Tag: Technology

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Entrepreneurship Weekly Roundup 3/3/17

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:

Crowdfunding

Tay Jacobe, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

This week, McNair’s Jacobe analyzes a relatively new phenomenon in capital fundraising: crowdfunding. Crowdfunding enables startups and entrepreneurs to raise capital for their businesses, without going through more formal sources of funding like angel investors, bank loans and VC funds. Although Indiegogo and KickStarter are by far the largest and most successful crowdfunding websites, many additional crowdfunding platforms have emerged in recent years. In 2015, the crowdfunding industry was valued at roughly $17.25 in comparison to $58.8 billion for VC funds.

While startups may find success in raising cash on crowdfunding sites, there is still no guarantee that the startup will be successful. This uncertainty holds for VC-backed startups as well, but unpredictability becomes a particular concern for crowdfunding-backed startups; the success rate of Kickstarter’s startups stands at 35.72 percent.

According to a study conducted at the Wharton School, a differentiating factor between startups that go through successful crowdfunding campaigns is strategic and longterm planning. Jacobe believes that “crowdfunding has potential to shake the dynamics of investment in the coming decades.” In order for crowdfunding to reach its full potential as an alternative platform for entrepreneurs to raise capital, policymakers should implement regulations that support and empower the crowdfunding environment

Startups Seeking Funding Should Consider Corporate Venture Capital Arms

Richard Harroch, Contributor, Forbes

In recent years, many large corporations, like Google, Nokia and Qualcomm, have been sprouting “venture capital arms.” Venture capital arms or corporate venture arms are VC funds that are separately owned or subsidiaries of a parent company. According to Forbes’ Harroch, corporate venture arms typically participate in seed, Series A and Series B investment rounds. These funds often look out for startups that offer the parent company a strategic or synergistic edge.

Among other positive outcomes, the corporate venture model benefits startups by providing credibility, a larger consumer base, access to an expansive network of resources and connections and strategic and industry-specific guidance. However, as pointed out by Michael Yang, the Managing Director for Comcast Venture, “there is no shortage of capital for the best startups.” Because the most promising startups can easily choose from a wide range of investing options, corporate arms distinguish themselves from traditional VC funds by leveraging their in-house expertise and ability to benefit companies post-investment.

Venture capital arms are a strategic and financially attractive option for many large corporations. Parent companies gain access to new and disruptive technologies, potential industry partners, budding industry talent, insight into alternative business models and additional sources of cash inflow.

Tech Startup Market Sinks to Lowest Point in Three Years

Sarah McBride, Journalist, Bloomberg

Stock markets have been enjoying a post-election rally amid expectations of infrastructure spending, decreased regulations and corporate tax cuts. Since January 26th, the Nasdaq Composite Index soared 13% percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average broke the 20,000 mark.

However, Bloomberg’s McBride points out under-performance by one key segment of the market: private technology startups. While private tech startups are also likely to benefit from the Trump administration’s proposed tax cuts and deregulation, stricter immigration rules for the H-1B visa program could prove harmful. Bloomberg’s U.S. Startups Barometer measures startup deal-making in the U.S. at 37 percent below its level from December, putting the startup sector at its lowest point since April of 2014.

Although private market deals tend to reach a lull at the beginning and end of the year, deal flow in 2017 seems unusually low when compared to previous years. According to McBride, many VCs are now facing “the prospect that they had overpaid for many investments” in previous years, “particularly the coveted unicorn startups valued at $1 billion or more.”

Fortunately, the recent slow in deal flow is not symptomatic of a lack of capital; according to the National Venture Capital Association, U.S. venture funds raised $41.6 billion in 2016, “ the most since the dot-com days of 2001.” Despite the current trend, McBride expects more VC-backed private technology firms to go public.

And in startup news…

More bad news: JackThreads, Stayzilla shutting down

Dana Olsen, Financial Writer, PitchBook

Pitchbook’s Olsen reports on recent layoffs by VC-backed startups. In 2016, many startups halted operations and trimmed down their work forces. Last year, employees at many startups like Sonos, Pebble, Shyp, Optimizely, Yik Yak and Github faced waves of layoffs. Unfortunately, layoffs in the startup sector seem likely to continue into 2017. Munchery, Joyable, JackThreads and Stayzilla are four startups that have already instituted mass layoffs ahead of March. According to Olsen, VC-backed Stayzilla and JackThreads are also considering shutting down operations due to unsound financial practices and lack of profitability.

SoftBank set to invest more than $3 billion in WeWork

Brian Sullivan, Reporter, CNBC

WeWork is reportedly set to receive over $3 billion in investment from Japanese VC firm, SoftBank. WeWork, founded in 2010 in New York City, provides coworking spaces, networking opportunities and educational services to entrepreneurs, small businesses and freelancers. Since opening its original office location in New York City in 2010, WeWork has expanded its operations nationwide and globally, with a new location likely to open in downtown Houston later this year, The startup currently offers over 150 coworking spaces, with locations in most major U.S. cities and over 15 countries.

At the time of its last investment, WeWork was valued at approximately $17 billion. With the deal, WeWork’s valuation would surpass $20 billion. In recent years, this successful startup has accumulated over $1 billion in capital from prominent VC firms like Goldman Sachs, Benchmark and Hony Capital.

SoFi Raises $500 Million Led by Silver Lake for Global Expansion

Selina Wang, Reporter, Bloomberg

Founded in 2010, San Francisco-based Social Finance Inc. (SoFi) provides modern underwriting services. Using SoFi, customers can purchase financial products, such as student loan refinancing, mortgage loans, personal loans, wealth management and life insurance online.

