over 20 years.

Someone should have a laser focus on building the tech community so entrepreneurs no longer feel alone in their journey. What entrepreneurs are trying to do is just too overwhelming to do on their own. They will leave for somewhere that has a supportive community if they can’t find the mentorship and network locally. In Austin, most of the time meetings happen by chance. Serendipity is unreliable—someone needs to build a tight knit community and make sure the support network is well-organized.

Someone has to bring capital there. No matter how great the idea is, you need to have money to fund it and make it happen. The number of VC firms and the amount of VC funding in Texas are limited (Note: total VC funding in Austin is $834 million, as compared to $25 billion in Silicon Valley according to the MoneyTree Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers). In Silicon Valley, there are so many funds; a startup can be rejected by a dozen of the top VC firms and still be able to raise funds from hundreds of other VCs. However, in Austin, if you pitch to Austin Ventures and they say no, your fundraising is over.

Also, with a small number of VCs, their time is limited so they can only invest in a small number of companies. Imagine if there are 100 great startups that deserve to be funded but there are only six general partners in your region. Simply for lack of VCs, some of these companies won’t get what they need to survive.

IH: Why is it necessary to raise VC funds locally?

BC: Silicon Valley VCs are unlikely to invest in startups in Texas. VCs have strong motivation to invest in nearby companies because the nature of venture capital investing—95 percent of startups fail—forces them to use their time wisely. VCs usually take board seats at the startups they invest in. Every board seat they take is an opportunity cost, preventing them from taking others. When VCs invest in startups in other cities, they have to travel for board meetings. So the time they spend on that board seat is longer and the opportunity cost for that investment is higher. That’s why you can’t expect Bay Area VCs to invest in Texas startups and when they do, the bar might be three times higher for Texas startups than Bay Area startups.

Funding is not the only value VCs provide for startups; their professional network plays an important role in helping startups succeed as well. However, VCs’ network is geographically dependent. If the startups are far away, they will not be able to benefit from VCs’ powerful network. This lowers their chance of success. This also discourages VCs from investing outside their primary cities.

Raising a fund to start a VC firm in Austin or Houston could be challenging—the new VCs will have to take the extra step to convince potential limited partners that “there is a reason and opportunity to invest here,” instead simply joining all the other VCs are in the Bay Area. However, this is what has to happen. Ideally, the new VCs have built their career and network in Texas for many years, which gives them the motivation and ability to raise a fund locally.

IH: How can Texas cities retain local talent?

BC: It all comes back to the availability of VC funding. Frequently I see announcements that a city is hoping to make the city more attractive to startups with programs for office space or professional services. None of that is a big expense compared to your employee costs. Some people argue that since everything is more expensive in the Bay Area, it makes sense to stay in Austin or Houston. For example, with $1 million funding, you might be able to hire 10 employees in Houston, but in the Bay Area, you can only hire 5 employees with similar credentials. However, this is an unrealistic comparison. In Houston, you are more likely to get $0 funding so really you can’t hire anyone while in the Bay Area, you might be able to get $1 million and hire 5 employees.

Each entrepreneur has their own timeline—when they need to raise funding, if there’s no funding available in Austin or Houston, they either have to shut down their startups or move to the Bay Area and raise money here. Right now everyone just follows the gravity and moves to the Bay Area because that’s the easiest. Texas is losing the tech talents and startups that create so many jobs to the Bay Area. It is very important to break the cycle. Step one is to stop the talent drain with VC funding and keep startups here. As the ecosystem matures, the long-term goal is to make it as easy to raise funding in major Texas cities as in the Bay Area.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

High rates of recidivism in the United States negatively affect prisons, inmates, the government and tax-paying citizens. In 2013, the U.S. imprisoned 2,220,300 people. A Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that within three years of release, 67.8% of released prisoners were rearrested. Utah_State_Prison_Wasatch_FacilityWithin five years, 76.6% of released prisoners were rearrested.

Researchers typically link recidivism to unemployment, low levels of education, mental health problems, inability to re-integrate into society after prison, impulsiveness, association with other criminals, family instability and as well as other factors.

High levels of recidivism costs states millions of dollars; A Pew Charitable Trusts study estimated that if 41 states cut their recidivism rates by 10%, they would save $635 million. On top of the monetary costs for the states, recidivism rates have a negative effect on families and communities including family instability and a higher probability that a family will live in poverty. Solving the recidivism issue would not only save the government and taxpayers money, but it would also improve the lives of former inmates and those around them.

