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.
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.
- The risk profile – not money – determines what innovation can be discovered. — Georges van Hoegaerden - September 16, 2014
- An outlier knows no precedent. — Georges van Hoegaerden - September 9, 2014
- Losing VC money is not our biggest problem - August 11, 2014
- The Long of Facebook - August 7, 2014
- ‘Innovation’ without renewable socioeconomic value is (government) sponsored bank-robbery of society. — Georges van Hoegaerden - August 7, 2014
- Freedom stripped of its paradox is no freedom at all. — Georges van Hoegaerden - July 25, 2014
- 15,000 views on The State of Venture Capital - July 23, 2014
- Triple Threat Founders - July 20, 2014
- If we want to inspire the world with our spiritual leadership, we must stop selling lies to unsuspecting greater-fools. And lead the world by example, with new rigors of excellence we first and successfully apply to ourselves. — Georges van Hoegaerden - July 19, 2014
- Has Venture Capital Changed? - July 15, 2014