In its latest funding round, SoFi raised over $500 million, drawing investments from SoftBank, GPI Capital and some sovereign wealth funds, but PE firm Silver Lake Partners led the charge. The recent funding round will support SoFi’s efforts to break out into international markets and expand its financial product offerings. Many SoFi executives have expressed interest in providing customers with an larger set of personal financing tools, such as mobile deposit.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

The International Entrepreneur Rule: The US Startup Visa

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - SEPTEMBER 7: Atmosphere during the TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2013 Hackathon inside The Concourse at San Francisco Design Center on September 7, 2013 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/TechCrunch) *** Local Caption ***

The Obama administration proposed new provisions for immigrant entrepreneurs in August 2016. The administration designed the proposal to attract international entrepreneurial talent to the United States, especially in advanced technology fields. In mid-January, with only days left in President Obama’s term, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finalized the details of the “International Entrepreneur Rule.” It is scheduled to go into effect on July 17, 2017. Whether it goes into effect will depend on President Trump’s immigration plan, which may see changes in the current H1-B visa program.
statue

Overview

The International Entrepreneur Rule would allow USCIS to grant discretionary parole to international entrepreneurs for two and a half years . However, entrepreneurs may struggle to qualify for a parole grant unless they are already involved in a successful venture. The rule states that first-time applicants must own at least 10% of a U.S. startup that is less than five years old and play a significant role in its management.

Applicants must also demonstrate that their startup has high potential for growth and job creation. The two main avenues for satisfying this criterion are demonstrating that the company has received $250,000 or more in venture capital from “established U.S. investors” or at least $100,000 or more in funding from government entities. Applicants that do not meet these standards may still qualify if they can demonstrate “significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant’s (or family’s) parole into the United States.”

After their initial parole is over, entrepreneurs may apply to extend their stay for an additional two and a half years. In order to receive an extension, entrepreneurs must show that their startups have “shown signs of significant growth.” A total of two parole grants is the maximum; there are no further extensions. If entrepreneurs wish to stay longer, they must find another method to secure a visa or a green card.

Analysis

When this rule was originally proposed by the Obama administration, it received early praise; Tim Ryan, the co-founder of Startup San Diego, applauded the proposal as a step in the right direction.

However, government agencies only expect this rule to impact a very limited number of entrepreneurs. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that a mere 2,940 international entrepreneurs will qualify annually. DHS also estimates they will bring approximately 3,234 dependents and spouses. In contrast, the USCIS approved 85,000 H1-B visas in the 2014 fiscal year.

The high level of investment required may serve as a hurdle for applicants. Y Combinator, widely considered the world’s best startup accelerator, only offers startups a maximum of $120,000 in investment funding. However, to qualify for the proposed International Entrepreneur Rule, USCIS expects companies to have at least $250,000. Not only that, but this money must come from investors with a record of repeated investment successes. Some policy advocates worry that there simply will not be enough reputable investors able to provide that level of funding. Moreover, even if some investors can fulfill the requirement, they may not all have the necessary experience to satisfy the rule.

The rule may help to keep entrepreneurial talent in the U.S., but will do little to attract new recruits. The applicant pool may be limited by the requirements that the company must be U.S.-founded and that the applicant have a significant role in the company. Because of these specifications, applicants must be individuals who are already in the U.S. Nonetheless, this rule may help international students at U.S. universities who are unable to acquire H-1B visas.

There is also an issue of time — entrepreneurs only have five years, maximum. The high levels of investment required for initial application and renewal may put strain on startups. TechCrunch puts the average time of an “IPO-track startup” at about seven years, although it can take up to ten years. Given this information, the parole periods may not be long enough to positively impact startups.

Ultimately, potential investors may view the startup visa as an undesirable risk. Investors will be aware of the possibility that a company, or at least its key members, could lose immigration status.

Lastly, it is unclear whether the Trump Administration will alter the details of the rule. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman informed CNN on January 23 that the DHS is still awaiting guidance on how President Trump’s executive order freezing new and pending regulations will impact the International Entrepreneur Rule’s implementation.

Learning from Other Countries

The U.S. is not the first to propose a visa for startup entrepreneurs. Many other countries have established their own processes for admitting international entrepreneurs, including the United Kingdom, Canada and France.

The U.K. allows individuals wishing to set up or take over a business within its borders to apply for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneurship) Visa which can be extended before they can apply for settlement or an indefinite leave to remain. The U.K.’s financial requirements for applicants are also more flexible than the U.S. requirements in sources and amounts of funding. The U.K. startup visa does not require that applicants start the business themselves. Instead, intention of starting a new business, taking over one or providing significant funding is enough.

Canada seeks to attract innovative talent by tying them to government-approved Canadian entities with a goal of facilitating long-term success. The Canadian Start-Up Visa Program focuses on the creation of new startups. Applicants must obtain at least one letter of support that details funding from a list of designated organizations. This includes venture capital funds, angel investor groups and business incubators.

France launched its French Tech Visa in 2016 to complement the “French Tech Ticket” program it began in 2015. The French Tech Ticket program selects 70 international entrepreneur teams and provides funding and support with a French incubator for a year. The French Tech Visa expands this program to attract foreign startup founders, exceptional talent, investors and angels by offering renewable visas.

The U.S. could look into incorporating aspects of these programs to compete for the top foreign entrepreneurs. For example, the entrepreneurs can only renew this visa once; perhaps lawmakers could extend its duration or allow additional renewals. The U.S. could also aid the integration of accepted businesses into the startup and tech communities. These changes, however, would be dependent on President Trump’s immigration policy.

Conclusion

Eligibility requirements of the International Entrepreneur Rule are rigorous, and the time period allotted by the visa is short. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed startup visa would have little, if any, economic impact. Moreover, if President Trump repeals the order, there may be little hope for a truly meaningful startup visa. While Trump vows to “establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first,” his exact plans for reforming H-1B visas, including the possibility of a startup visa, are unclear.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Entrepreneurship Weekly Roundup: 1/27/2017

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:

The Right to Entrepreneurship

Tay Jacobe, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

This week, McNair’s Jacobe focuses on the link between entrepreneurship and human rights. While the intersection between activism and entrepreneurship has yet to gain significant traction in the U.S., international collaborations between the two sectors have found success. Jacobe points out that “Human rights and entrepreneurship have the ability to reinforce one another,” citing reports from Fordham University and Pontifical Catholic University of Peru on the potential of human development-centered entrepreneurial ventures. According to Jacobe, U.S policy should reflect a balance that advances entrepreneurship and promotes protection of human rights.