Entrepreneurship Potential of Inmates

A variety of entrepreneurs and public service organizations have developed programs to empower prisoners and combat high recidivism rates. Notable social entrepreneurship programs such as the Last Mile and Cafe Momentum provide leadership skills and help reduce recidivism through a variety of methods. The Last Mile, as the McNair Center’s Julia Wang describes, focuses on teaching inmates business and computer skills in California. Cafe Momentum, a functional restaurant in Dallas, gives released youth offenders transferable life skills related to the restaurant industry.

While social entrepreneurship is a start, what about actually teaching entrepreneurship skills to prisoners?

While some might assume that inmates are incapable of holding down a job, let alone establishing their own businesses, the reality is that many people leaving the prison system are potential entrepreneurs. Inmates that took the Miner Sentence Completion Scale-Form T test, an assessment of entrepreneurial aptitude, scored higher than average entrepreneurs, slow-growth entrepreneurs and manager scientists. Additionally, many inmates are in prison due to their participation in illegal forms of entrepreneurship, including drug trafficking and smuggling. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt remarks that the gang in Sudhir Venkatesh’s study of the drug trade acted as a franchise for the larger Black Disciples organization. Coupled with the willingness to take risks that characterizes many inmates, prisoners could be prime candidates for entrepreneurship.

Prison Entrepreneurship Program

One of the most notable and successful programs is the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP), an innovative rehabilitation program aimed at transforming inmates in Texas. PEP places carefully selected inmates through a four-month business education program. This program teaches them skills valuable in entrepreneurial settings, including financial literacy, an employment workshop, a business etiquette course and a Toastmasters class. Participants take over forty exams and interact with business executives. The final exam involves a thirty-minute business-plan presentation. PEP also provides a prison-release and post-prison components including follow-up and startup mentoring.

PEP’s results demonstrate a fantastic return on investment, especially given the 1,300+ participants. 100% of PEP graduates find jobs within 90 days of release. Nearly 100% of these graduates stay employed after a year. Since 2004, PEP graduates have launched more than 200 businesses. Six of these generate over $1 million in gross annual revenue. Most importantly, PEP graduates have a recidivism rate of less than 7%.

Defy Ventures

Defy Ventures also provides an entrepreneurial education to inmates. This national organization, which mostly operates in New York and California, describes itself as “an entrepreneurship, employment and character development training program for currently and formerly incarcerated men, women and youth.” It puts former inmates, mostly former leaders of drug rings and gangs, through a two-month training program. Defy Ventures graduates of this program are eligible to apply for a 12-month entrepreneurship program in which they compete for startup grants. This program has a 3% recidivism rate and has produced more than 150 startups. Most of these startups are small businesses, such as eco-friendly cleaning services. Defy has distributed over half a million dollars to these startups and small businesses through business-pitch competition awards and micro-loans. Additionally, participants report a 95% employment rate within 7 months of enrolling in Defy.

Inmates to Entrepreneurs

Inmates to Entrepreneurs provides educational seminars on entrepreneurship, online resources and group-based support to help former inmates start low-capital businesses. This program, based in North Carolina, focuses on giving seminars on starting businesses in local prisons to inmates with six or fewer months to serve. Additionally, the organization brings in ex-offender mentors who run successful businesses. A.J. Ware, a member of the Board of Directors for this nonprofit noted in a TEDxRaleigh talk that participating inmates had less than a 3% recidivism rate. Additionally, former inmates had 75% employment rate within 90 days of release. Ware also stated that in 2012, participants started 14 business. Inmates to Entrepreneurs is unique in its ability to provide large-scale learning. Its online resources and seminars are easier to implement in a variety of locations compared to the other two programs.

For the Future

These three programs illustrate the potential of entrepreneurship programs in reducing U.S. recidivism rates. Expansion of these programs could potentially make the same positive impact on prison populations across the nation. However, it is also possible that the small size of these programs is integral to their success.

All of the programs described here carefully select a small group of participants. It may not be possible to target all parts of the prison population. Many of these programs have a competitive application process and low acceptance rate. Researchers could conduct further studies to see the effects of entrepreneurship programs on a large scale without rigorous selection criteria.

