Rapid Innovation Group blog

Challenged preconceptions

My initial thoughts on start-ups were that start-up companies are not supposed to work in a highly professional manner with clear cut out guidelines. They are not supposed to have standardized their actions which act as organisational boundaries, and their strategy is supposed to be short term with their direction determined mostly by their clients.

Having unintentionally approached the office like an ethnographer, my most major “breakdown” has been that I was clearly mistaken to think this way… The stereotypes engraved in my head about start-ups have definitely proven not to be the case here at Rapid Innovation Group. This week, I decided to expand on this and describe how my preconceptions were challenged here at RIG.

The level of professionalism at RIG has struck me from the start. People here are very committed to their work and the company as a whole. Such company citizenship is hard to come across when there are so many opportunities out there. When working for a 20,000+ employee industry leader, an opportunity lost is likely to affect one’s career for good. This I believe plays a big role in increased motivation along with competitive rivalry at work in such offices.

Conversely though, there is another type of motivation here at RIG; motivation to grow the business large hand-in-hand, without the competitive rivalry. This is evident at first glance. As a result, there seems to be no hidden information. Everybody is aware of what the other team members are doing and everybody is willing to chip in with their expertise to help the company close deals or provide best possible services.

Additionally, this quality is accentuated by the business tools used, the way in which everything is run and stored on a “cloud” drive and the way everybody is connected to each other’s computer. Presumably these are qualities very hard to establish in a mature firm. Day-to-day tasks are made very efficient and the company executes tasks very quickly thanks to this IT structure and standardized tools. Most importantly though, this quality seems to allow people to provide the highest possible standards in the smallest timeframe possible. In other words, Rapid Innovation Group plays up to its name. This is a quality that I found quite astonishing.

On a more individual note, i.e. about how I am trying to position myself here, I had expected to be able to bring a lot to the company through my previous design and engineering skills, work experience, university network, language skills, and general energy and stamina. Once again – 2^nd breakdown – I came to notice that the team formed here at RIG had pretty much nothing short of what I could provide.

So I have yet to prove something I am exceptionally good at! Although a worrying situation for me, I can see the brighter side of things here. Firstly it shows that I will be pushed to my limits in providing something exceptional for my standards. Secondly, with reference to the words of my old tennis coach: “the better your partner is, the more you improve.” I.e. the better my colleagues are, the more I will learn. So I think the next weeks are going to for a very steep learning curve for me.

To sum up my first expressions of RIG, I could say that people are strikingly professional, motivated and highly skilled, and I can be reassured that I will be pushed to my limits, if not further, to attain results… and since I like being challenged… “bring it on RIG!”

Reflections on preparation for internship at RIG and the first week

I saw no glimpse in the face of my ex-banking career advisor when I told him that I am going to choose Rapid Innovation Group over a multinational telecommunications firm. No wonder though… LSE’s “unique selling point” (a phrase I learnt this week) is that it has hundreds of corporate partners, and students lash out tens of thousands of pounds to increase their chances of getting a foot through the door of those large corporations. Hence the culture at LSE is based around who knows more people at the world’s largest banks and consultancies…not my ideal type of place since I have personal ambitions to see through projects from start till the end, and see a company grow as I put more effort in, and shrink when I shirk.

Through previous experiences and word of mouth, I came to discover that in the corporate world, it is often too easy to become a number and undertake a very standardised, “Tayloristic” task. RIG seemed to be an ideal place to get away from this alien environment, and take real responsibilities. So I ended up here at RIG, 200 meters down the road from my University.

With my ambition and entrepreneurial drive, I flew out from Istanbul, my home city, to London on Sunday. I was truly eager to start working at RIG. I had planned everything out to a tee. Typically though, everything went terribly wrong. My flight was severely delayed, my ears painfully blocked, and furthermore, when I woke up the Monday morning at 7:30am, I came to notice that I had lost my voice. Nonetheless with a boost of a double espresso and a Lemsip drink, I felt geared up and ready to enter my new office. The excitement suddenly made me forget everything, until I attempted to greet my new colleagues, where instead I loudly and pathetically squeaked.

Nevertheless things quickly picked up. I was briefed with three different projects within three hours of starting my work, none of which involved tea making or paper sorting. It was a pleasant surprise to discover how interns get thrown into important projects from Day One here. I already felt as if I had been a part of this team for many months. By Day Two, I quickly came to realise that a new task that I was given was not a task for an intern at a large consultancy, and it definitely would not be expected on the second day at work. The responsibilities so far have involved market and client research, sorting out contacts, evaluating potential clients, and extracting information about possible future clients. Working on such tasks within a small and friendly office environment, together with very professional, highly educated, and very skilled colleagues has thus far been highly stimulating.

When I think back of the expression on my career advisor’s face, I had my doubts about choosing to learn and gain more real business experience over a sound brand on my CV. However, I quickly came to realise that RIG will give me both of those attributes, a fantastic opportunity as well as a reputable brand on my CV that is likely to become more and more recognized in the future. I'm looking forward to the days ahead.

Can the UK become a global, digital hub following the Hargreaves report?

Imperial College's event entitled 'Can the UK become a global, digital hub?' last week brought together economists, private-sector lawyers, and business professors to debate the recommendations of the Hargreaves report, which looked at the impact of copyright in the UK.