Prairie meets CES: Top 10 trends to watch in 2017

Keith Fix, Contributor, Silicon Prairie News

The annual Consumer Electronic Show (CES) took place earlier this month in Las Vegas. Silicon Prairie’s Fix shares his 2017 predictions for major trends to shake consumer technology, and artificial intelligence, smart homes, intelligent systems (Amazon Echo), wearables, self driving cars, virtual reality, and drones are among his top picks. Fix expects the industry to experience further fragmentation and democratization as startups continue to develop new technologies in order to keep pace with consumer expectations.

In a tech-saturated world, customer feedback is everything

Jeremy Bailey, Contributor, TechCrunch

TechCrunch’s Bailey emphasizes the importance of gauging customer feedback throughout the design process in the tech industry. Too often, design teams undervalue the power of customer interactions. As evidence, Bailey cites AirBnB’s notorious success in growing its consumer base by 200% after meeting for one afternoon with its early users. In order to achieve a dynamic and responsive design model, companies should restructure their “internal bureaucracy” and adopt a “customer-centric” mindset. Bailey suggests that design teams take a simple approach: development of a problem statement, collaborative hypothesis-generation, and constant reevaluation.

Most Small Businesses Create Fewer Than One New Job a Year, Study Finds

Ruth Simon, Senior Special Writer, The Wall Street Journal

According to a recent study from JPMorgan Chase & Co. Institute that spanned the payroll records of 45,000 small business in 2015, small business hiring has been sluggish and inconsistent. In fact, the sector’s median level of employment growth sits at less than one new full time position per year. Although small businesses are often considered the crucial driver of the American economy, most do not expand. While small businesses employ 17% of America’s labor share, 89% employ fewer than 20 workers. Professor Scott Stern, who studies entrepreneurship at MIT, explains that the “belief that entrepreneurship in general is a driver of economic growth and prosperity” might be misguided.

How to Find and Start Your Next Entrepreneurial Effort

Nathan Resnick, Contributor, Entrepreneur

Nathan Resnick, founder of Sourcify, a startup based in Tel Aviv that helps connect entrepreneurs with trusted manufacturers, offers helpful advice for millennial entrepreneurs who are considering their next venture. Resnick advises entrepreneurs to consistently gauge audience feedback during early planning stages as audience responses help narrow the focus of a project.  Resnick emphasizes the importance of an entrepreneur’s willingness to acquire new skills and embrace market competition.

Fintech Companies Could Give Billions of People More Banking Options

Jake Kendall, Author, Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review’s Kendall is the director of Digital Financial Services Lab, an early stage incubator that supports entrepreneurs who launch fintech startups in developing companies. Financial technology, or fintech, refers to the high-tech industry involved in computer software development of innovative financial services, such as digital banking programs. Despite investment into fintech increasing eight-fold since 2011, its benefits have largely been restricted to mature economies.

Kendall identifies three main challenges that fintech startups operating in developing countries must overcome: “lack of cloud infrastructure, users who are “less digital” than rich-world users, and users who live economically chaotic lives based primarily in the informal sector.” Still, many entrepreneurs are launching fintech startups to support the 2 billion customers living in regions without formal banking services. Plus, an increasing global trend of mobile phone ownership serves as a promising platform for fintech startups.

3 charts that show the effect of venture fundraising on founder ownership

Adley Bowden, VP of Market Analysis, PitchBook

PitchBook released an article illustrating the diluting effects of venture fundraising on founder ownership. The data used in the graphic analysis are taken from the results of a survey conducted by J.Thelander Consulting’s of 380 private venture-backed companies in the US. Although capital raises are a critical and necessary component of any startup’s success, PitchBook’s Bowden emphasizes that founders should understand the diluting effects of venture fundraising on their equity percentages. According to Bowden, “If all goes well and the company’s value increases, this is a win-win situation, but in the case that things don’t go well, the economics can turn against founders fairly quickly.” The article includes three charts that track founders’ shares in their companies – distinguishing between biotech, medical device, and tech industries – through various funding stages. At pre IPO, all three industries reveal founder ownership percentages below 10%.

15 charts that illustrate how the US venture industry looked in 2016

Kyle Stanford, Analyst, PitchBook

PitchBook also recently released an article that depicts the state of venture capital in 2016. The article features 15 charts of the key performance indicators that are frequently used in measuring VC activity. Utilizing standard industry metrics, PitchBook’s full report offers an in-depth analysis of VC-backed firms in the U.S, including graphics on angel and seed funding, fundraising by quarter, VC-backed exits, and corporate VC participation.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Addressing the True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, many researchers have debated its contribution to the transfer of technology from universities to industry. Some credit the act as an engine of economic growth responsible for the emergence of the biotechnology industry. Critics say that the law decreased data sharing and basic research and increased health care costs. Others think that the act had little impact and that changes in university patenting were inevitable.

University patenting would have increased regardless of the Bayh-Dole Act. However, the act did help universities license patents, creating positive economic benefits especially in the biotechnology industry.

Background

The Bayh-Dole Act was intended to improve the commercialization of federally funded research.

Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.
Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.

Before 1980, only 5% of government-owned patents were ever utilized in industry. Corporations found it difficult, risky or unappealing to receive licenses for government patents. Several government agencies did not want to give up ownership of patents to universities or corporations. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation tended to give nonexclusive licenses to anyone, unappealing for companies. As it was easy for any company to procure licenses, the system did not incentivize companies to purchase licenses; most wanted exclusive rights.

The Bayh-Dole Act enabled institutions to keep control of patents invented using federally funded research. The university or business could then grant licenses on its own terms. The act also required universities or businesses to have clear patent policies and encourage development of inventions.

Did the Bill Work?