It may be impossible to use these programs to help all prisoners, so how many can these programs help? A 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics statistic table on federal arrests indicates that approximately 20% of inmates could have entrepreneurial potential based on their crime. White-collar crime and drug trafficking offenses all indicate entrepreneurship potential. Targeting these specific offenders with entrepreneurship programs can help reduce recidivism.

Focusing on a small subset of the population still has long-term beneficial effects for inmates and their communities. PEP has a 340% return on every dollar donated due to reduced recidivism and reliance on government assistance. The potential economic benefit of an expansion of these programs could save the government and taxpayers millions of dollars.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Patents and the Cancer Moonshot

Patents and the Cancer Moonshot: How Subject Matter Eligibility Affects Research

When standard cancer treatments fail, some doctors are turning to the developing field of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy involves treatments that use the patient’s own immune system to combat cancer. Both pharmaceutical companies and the federal government see the promise in funding research in this innovative field. However, R&D in cancer treatments is a time-intensive process, and it takes months, if not years, before doctors can bring cutting-edge research to their patients.

In January 2016, President Barack Obama called for the Cancer Moonshot to double the rate of progress in cancer research. Vice President Joe Biden traveled across the country and the world (including to Rice University) to collect information on current barriers in cancer research, like inefficiencies in the patent process. However, is the lengthy patent examination process truly what is slowing cancer research?

Accelerating the Process with “Patents 4 Patients”

To help accelerate cancer research, the United States Patent and Trademark Office launched the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program (also known as “Patents 4 Patients”) in July 2016. This program aims to fast track the review of patents that involve treating cancer using immunotherapy.

Usually, the USPTO examines patents in order of their U.S. filing dates. However, under “Patents 4 Patients,” the Patent Office will grant special status to patent applications relating to cancer immunotherapy. The USPTO aims to finish examining petitions submitted before June 29, 2017 within twelve months of granting special status.

Often, USPTO examination takes a long time. Over the last two years, first office action pendency, or how long it takes to mail a First Office Action after a patent application is filed, takes an average of 16.5 months. Additionally, traditional total pendency, or how long it takes to decide whether to issue or abandon a patent, takes an average of 26.4 months. The new Pilot Program certainly has the potential to reduce these wait times. However, long patent examination periods are not the only barriers that researchers face when developing cancer treatments.

Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: A Look at Section 101

Under Section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code, “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement” is patent-eligible. Over the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has affected what is patentable. Under judicially recognized exceptions, laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas cannot be patented.

Most controversially, in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012), the Court held that correlations between blood test results and patient health were “laws of nature” and that any claims relating to these correlations were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Similarly, in AMP v. Myriad (2013), the Supreme Court held that claims relating to isolations of naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented.

Because of these decisions, the USPTO has rejected or abandoned many patents relating to cancer immunotherapy treatment on the basis that they claim laws of nature. According to Patently-O, patent rejections based on Section 101 objections increased substantially after the Mayo ruling from 15.9% of office actions to 86.1%.

For example, the USPTO has rejected patents relating to using gene expressions to predict chances of breast cancer (US20100035240A1) and using a specific protein as an early indicator of cancer (US20150072355A1) because they are applications of laws of nature. However, unlike the USPTO, the patent offices in Europe, Japan, and China have accepted these applications and granted their patents. Current U.S. patent law does not conform with internationally recognized forms of patent eligibility. Stifling the progress of research through patent rejections does not bode well for U.S. cancer patients. By refusing to protect emerging discoveries, the USPTO undermines cancer treatment research, especially in innovative fields like immunotherapy.

More Barriers with the FDA Approval Process

Even after a treatment is patented, it can take years to go through the phases of the clinical trial process. Phase I and II determine the safety and promise of a treatment. Phase III tests the effectiveness of the new treatment compared to existing standards. After successfully going through trials, companies file a New Drug Application (NDA) for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

According to DiMasi, Grabowski and Hansen (2016), clinical trials take an average of 9 years and 8 months. After a company submits an NDA, the FDA takes an average of 16 months to review it. This lengthy approval process further slows down R&D in cancer treatment.

