was successfully added to your cart.

Why VCs really need relevant operating experience, now

I keep getting questions from Limited Partners (LPs) and Journalists all over the world as to why and what relevant operating experience is needed to become a successful early stage investor or Venture Capitalists (VCs).

The easy answer is: well, if you are building a house you better know something about architecture, design and construction.

But the reason for the return of those questions is probably because I covered this topic before (see: “Why VCs need relevant operating experience“) and left the door open to less operationally savvy investors in a new world of investing. After all in a new free-market of innovation (see: “How to fix VC once and for all”) the merit of the investor, whatever that merit is composed of, defines the reputation of an effective marketplace participant.

If only we had arrived at that glorious point already.

Since we do not have a free-market of innovation today and Limited Partners are asking me for new fund selection criteria now, I give them the following reason as to why technology Venture Capital’s General Partners need relevant operational experience:


1) Venture investing requires different skills than Private Equity

Investing in early stage companies requires a solid understanding of how to turn a vision into a thriving business. As Geoffrey Moore pointed out in his book Crossing the Chasm, successful innovation requires from entrepreneurs an understanding of how to cross the chasm and I demand from VC an understanding of when and how to help entrepreneurs make them do so.

VC should make the appropriate assessments alongside the entrepreneur and support the transitions with appropriate funding levels in which selling to early adopters and visionaries turns into selling to a much larger demographic on the other side.

That means Venture Capitalists who claim value-add in their Private Placement Memorandum (PPM: the business-plan from VC to LP), better demonstrate that they know how to cross that chasm and better yet, can prove to Limited Partners that they themselves have done so successfully. Not at a time when turkeys could fly, but when the wind was blowing in the wrong direction.

VCs with only impressive corporate backgrounds very often fail to be aware and understand what it takes to cross the chasm. It is easier to have earned stripes on the right side of the chasm, than it is to have earned them from the left-to-right.

Private Equity investors spend their time on the right, successful Venture investing requires an understanding and experience from the left-to-right of the chasm.


2) Ecosystem performance defines company success

In a perfect world a startup would build a perfect product with support from the perfect investor that relies on the enthusiasm from satisfied users and their word-to-mouth to become successful.

The reality is that tip-toe funding combined with downside investment strategies the success of a company is dependent on many more attributes than merely product development, especially in subprime VC.

Limited funding forces companies to push out product early (many times too early) and relies on “decibel” marketing, business development, and customer support to compensate for product deficiencies in-market.

A great CEO is the ultimate orchestrator of the unique ecosystem of his company, one that requires continuous tuning to run like a well-oiled money-making machine. A Venture investor who drills deep into the performance of a company and make judgements on ecosystem parameters, should have knowledge of and experience in each of those ecosystem parameters and better, have been a CEO at an early stage companies having made such an ecosystem work against-all-odds.


Separate relevant from irrelevant experience
Thanks to the Internet, anyone can do the following exercise: go to a VC website and look at the relevant experience of the General Partners and hold them against the two criteria described above. The outcome will not surprise their performance.

A product manager at the GAP, a financial analyst in Hong Kong, a VP of Marketing in a large hardware company, a CEO at an IT consulting company, a large-cap consultant at Bain – all combined with impressive ivy league education makes for nice resumes in a PPM, but delivers no relevant credentials to lead the early stage innovation that our country can depend on.


My advice
Limited Partners should stop doing business with people who have never crossed the chasm and never operated as the CEO of an early stage companies having successfully managed its ecosystem. And entrepreneurs should thoroughly review the relevant operating experience of its prospective board member, before they take their money.

If we do not pay attention to these things, the technology sector is poised to become the next auto-industry: a business we invented but lose in the end. The time for change is now, if we want the technology sector to be in a better position in five years from now.


About Georges van Hoegaerden

After my ideas had raised $14M and returned over $100M to investors in Silicon Valley I could not help but detect a systemic flaw in the way we detect, build, fund and support systems of innovation. On an entrepreneurial quest to root-cause I evolved my focus from the economics of innovation to the innovation of economics, and ended up completely rewriting the playbook of economics that must guide us all. I named my invention Renewable Economics™.


  • JBH says:

    I have always felt the start-up advice provided by VC’s with zero “market cracking” entrepreneurial experience, especially a couple of “great fails”, have a great deal in common with the advice provided by Catholic Priest’s concerning couples sexuality :-)

  • Jason says:


    I am new to your blog and am intrigued by this topic. For some background, I’m the Founder of a startup in the clean-tech space with a PhD in Chemical Engineering. In addition to the obvious need for entrepreneurial experience among VCs, I feel we need more solid technical training among them as well.

    When I hear “uniform deployment of risk”, I think of a VC who can’t differentiate an idea that goes into an NSF proposal for a graduate student’s thesis from an idea whose science is proven (with quality publications to show for it), but is in need of some capital to show that a real product can emerge from the science.

    I think most VCs would paint those two ideas/technologies with the same brush, and therein lies a problem in my opinion.


    • Jason,

      Yes, a uniform deployment of risk to an asset class that requires the opposite is the problem. See my blog on What is Subprime Venture Capital. The economic model by which we deploy Venture Capital stimulates the deployment of uniform risk, so we cannot simply or only blame those who take the system for a ride for the demise of the opportunity of innovation.

      We need to build better economic systems that accurately assign value to those with merit, and kicks out those who don’t. In other words our economic systems need to be just as innovative as the innovation we are building. And we have quite a bit of backlog to bring our economic systems to the requirements of the world of today. I’ll be on it.

      Hope that helps.



Leave a Reply