Claims that the Bayh-Dole Act alone led to increased patenting and economic activity surrounding university patenting are not true. Economic models show that the acceleration of patenting would still have occurred even without the act. David Mowery finds that universities increased their shares of patenting from 0.3% in 1963 to 4% by 1999. However, he notes that this increase had already begun before 1980, which indicates that the Bayh-Dole Act was not its cause.

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, more than 5,000 new companies have formed from federally funded university research. In 2008, more than 600 new university products were introduced to the marketplace. According to MIT, about 30 billion dollars of economic activity per year and 250,000 jobs can be attributed to technology born in academic institutions.

The Bayh-Dole Act may not have been the only contributor, but these large numbers show the importance of university innovation to the economy and make it clear that innovation spurring legislature can have enormous positive effects on economic growth.

Creation of the Biotechnology Industry

From the 1968-1970 period to the 1978-1980 period, biomedical university patents increased by 295%. Biomedicine, an important part of biotechnology, was therefore growing rapidly before the introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act. Most likely increased funding in the field, advances in science and emergence industry interest also played major roles in the growth of university patenting in this area.

The Bayh-Dole Act likely contributed to increased licensing of university biotechnology patents. The ability of universities to license patents created strong incentives for many scientist-entrepreneurs to form companies around their inventions. At least 50% of current biotech companies began as a result of a university license. Additionally, 76% of biotechnology companies have at least one license from a university.

These license based biotech companies have made huge impacts on the economy. University licensing of biotechnology patents generated more than $40 billion in economic activity in 1999. According to Boston University, biotechnology companies represented over 1.42 million jobs in 2008, and the bioscience sector as a whole represents an employment impact of 8 million jobs. By 2009, 1,699 biotech firms generated annual sales of $48.2 billion.

Addressing Criticisms

Critics of the Bayh-Dole Act cite the decrease of data sharing, higher health care costs and a shift away from fundamental research as flaws of the law.

Because researchers patent new inventions, they might tie up research data in patent rights. This could prevent other researchers from accessing this data, slowing the research process. An article by Neil Thompson and others suggest that this isn’t true in practice. They find no evidence that licensing of academic patents limits the sharing of research data. However, their work leaves open whether licenses on research tools lead to restrictions on continual research in a subject.

Many also argue that health care costs have increased as a result of the Act. Biomedical university patents often can be utilized in the process of drug creation. As these discoveries are not final products, companies must license each patent that they use to create a drug. The cost of licensing many of these patents allegedly drives up the cost of the final product, hurting the consumer. The NIH and USPTO have created guidelines to prevent the unreasonable licensing of biomedical patents. However, these guidelines are not all concrete.

While this “royalty stacking” may contribute to high prices, it is unfair to blame the costs solely on the Bayh-Dole Act. Drug development includes a multitude of phases with high costs that extend beyond patents at each step. Many drugs could also not have been developed without the help of the patented technologies.

Finally, others point out that applied research generates more money from patenting. They argue that the Bayh-Dole Act therefore incentivizes universities to focus on applied research instead of basic research. This too is not true. According to the National Science Foundation, the percentage of basic science research from 1980 to 2001 increased from 66.6% to 74.1%. Applied researched actually decreased from 33.4% to 25.9%.

Conclusion

The Bayh-Dole Act was not the sole factor in the increase of university patenting. However, it does appear to have played an important role in the licensing of university patents, particularly in the biotechnology industry.

The biotechnology is sector is large and growing. In 1980, it was almost nonexistent. By 2009, the sales of just 1,699 biotech firms were worth more than 2.5% of U.S. GDP. Academic intellectual property provides the crucial foundation for this sector. Further incentivizes for university patenting and its licensing could therefore drive yet more economic growth.

In addition, the government could encourage the use of unlicensed academic patents by offering tax breaks to companies who commercialize them. It could also encourage universities that excel at technology transfer such as Stanford or MIT to share best practices to other universities.

Categories
McNair Center Small Business Women

Startups of the Season

While the holiday season approaches, educational toys are in high demand. Some of the most innovative new toys are produced by startups. For many of these toys, they began with an entrepreneur who saw a need to integrate play and learning.

According to the most recent statistics, the United States toy market is worth $21.18 billion. In 2015, the industry surpassed growth expectations, which is especially impressive when compared to the overall retail industry, which grew 0.7 percent less than expected. The toy industry’s prosperity is drawing in entrepreneurs who are enticed by potential for high earnings. Although there are many start-up-developed toys on the market, here are some that have received waves of public support.

Robot Turtles

In 2013, father Dan Shapiro decided to teach his four-year-old twins how to program. Improvising, he created a game using printed pictures from his computer, which led to the creation of Robot Turtles, a board game designed to teach preschoolers how to program. After noticing how much his children enjoyed the game, Shapiro took time away from his job at Google to develop the game full-time.

Robot Turtles utilizes kid-friendly challenges and elements that teach the fundamentals of computer programming while kids play. Children do not even need to be able to read.

After the idea was ready, Shapiro took the idea to Kickstarter, an online community that funds creative ideas. The site connects creators to backers who can provide funds to get a project off the ground. With Robot Turtles, Shapiro set a funding goal of $25,000 so that he could produce his first set of games. Support was incredibly strong, meeting this goal 5 hours after being released. In the funding period of 24 days in September 2013, Robot Turtles managed to draw in 13,765 backers. The most-backed board game in Kickstarter history, Robot Turtles raised a whopping $631,260 in that short period.

By August 2014, Robot Turtles was in every Target store in America. Now, Robot Turtles continues to thrive. An interactive eBook, coloring sheets, and other add-ons were developed to supplement the game.

Roominate

When Alice Brooks and Bettina Chen began their master’s program in engineering at Stanford University, they were two of the few women within their program.

In response to this gender gap, Chen and Brooks partnered up to create Roominate, a building toy designed for girls. Roominate sets include many modular and mechanical pieces that allow girls to explore their interests in design and engineering through play.