Improving Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines

Excludability in fast-growing fields like immunotherapy is extremely valuable in the early stages of R&D. Patents provide stability and a relative level of certainty, so a more quickly granted patent can help firms stake their claim in a developing treatment. However, the higher amount of claims rejections decreases the probability that companies will be able to protect their research. Questions about what is patent-eligible material could discourage investment and deprive researchers of necessary funding.

The Cancer Moonshot initiative is eager to make the patent process more efficient to quicken the progress of cancer treatment. While Patents 4 Patients could potentially help expedite research, long pendency periods are not the only barrier to accelerating research. Many discoveries are patentable, nonobvious applications of laws of nature. Yet, after recent court rulings, the USPTO still rejects their patent applications.

In late 2016, the USPTO held two roundtables to improve the its guidance for patent examiners on subject-matter eligibility.  As judges and policymakers continue to define what can be patented, they must recognize the impact of their decisions on cancer treatment innovation.

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs

Spotlight on Rice Entrepreneurs: Elevator Pitch Competition

What is an elevator pitch?

The 8th Annual Rice Undergraduate Elevator Pitch Competition was held on Wednesday, November 16. Elevator pitches describe a problem or need and a design solution in 90 seconds or less. Judges evaluated the pitches based on technical merits of the project as well as the team’s perselevator-358249_1920uasive speaking abilities.

Who can participate in the Rice Elevator Pitch Competition?

Although the competition was open to any Rice undergraduate student or team with a business concept or idea, this year senior engineering design teams won each of the ten finalist positions. Some of the ideas pitched in the finals included cost-efficient retractable needles targeted toward patients in India, single-arm propulsion wheelchairs for low-income patients who have shoulder injuries and a mechanical hippotherapy device.

The 2016 winners: Diabetes Compression Sock

Jessica Griffiths, Nikitha Cherayil, Crystal Lin, Amy Fox and Lucas Navarro won First Place and the Popular Choice Award for their pitch. This senior engineering design team pitched their plan to design a more effective compression sock for diabetes mellitus patients. The inspiration for team’s design is personal; a team member’s grandfather had to wear traditional compression socks to prevent blood clots. Her grandfather struggled to put on these socks by himself, and resorted to enlisting family members for help. Many patients forgo the socks altogether due to this struggle. Jessica Griffiths says a redesigned compression sock could increase patient compliance in wearing the socks, which in turn would decrease their risk for blood clots.

Benefits of participating in the elevator pitch competition

Griffiths praises the elevator pitch competition for giving senior design teams a unique opportunity to showcase their projects. “[The competition] was good for us and the other teams to compete in, because we don’t usually compete against each other.” She also recommends that non-senior design teams enter the competition, particularly freshman pasted-image-at-2016_12_15-04_51-pmengineering students enrolled in ENGI 120. She says that “The entrepreneurship at Rice is one of the best in the nation because we have such creative students here, the Elevator Pitch Competition is excellent practice to learn to present not only something you’re working on but also yourself.”

Upcoming Rice Entrepreneurship Event

The 17th annual Rice Business Plan Competition, the world’s “richest and largest” graduate-level student startup competition, will be held April 6-8, 2017. Applications are being accepted through February 10.

Hundreds of teams apply to the competition, hoping to receive some of the over $1.5 million in cash and prizes available. Over 180 corporate and private sponsors provide support to the competition and investors from all around the nation volunteer to judge.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Entrepreneurship Weekly Roundup: 11/18/2016

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about entrepreneurship this week:

Nationalism is not putting a damper on this trillion-dollar sector

Elaine Pofeldt, Contributor, CNBC.com

CNBC Contributor Elain Pofeldt observes that the United States and Europe are witnessing a rise in nationalist and anti-globalization sentiment. She cites Mr. Trump’s election and the Brexit referendum as evidence. The trend may reflect a global desire to redistribute market and government benefits domestically – and a disapproval of corporations that send wages abroad and profits to the already wealthy.

In this uncertain climate, one economic principle remains key: Entrepreneurship fosters economic growth.

The Kauffman Foundation’s recently released Global Entrepreneurship Index emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship to economic growth. This annual index rates countries on the health and quality of their entrepreneurial ecosystems. There is a strong correlation between a country’s GDP and its technological advancements. Governments should support a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem if they are truly serious about encouraging the country’s economic growth.

Currently the U.S. ranks number one on the index. The index suggests that the strength of the U.S. entrepreneurial environment lies in a strong perception for opportunity. One area of opportunity that U.S. entrepreneurs are increasingly tapping into are the regulated sectors, such as health care, energy and education.

Social entrepreneurs is also on the rise. Jonathan Ortmans, a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, notes how this relates to national policy: “We’re now seeing a much larger number of public-sector leaders — government at the national and local level — jumping in and asking, `How do we tackle this and build stronger entrepreneurial ecosystems?'”

The Role of Entrepreneurship in Job Creation and Economic Growth

Margarita Hakobyan, Contributor, Huffington Post

Huffington Post’s Hakobyan emphasizes the role of entrepreneurship in job creation and economic growth. According to a report released by the Small Business Administration in 2012, small businesses created 60 percent of new jobs in the previous decade.

New businesses challenge existing markets and encourage competition by offering new or improved products. Successful entrants often steer customers away from existing companies. Disruptions in the market consequently force existing companies to innovate or watch their market share diminish.

Although the manufacturing sector suffered job losses from advancements in automation and other technologies, its productivity and scale have both risen considerably.

Manufacturing is an exception – many market disruptions create jobs. For example, Netflix, dismantled the video rental industry but created jobs by feeding a demand for large-scale processing of DVDs and maintenance of the grocery store kiosks that sell these DVDs.

Small businesses can also contribute to economic growth through their flexibility and diversity. Flexibility allows startups to react quickly to market conditions. Startups can meet consumer demands faster than established corporations because large companies often must follow long administrative processes before implementing reforms.

Venture Capital Firm Navigates Uncharted Course to Success

Michael J. de la Merced, Reporter, New York Times

The Times’ Merced reports on venture capital firm, Spark Capital. The firm is known for early investment in promising startups like Twitter, Tumblr, Slack and Oculus.

Spark is also wading into uncertain industries. It recently invested in Cruise Automation, a San Francisco-based startup that develops software for self-driving cars. At a time when Google and Uber declared self-driving vehicles “among their top research priorities,” the success of less funded and less established startups competing to break into the same market seemed doubtful. Big industry players already dominated the research on self-automated cars, so most VC firms turned to alternative ventures within less-explored markets. Despite the industry’s conventional wisdom, Cruise Automation was sold to General Motors for $1 billion within months.

Spark adopts a nontraditional process for investment decisions that focuses on products rather than markets. Instead of specializing in certain industries or markets, partners at Spark can bring any prospective venture to the table. Investors then debate the merits of pursuing the opportunity until a consensus among the partners is reached. Spark accredits its most successful decisions to an “appreciation for good product design.”

In total, Spark manages $3 billion in investment funds. Its fifth venture fund will have a first-close target of $400 million.

Ever Wanted to Back a Start-Up? Indiegogo Opens the Door to Small Investors

Stacy Cowley, Reporter, The New York Times

Indiegogo is a popular crowdfunding site that enables small venture capitalists to invest personal money into promising and creative ventures. The major crowdfunding site is the first to take advantage of a new securities rule, which allows “ordinary investors to risk up to a few thousands dollars a year backing private companies.”

Before the rule was passed, only accredited investors, or those with an annual income greater than $200,000 or net worth of $1 million, could invest personal funds in these riskier ventures. With the passage of the new rule, crowdfunding backers can own equity stakes in the companies they invest in.

The new rule addresses an issue raised during Oculus’ acquisition by Facebook. Oculus raised millions of dollars on crowdfunding sites during its early investment stages. The startup used the investments raised by crowdfunding backers to prove to venture capitalists that there was a market demand for its products. Investors poured money into the company, and Facebook subsequently acquired Oculus. The firm’s original crowdfunding backers reaped no gains; angel and venture capital investors took home the profits.

The Reason Silicon Valley Beat Out Boston for VC Dominance

Anil Gupta and Haiyan Wang, Contributors, Harvard Business Review

The Boston-Cambridge and Bay Area have histories in technology entrepreneurship and venture capital (VC). However, since the 1990s, Silicon Valley has consistently snatched a larger share of all VC investments in the US than its Northeastern counterpart. New England’s share in VC investments plateaued at roughly 10 percent. Meanwhile, the Bay Area’s share of VC investments has grown from 22.6 percent to just over 50 percent.