Roominate began on Kickstarter in 2012, raising $85,964. The project page highlighted their goal with bold lettering, “We believe that early exposure to STEM through toys will inspire change.”

Later, the product was also featured on Shark Tank, an ABC show where inventors pitch their ideas to successful investors in order to get funding, in September 2014. In the episode, investors Mark Cuban and Lori Greiner decided to partner with the organization.

After a few years with successful growth, Chen and Brooks took back to KickStarter in 2015 to fund development of a new product line for Roominate, “rPower,” featuring new modular wire pieces. This addition makes building and using the circuits easier for children. The Kickstarter campaign was extremely successful, raising over $50,000.

Roominate has grown quickly and is now found in over 5,000 retail locations around the world.

PopUp Play

Argash, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austin_Evening.jpg
Home to PopUp Play, Austin is growing as a startup hub in the United States.

Home to PopUp Play, Austin is growing as a start-up hub in the United States.Not surprisingly, innovative Educational Toy start-ups can also be found in Texas. In Austin, married couple Bryan Thomas and Amelia Cosgrove have found a niche in harnessing children’s creativity.

PopUp play utilizes an iPad app to let children design the play fort of their dreams. The company then produces an assemblable fort out of corrugated fiberboard and delivers it in as little as a week. There are also plans to expand the iPad app so it can be used to supplement the play experience once the fort has been assembled. For example, the company is looking to develop a Submarine fort template along with a virtual periscope on the app to search the imaginary seas.

Like Robot Turtles and Roominate, PopUp Play found its start on Kickstarter. During a 32-day period beginning in May 2015, 135 backers provided $25,676 to help make PopUp Play a reality.

But that was just getting started. The team then began working with Capital Factory, a collaborative workspace and Accelerator Austin, Texas. They later also found allies in Techstars, an Austin Accelerator where they participated in a three-month mentorship program.

Since then, they have received waves of recognition, including being named one of the top 50 Best New Apps for Kids by Apple in 2015 and an American Airlines Innovator in June 2016. The company also won the top prize in its category in the South by Southwest Accelerator Competition in March 2016. This demonstrates that there is large potential for success. PopUp Play is also supported by high-profile investors, including Capital Factory, Silverton Partners, Floodgate, and Techstars.

Supporting Startups for the Holidays

Entrepreneurs tend to be passionate about their products and creative in how they make them a reality. Parents who are hoping to find fun, educational toys for their children can look to startups to find some of the most creative, innovative products on the market.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Keep Austin Entrepreneurial

Austin, Texas

Ranked number one for startup activity in the last two years by the Kauffman Foundation, Austin, Texas is one of the strongest emerging entrepreneurship ecosystems in the United States. Austin’s history of entrepreneurship and supportive government has facilitated Austin’s emergence as an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Austin’s History of Entrepreneurship

During the 1970s and 1980s, Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem focused on computer and semiconductor manufacturing. Efforts by the Austin Chamber of Commerce, such as low mortgage rates for relocating staff and tax incentives, fueled the move of several major companies to Austin: IBM in 1967, Texas Instruments in 1969 and Motorola in 1974. A doubling in student attendance at the University of Texas in the early 1970s increased the educated workforce in the region.

The selection of Austin as the home of the Microelectronic Computer Corporation (MCC) in 1982 accelerated this concentration of high-tech companies. Facing fierce competition from Japan’s Fifth Generation Project, major U.S. companies banded together and created MCC, one of the largest computer research companies at the time. MCC chose Austin instead of Silicon Valley and Route 128 because the University of Texas offered MCC a subsidized lease and the Chamber of Commerce facilitated low-cost loans and reduced mortgage rates for staff moving to Austin.

Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas

Initially, the Austin ecosystem was primarily large businesses, such as IBM and Texas Instruments. This focus changed after the oil slump and savings and loan crises of the late 1980s and early 1990s crippled the Texas economy. Austin was not spared. It had one of the highest commercial real estate vacancy rates in the country and companies laid off large numbers of employees.

In response, the University of Texas formed the Austin Technology Incubator (ATI) in 1989 to jumpstart the local economy through high-tech startups with high-growth potential. In 1989, Greg Kozmetsky, the brain behind ATI, founded Austin’s first angel network, the Capital Network. These initiatives provided a foundation for growth during the 1990s dot-com boom. Austin companies such as Garden.com, an online gardening shop that raised $50 million in venture capital, and DrKoop.com, an “Internet-based consumer health-care network,” that was worth more than $1 billion, found success in Austin.

In 2000, thirty Austin venture capitalists invested over $2 billion in entrepreneurship ventures. The subsequent burst of the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s hurt Austin. After the 2001-2003 economic downturn, the region experienced major industrial restructuring and a renewal of entrepreneurship.

In 2003, the business community raised $11 million for Opportunity Austin, an economic development program. Opportunity Austin focused on recruiting new businesses, marketing Austin effectively and stimulating entrepreneurship and emerging technology sectors.

Less than five years after the last economic downturn, the Great Recession of 2008 set back many new Austin businesses. While venture capital and small business creation are not at the level they were during the dot-com boom, the rate of startup growth is currently 81.23 percent.

Entrepreneurship in Austin Now

Austin is experiencing yet another entrepreneurship boom. Austin now has the supportive policy structure, mentors and sector diversification required to finally establish a lasting ecosystem.

Austin’s cultural support of local businesses and responsive state and local government policies are fueling its start-up growth. The absence of state income tax incentivizes young professionals to work and settle in Texas. The local Austin government provides services for people considering starting a business such as BizAid Business Orientation and Small Business Program. The Entrepreneur Center of Austin and the Indus Entrepreneurs of Austin specifically provide support for start-ups. The University of Texas’ Herb Kelleher Center for Entrepreneurship, Growth and Renewal connects Austin entrepreneurs with resources.

As a result of Austin’s strong history of entrepreneurship, mentorship opportunities for nascent entrepreneurs are readily available. Austin companies, such as Dell, offer mentorship and accelerator programs. Entrepreneurial hubs, such as Tech Ranch Austin and Capital Factory, serve as an intersection between Austin incubators, accelerators, coworking spaces and also offer mentorship programs for entrepreneurs.

While known as “Silicon Hills,” Austin’s entrepreneurship economy is much more diversified than the computer chip and semiconductor industry that first enabled its growth. According to a 2015 Austin Technology Council report, approximately 14 percent of the $22.3 billion value of Austin’s tech companies came from semiconductors. Computer and peripheral equipment contributed 31 percent. Both Austin-born and transplanted companies focus on the bioscience, energy, clean-technology, water and IT/wireless industries. Austin has an extremely strong tech-focused entrepreneurship industry, but it also has successful media, education and social and craft/lifestyle ventures.

Venture Capital in Texas and Austin

Texas’ venture capital investment has decreased by 19 percent over the past ten years. To maintain a healthy entrepreneurship ecosystem, it is imperative that venture capital investment increases in the coming years.

Austin’s ecosystem lacks capital. In 2014, Austin saw 99 venture capital deals worth $739 million. In contrast, Silicon Valley saw 1,333 deals worth more than $27 billion. While there is no shortage of capital in Texas, there is a lack of capital access, information and government support. The majority of Texas capital is invested in oil, gas and real estate. These are considered by many to be less risky than entrepreneurship ventures. However, as oil prices fall, Texans should consider trying to raise growth and investing in entrepreneurial ventures.

Austin’s most prominent venture capital fund, Austin Ventures, closed in 2015. Phil Siegel and David Lack left to form Tritium Partners to provide capital for startups in Austin. Its first fund of $309 million is a fraction of the $900 million Austin Ventures raised at its peak. Silverton Partners and S3 Ventures have tried to fill the void left by Austin Ventures. However, none of these Austin venture capital funds have the capital or assets that Austin Ventures had.

Entrepreneurial Resources in Austin

Austin has a plethora of resources for entrepreneurs. The annual South by Southwest Festival provides networking opportunities. Companies are taking advantage of the 100,000 college students that graduate each year in the greater Austin area. The University of Texas at Austin boasts the Austin Technology Incubator under the IC² Institute, which has raised almost $700 million in investor capital to achieve this goal. Additionally, the Central Texas Angel Network provides capital and mentorship support for entrepreneurs in the Central Texas region.

What Starts in Austin, Changes the World

Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is moving towards national recognition. Favor, a food delivery app, is an alumni of ATI and backed by Austin’s S3 Ventures and Silverton Partners. HomeAway, an Austin based online rental marketplace, was established in 2005 and acquired by Expedia for $3.9 billion in 2015. In the upcoming years, it is critical that capital investment continues to support new ventures such as Favor and HomeAway. Austin’s ecosystem has the policy, talent and mentorship to be successful, but private and public efforts must continue to ensure its success.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Obama in the White House

Generating an Innovation Nation

The Obama administration’s policies toward small business and entrepreneurship have received mixed reactions. While Obama elevated the administrator of the Small Business Administration to a cabinet position and the SBA increased its lending to small businesses, some small business owners felt that the government bailed out big businesses at their expense after the 2008 financial crisis. Many small business owners are concerned about the effects of the Affordable Care Act.

Over the course of his presidency, Obama has played a part in connecting innovation with government. During his first term, he created the positions of Chief Technology Officer, Chief Data Scientist and Chief Performance Officer. In 2012, he began selecting entrepreneurs to work as Presidential Innovation Fellows within the federal government to make government more efficient, impactful and user-friendly.

Inspired by startups and music

Austin’s South by Southwest music and media festival inspired President Obama’s latest innovation project South by South Lawn (SXSL). Last month, the Obama administration invited community change-makers nominated by the public to attend SXSL. Innovators gathered at the White House to discuss how they use technology to advance areas like technology, food, art and collaboration.

On the technology panel “Fixing Real Problems,” innovators like Chris Redlitz (founding partner of Transmedia Capital and founder of The Last Mile), Jukay Hsu (founder of Coalition for Queens) and Nina Tandon (founder of EpiBone) addressed societal issues, including criminal justice reform, health care costs, access to higher education and job opportunities. Panelists emphasized the importance of understanding the impact of company growth on surrounding communities when planning for future endeavors. They emphasized the importance of creating inclusive access to the new opportunities brought about by societal transformation and technological change.

Focus on social entrepreneurship

With the Access Code program at Coalition for Queens, Jukay Hsu aims to increase economic opportunities in Queens. The program allows populations usually underrepresented in the technology field, like women and minorities, to gain the skills needed to enter the field. There are no upfront costs, but graduates of the program are expected to “pay it forward” by committing a percentage of their first two year’s salary toward funding future Access Code cohorts.

Chris Redlitz created The Last Mile in 2008 in an effort to reduce recidivism rates. For successful criminal justice reform, inmates need the skills to readjust to the outside world. To meet this need, the Last Mile started a six-month program for inmates to develop companies and pitch their ideas to the business community. In 2014, Redlitz created the first computer coding program in a United States prison, teaching HTML, JavaScript, CSS and Python.

Nod to for-profit entrepreneurship

At EpiBone, Nina Tandon provides patient-specific, customized bone grafts created from the patient’s own stem cells. Through this personalization of treatment, she aims to simplify procedures, provide more exact care and reduce the costs of post-surgery treatments. Each year, over 100,000 patients have bone-related surgeries in the United States alone. EpiBone could potentially increase access to these necessary operations through reducing costs and rehabilitation times.

Bringing innovation within government

Obama invited technology executives to join him in Washington to spearhead innovation in government. Former Google executive Megan Smith now serves as the United States Chief Technology Officer. Microsoft executive Kurt DelBene took a leave of absence in 2013 to help fix the problems with HealthCare.gov.