HBR’s Gupta and Wang identify cultural factors and state-level policies as possible explanations for the divergence between the two coastal VC hubs. For example, Massachusetts, unlike California, allows businesses to include noncompete covenants in their employment contracts. Noncompete covenants offer company loyalty, but they can also remove the need for fast-paced innovation that many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs face.

Additionally, New England and Silicon Valley differ in the type of investors and companies that they attract. The Northeast dominates in the life sciences; in the first three quarters of 2016, 60 percent of New England investments involved ventures focused on biotechnology and medical devices. Silicon Valley, on the other hand, is home to many of the startups that develop platform technologies integral to the digital age.

According to Gupta and Wang, California’s stronghold on the digital and tech industry has resulted in a “growing agglomeration effect.” Increasingly, entrepreneurs are migrating to or launching their businesses in the Bay Area to gain access to these synergies that come from being immersed in the world’s greatest entrepreneurship ecosystem.

And in startup news…

Womply bags $30M to Help Small Businesses Harness Data

Tomio Geron, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

San Francisco-based Womply raised $30 million in its most recent round of financing, bringing its funding total up to $50 million since 2011.

The startup’s platform offers a “web-based suite of software tools” that allows small businesses to analyze performance data on sales, marketing, consumer behavior, revenue and online reputation.

Womply serves a diverse set of clients, ranging from salons to legal firms, but focuses on supporting service-oriented small business. The startup allows small businesses to gain valuable insights into their performance and consumer base. President Cory Capoccia says Womply is helping small businesses increase their efficacy “by “building technology to help grow, protect and simplify running small businesses.”

Rice Entrepreneurs

Spotlight on Rice Entrepreneurs: East-West Tea

Carlin Cherry, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

East-West Tea is a student-run business that sells boba tea to Rice University students. Initially developed as a project for an undergraduate marketing class, East-West launched operations last month. The McNair Center’s Carlin Cherry interviews operations manager Andrew Maust.

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs

Spotlight on Rice Entrepreneurs: An Outlet for Owlets

Owlet

An Outlet for Owlets: New Opportunities for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Rice

On November 15, the Princeton Review ranked Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business third in the top graduate programs for entrepreneurship. For the past eight years, the Jones School’s entrepreneurship program has ranked in the top 10 in the nation. In addition to the Jones School’s ongoing success, several programs focus on undergraduate entrepreneurship and innovation. Recently launched programs promote entrepreneurship through student-led efforts and university-sponsored initiatives.

Consolidating student-led efforts

At the end of Spring 2016, two undergraduate entrepreneurship clubs, Rice Launch (led by Ben Herndon-Miller and Jake Nyquist) and Rice Conversations (led by Iris Huang and Doria Du), merged to form the Rice Entrepreneurship Club. The new club organizes a variety of events, including casual lunch conversations with entrepreneurs, pitch practices and mentor workshops.

Working closely with the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship and the Rice Entrepreneurship Initiative, the club shares opportunities and resources to encourage greater student collaboration. “I think the merge empowered the student leaders from both clubs to better serve student entrepreneurs at Rice,” said Iris Huang ’17, President of the Entrepreneurship Club. “With the substantial pool of combined resources, we are now able to put on more diverse programs and make a larger impact on the student population.”

Developing university-wide programs

In March 2016, Rice alumnus Frank Liu and his family gave $16.5 million to establish the Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie). Headed by Dr. Yael Hochberg and Dr. Abby Larson, Lilie gives students access to the expertise and experiences that will help them launch their own enterprises.  Beginning next spring, courses offered through Lilie will encourage students to solve real-world problems while working with faculty and entrepreneurs. The Lilie New Entrepreneurs Grant will help incoming freshmen, starting with the Class of 2020, to fund their business ventures. Before matriculating, freshmen can apply for the $10,000 grant that funds the most creative and compelling business ideas.

Learning from entrepreneurs

Students listen to Scott Novich and Evan Dougal from Neosensory.
Students listen to Rice alumni Scott Novich and Evan Dougal from Neosensory.

Through casual conversations and more formal lectures, the Entrepreneurship Club and Lilie have emphasized directly connecting students with entrepreneurs.

On September 15, the club hosted NeoSensory, a startup co-founded by Scott Novich (Rice PhD ‘16). NeoSensory mathematically maps data streams with temporal characteristics to develop a vest that helps the deaf experience sound through touch. More than 70 attendees learned about the product development timeline, the investment process and university intellectual property licensing through the perspective of a startup.