At SXSL, Presidential Innovation Fellows shared their projects to improve government efficiency at the “Startup in the White House” exhibit. Jacqueline Kazil’s GeoQ crowdsources geo-tagged photos to quicken disaster response. With the Green Button Initiative, John Teeter aims to help Americans understand and improve their energy use. The innovation company 18F has been developing NotAlone.Gov to provide students and schools with access to resources against sexual assault. Visitors saw how design and technology could potentially modernize the immigration system, improve veterans’ access to benefits and increase cancer patients’ access to clinical trials.

The first SXSL – and the last?

Although technology will not cure all of society’s ills, it has the potential to improve lives more quickly than any government institution could. Continuing initiatives that focus on creative solutions leads to a more widespread awareness of this potential. The federal government should focus on technology and innovation as integral contributors of growth.

Obama used SXSL to show innovation’s potential in policy solutions. Unfortunately, he made no mention of policy toward small businesses, particularly for-profit enterprises. Events like SXSL must also focus on policy that accelerates for-profit entrepreneurship that aid U.S. economy growth. There was no mention of how the federal government would incentivize entrepreneurship to strengthen the U.S. economy and maintain competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Whether through another South by South Lawn or the inclusion of innovators in policy solutions, the Trump administration should seek to make government more inclusive, transparent and effective. However, simply embracing startup culture and bringing entrepreneurs into government is far from enough. For entrepreneurship to play its full role, the U.S. needs policies that will actually help small businesses, not hinder. Only then will small enterprises and startups be able to take their place as drivers of economic growth.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Innovation Weekly Roundup: 11/11/16

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 innovation this week:

Silicon Valley Reels in Wake of Trump’s Presidential Victory

Joshua Brustein and Eric Newcomer, Bloomberg

Silicon Valley tech giants became unlikely political players in this election cycle. The results of the election leave the Valley in an uncertain position. Clinton received 114 times the amount of campaign contributions than Trump from the tech industry, so it should come as no surprise that a Trump presidency was not the industry’s favored outcome. The immediate threat to tech companies with the election of Donald Trump is the possibility of stringent immigration restrictions. Restrictions on immigration make it difficult for high skilled employees to work in the US. Furthermore, Trump’s lack of a clear plan for technology and the tech sector has left the industry in a state of limbo.

Election Day’s Tech-Related Triumphs — and Failures

Jamie Condliffe, MIT Tech Review

Many ballot initiatives on Tuesday were tech-related. Florida voted against an initiative that would have forced those with solar installations to give up payments for energy they feed back into the grid. The outcome will promote the expansion of home solar. Nevada voted to deregulate its electrical market. In transportation innovation, Seattle approved a $54 billion project to develop 62 miles of light rail and 37 new rail stations. Washington state rejected the first carbon tax in the US, partly over concerns that it failed to raise enough revenue for clean energy projects. Montana voted against a proposal to establish and allocate $20 million to the Montana Biomedical Research Authority.

How the tech industry is reacting to Donald Trump’s improbable victory

Paul Sawers, Contributor, VentureBeat

While Trump has been outspoken on economic reform, he largely did not address the the technology industry. While Paypal Founder Peter Thiel supported Trump throughout his candidacy, the majority of tech entrepreneurs expressed dismay over the possibility of Trump presidency. VentureBeat’s Sawers includes several Tuesday night tweets from tech industry leaders on the outcome of the election.

Results of the Clarity of the Record Pilot

Michelle K. Lee, USPTO Director & Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

USPTO completed its Clarity of the Record Pilot, a program within the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. The Clarity of the Record Pilot enhances patent quality by identifying best practices for clarifying aspects of the prosecution record.

68 unique data points were measured, and each point represents a best practice. Examples of best practices include separately addressing independent claims or providing specific limitations in claims that are anticipated by prior reference when used to reject multiple claims. During the pilot, examiners used 14 percent more best practices in pilot cases as opposed to a control group.

The USPTO will be holding a Patent Quality Conference on December 13 to share more information on the Enhancing Patent Quality Initiative.

Women in STEM: Closing the Gap

Taylor Jacobe, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

McNair’s Taylor Jacobe focuses on the slow growth in women’s presence in STEM and innovation. Jacobe provides robust, global evidence of the economic benefits of integrating women into the workforce and encouraging girls to pursue careers in these fields.

The Obama administration has made efforts to introduce such initiatives, including work-life balance programs and speaking tours with successful women. However, much work remains in combating gender inequality in the workplace, especially within the STEM fields.

The solution to this inequity is neither simple nor obvious. Jacobe recommends a combination of policy changes aimed at eliminating cultural barriers for women and increasing education opportunities for girls.

Women represent 19.6% of the staff at the top 25 tech companies

Dean Takahashi, Contributor, VentureBeat

A recent study by hiring firm HiringSolved reveals that women constitute only 19.6 percent of staff at the top 25-tech companies. The study indicates a critical need for  integration of women into technology and innovation.

Many Silicon Valley tech giants have introduced measures to address the gender imbalance in their workforce. HiringSolved’s study relies on machine learning and artificial intelligence to sift through its databases of information on gender, ethnicity, and age. Although the firm’s methods are by no means foolproof, the results are telling.

Thank you to Meghana Gaur for contributing to this week’s innovation roundup.

Categories
McNair Center Women

Women in STEM: Closing the Gap

Economists around the world emphasize the benefits of integrating more women into the workforce. While we are seeing slow growth in women’s presence in many sectors, the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields at the core of innovation seem to be especially lacking in girl power.

In 2014, women comprised approximately 47 percent of the U.S. workforce. Within the innovation-focused STEM fields, women only account for about 19.5 percent. This underrepresentation of women is not only holding women back from success and achieving their full potential, but also preventing the U.S. economy from realizing the wide array of benefits which come from increasing women’s labor force participation.

Why We Need More Women in STEM

When women get involved in STEM fields, they are rewarded. Compared to similar women who are working in non-STEM fields, the salaries of women  in STEM are 33 percent higher. For men, the difference is only 25 percent. Not only are salaries higher, but the gender pay gap is also smaller. A 2011 U.S. Department of Commerce study found that the average gap is 21 percent in non-STEM jobs. For STEM jobs, this gap is only 14 percent.

Women aren’t the only ones who benefit. Companies that place an emphasis on gender equality and hiring women tend to see positive impacts on their productivity and success. For companies marketing to women, the Harvard Business Review has shown that having input from women improves their “likelihood of success” by 144 percent. Innovative firms, along with many traditional businesses, can benefit from having female perspectives to help reach female customers.

Gender diversity in the workplace also enhances creativity among workers. When researchers at the University of Maryland and Columbia University teamed up to study top leadership in Standard and Poor’s Composite 1500 list, they found that female representation in leadership positions is associated with a $42 million increase in average firm value. They also saw that companies which emphasized innovation received higher financial gains when women were in top management.

U.S. Initiatives to Empower STEM Women

The Obama Administration has made efforts to increase women’s involvement in STEM. In 2009, President Barack Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls, a team that coordinates U.S. policy, legislation, and programs to address the needs of women and girls.  The Council has made women’s involvement in STEM a particular priority. They have announced multiple initiatives, like Title IX protections for equal education, work-life balance programs, and speaking tours for successful women innovators. The administration also made efforts to eliminate the gender pay gap through the creation of an Equal Pay Task Force in 2010 and an executive order affecting federal contractors in 2014.

Obama Signs the Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls

These actions alone cannot address the full extent of gender inequality. However, they may improve the situation. Policies that encourage girls to explore their interest in STEM give girls the opportunity to develop passions in these fields. Once these passions become careers, flexible and non-discriminatory policies in the workplace can incentivize women to stay involved in STEM throughout their careers.

Women in STEM around the World

In North America and Western Europe, on average, only 32 percent of researchers, defined as “professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned,”  are women. Japan, one of the leading tech development nations, has a mere 15 percent. Surprisingly, Central Asia has the highest average proportion of women researchers, with 47 percent.

The United Kingdom ranks second in world scientific achie1512b16-women-in-science-interactive-map-researchers-un1-1vement, behind the United States. 35.7 percent of researchers in the UK are women. Within solely STEM fields, though, the proportion of women is even lower: only 14.4 percent. This trend is apparent across many of the nations with the highest investments and achievements in STEM.

Differences in gender norms affect incentives for women to enter these fields. In some regions, like India, women are expected to be caretakers and homemakers. Their participation in STEM, and the workforce in general, is therefore often very low. On the other end of the spectrum, there are certain areas in Asia where gender stereotypes regarding math and science are less prevalent. In these areas, STEM interest is greater among women than men.

Culture clearly has an effect on the proportion of women who get involved in STEM professions. A prevailing stereotype exists in American society that women are inferior to men in math and science. Although this stereotype has been proven untrue, societal beliefs and expectations can have an effect on women’s empowerment. Research by Claude M. Steele shows the effects of stereotypes on performance and self-perception. If we want to see a change in the proportion of women in STEM, we need to change our culture.

What is the Future for Women in STEM?

Remedying the gender gap in innovation fields is not a simple or quick process. It requires a combination of education for girls, policy changes that eliminate barriers for women workers, cultural changes, shifts in societal prioritization of gender equality, and much else besides. At the current progress rate, we are a long way from eliminating the gender gap. However, with concerted effort from policymakers, educators, and employers, there is hope for a fairer and more productive future.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Innovation Weekly Roundup: 11/04/2016

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 innovation this week:

Microsoft Puts Slack in Cross Hairs with New Office Chat App

Nick Wingfield, NY Times
Tech companies are moving in on Slack’s popular team-messaging market as Microsoft joins Facebook in taking on smaller players in this space. Microsoft’s size and distribution power is not enough to enter a new market. Their product must be innovative, not just another app in the Microsoft Office suite. Slack, in response, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times. They sarcastically congratulated Microsoft while also highlighting the innovations Slack has brought to numerous workplaces.

Microsoft’s current Office suite is just not keeping pace with the changing dynamics of the workplace, which require collaborative software. Slack, and other team messengers, enables multi-channel communication to organize discussion without relying on email. It is additionally fully searchable and allows a variety of app integrations. Team-messaging applications increase transparency and decentralize discussion. They are used at a variety of workplaces emphasizing collaboration (including here at the McNair Center).

AIA Patents – Approaching 50% of newly issued patents.

Dennis Crouch, Professor – University of Missouri School of Law

Crouch has created a chart showing the percentage of patents granted under the first-to-file provisions in the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA changed the patent application rules from first-to-invent to first-to-file. By the end of 2016, half of all new patents issued would have been filed under first-to-file rules.

Patents filed under the AIA are subject to post grant review (PGR). A third party successfully petitioning that at least one claim is unpatentable can initiate the PGR process. The purpose of PGR is to dispose of bad patents early in their life through the USPTO rather than the legal system. Petitions must be entered within 9 months of a patent being issued and a final decision of validity is made in less than a year.

Innovation Labs: 10 Defining Features

 Dr. Lidia Gryszkiewicz, World Economic Forum
 Dr. Tuukka Toivonen, University College London
 Dr. Ioanna Lykourentzou, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology

Innovation Labs are essential workspaces for collaborative innovation. However, innovation labs’ missions and features are often ill-defined. A simple “I know it when I see it” style definition is not sufficient. Three experts in social innovation have reviewed innovation labs around the world to determine what features are essential. A few key findings include innovation labs needing heterogeneous participants, focus on experimentation and an expectation of breakthrough solutions. Such distinctions can help guide new labs and promote innovation across a variety of industries and social areas.

Additionally, creating a definition for these labs helps distinguish them from other similar models like living lab and coworking spaces. In summary, the writers of this piece define an innovation lab as “a semi-autonomous organization that engages diverse participants—on a long-term basis—in open collaboration for the purpose of creating, elaborating and prototyping radical solutions to pre-identified systemic challenges.”