More recently, on October 19, the Rice Entrepreneurship Club hosted a conversation with Shaan Puri from Monkey Inferno, a San Francisco incubator that turns Internet project ideas into successful businesses. Monkey Inferno sold Bebo to AOL for $850 million in 2008 and currently uses that money to fund new projects. Puri shared his perspectives on forming teams and overcoming conflict and disappointment. Additionally, he advised students to become “learning machines,” always looking to learn more and improve. To achieve momentum, Puri encouraged aspiring entrepreneurs to dedicate time each day to their business idea.

Shaan Puri from Monkey Inferno Skypes in from the Silicon Valley to speak with Rice undergraduates.
Shaan Puri from Monkey Inferno Skypes in from the Silicon Valley to speak with Rice undergraduates.

As part of the Lilie Lecture Series, Dr. Larson hosted an event with Samantha Snabes on October 26. Snabes served as the Entrepreneur-in-Residence and Strategist at NASA and founded re:3D, which makes 3D printing more accessible and scalable. During the lecture, Snabes spoke about taking big risks and establishing strong relationships with peers and mentors. When asked about the differences between the startup cultures of the Silicon Valley and cities in Texas, Snabes noted the benefits of being located in Texas while Austin, Dallas and Houston are growing as centers of startup activity.

Dr. Larson explains, “The Lectures bring together expertise and energies from across Rice and Houston. Each Lecture features the insights of an established entrepreneur or innovator on a question of interest to people working across a range of fields. The Lectures provide an opportunity for the exchange of questions and ideas between people who are innovating in many different contexts, and as such, often lead to new and shared insights.”

Engaging undergraduates in entrepreneurial activity

November 4-6, Rice and University of Houston students used this advice to develop technology ventures at 3 Day Startup. During the event, 45 students worked together in 9 teams at TMCx. Prototypes included an Airbnb-style app that connects travelers with locals for authentic meal experiences, a frictionless rental service for household tools and a marketplace where artists can cater to consumers’ requests for original artwork.

Maintaining momentum

The increased focus on entrepreneurship and innovation on campus is promising. This spark will attract more entrepreneurial talent and advance Rice University’s reputation as a hub for innovation.

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs

Rice Entrepreneurs: East-West Tea

This month the McNair Center is spotlighting Rice entrepreneurs to celebrate National Entrepreneurship Month. To kick off our series, we sat down with Andrew Maust, operations manager for East-West Tea.

East-West Tea

East-West Tea began in the spring of 2016 as a project in Scott Davis’s undergraduate marketing class. Dr. Davis, a post-doctoral fellow at the Jones Graduate School of Business, had students develop business strategies catering to underserved markets on campus. East-West Tea founder Drew Sutherland observed that students frequently went off campus to get boba tea and developed a plan to sell the beverage on campus. At the end of the semester, Sutherland and team members Tommy Bennett, David Cooper, Glenn Baginski and Leo Meiste implemented their plan. East-West launched retail operations on October 12.

Impact on the Rice Community

Andrew Maust joined the team last spring after going to several tea tastings. Since then, he’s climbed the ladder from kitchen worker to operations manager.

Maust describes the relationship East-West formed with Rice as symbiotic. “One of [East-West’s] core foundations is serving the Rice community. While what we do isn’t necessarily the easiest logistically, or makes us the most money on profit margins, we think it’s really important to serve the students and help them out in our endeavors.”

Maintaining a healthy relationship with Rice is a balancing act. Rice Housing and Dining provides East-West with shared kitchen space in Sammy’s. Without their own kitchen, East-West must “maintain operations but also not encroach on other people’s space.”

Maust says another challenge is running a small business and keeping up with schoolwork. He works 15-20 hours per week in the kitchen, which is “more hours than [he] takes in coursework”.

Advice to Rice Small Businesses

Maust also gave some advise to students who want to start their own business: “It has to be a labor of love. Your first goal shouldn’t be ‘Ooh, what can I do to make money?’ Because in order to build something that lasts and is high quality, it has to be something that you put in a lot of time and effort for. Money is great, but first and foremost you have to have that drive, that passion and put forth a great product.”

This resonates with advice Bob McNair gave students at an event at the Baker Institute on August 29th: Strive to create value and success will follow.