Intellectual Property and copyright have been in the news in the UK recently following Prime Minister David Cameron's reference in a speech towards the end of last year:

"The founders of Google have said they could never have started their company in Britain…the service they provide depends on taking a snapshot of all the content on the internet at any one time and they feel our copyright system is not as friendly to this sort of innovation as it is in the United States"

Some of the Hargreaves report’s key points were that:

• the UK needs a digital copyright licensing system, in which nothing should be unusable because the rights owner cannot be found;


• this system needs to allow for some exceptions in copyright to encourage new technology businesses; and


• it needs to be reliable and affordable for smaller companies.

The main recommendation of the report was that the UK should establish a Digital Copyright Exchange, which is basically a marketplace for buying and selling licence rights and Intellectual Property, to streamline access to licensing rights. This Exchange is to be designed and implemented by the end of 2012.

One concern I have with this is that it will lead to a lot of very low quality patent filings.

If inventors and entrepreneurs have easier access to corporate money for their Intellectual Property through an exchange then it will seem a very tempting proposition to file for a patent quickly in the expectation that it will be sold to a Google or a Microsoft.

The alternative, which is investing the many years it takes to build a company, hire staff, take the product to market, and refine it over and over again until it’s genuinely innovative and valuable, by comparison, sounds like an awful lot of work.

But isn't this entrepreneurial growth and job-creation exactly what the UK economy needs for its "enterprise-led recovery"?

Is floating on the PLUS exchange a plausible option for tech entrepreneurs?

I attended Vitesse Media's PLUS-XS seminar last week entitled 'Turning ambition into growth.'

One of the discussions that stuck with me was led by Paul Rewrie of Metro Electric plc, the supplier and distributor of electric vehicles. He said that he initially "went down the venture capital route" but he felt that he wasn't able to "change direction" or "try to do anything significant like a Joint Venture or an acquisition" because his company's valuation would suffer under the threat of running out of cash.

Enter stage right the PLUS Exchange, a London-based stock exchange that provides cash and listing services: Metro Electric listed in July 2007 and later acquired Powabyke out of administration in December 2009. Rewrie commented that "being listed on PLUS gave us a lot more credibility for Powabyke's suppliers, so we were able to negociate good credit terms with them."

Vivienne Cassley of PLUS-SX argued that it gives entrepreneurs more flexibility than the London Stock Exchange's market for growth-stage companies, the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), for instance because PLUS allows convertibles and other financial instruments that are prohibited on AIM.

Rivington Street Corporate Finance's Eran Zucker also supported PLUS, saying:

• Growth-stage companies can get lost on AIM because investors gravitate towards the larger companies


• Investors have a more direct relationship with management teams on PLUS than on AIM


• Listing on PLUS costs less both in hiring advisors and on maintaining your listing (a PLUS Financial Advisor costs around £10-15k per year compared to £50-65k for AIM)


• Hiring a PR firm is not obligated on PLUS (although you do need to retain a news broadcaster)


• The management team has more independence on PLUS than on AIM because its Financial Advisor cannot suspend the company listing if her advice is not followed


• The reporting requirements are less onerous on PLUS than on AIM (for instance, audited interim reports are not required)

The reporting requirements for public listing on PLUS or on AIM represent a significant change from other common funding sources (debt, angel funding, venture capital, private equity). Even on the PLUS exchange management teams are required to report publicly on significant customer wins and - more painfully - significant customer losses, as well as fully-audited financial reports on an annual basis.

I'd be interested to hear from any other entrepreneurs who have floated on PLUS to get their thoughts on the practical differences in running a listed company compared to a VC-backed company.

Sourcing referrals - part 2

This is the second post on sourcing referrals. In the first I explained the importance of designing a referral process and laid out the structure we used in a recent workshop to elucidate one. In this post I will summarise the most pertinent points from this exercise, and explain what our resulting ‘referral process’ looked like.

1. What is required to make a referral work?

(a) You need to have credibility with the referrer

(b) Your referrer needs an appropriate network

(c) The referrer needs to have credibility with the prospect

(d) The prospect needs to be qualified

(e) The referrer needs to be able to articulate your proposition comfortably, easily, and compellingly to the prospect

(f) The referrer needs actually to get around to speaking to the prospect

2. For what reasons might you be reluctant to ask for a referral?

(a) You feel it looks desperate

(b) You don’t wish to put the referrer in an awkward position

3. How can these above points best be addressed?

(a) Timing – ask for referrals immediately after having delivered clear value to your client (addresses 1a)

(b) Research – map out your referrer’s network to identify the best prospects and how strong you believe their connection is to your referrer (addresses 1b, 1c and 1d and also 2a because you are only asking for a referral to a company to which - due to its current situation - you believe you can deliver a valuable service)

(c) Thoughtful approach – by structuring an offering specifically for the prospect (e.g. a review document / a relevant article / a seminar invitation) it makes it easy for your referrer to pass it on, it means they don’t mess up the proposition, and it means they will get around to doing it and won’t feel awkward because they will be adding immediate value to their contact (addresses 1e, 1f and 2b)

We then tied these points up to create a systematic and repeatable referral process:

1. Generate a universe of contacts you could approach as referrers


2. Create a ranked shortlist (using criteria such as the strength of your relationship with them, the quality of their network, etc.)


3. Map the network of each member of the shortlist to understand the prospects they could introduce you to (this in itself requires a systematic approach, for which I won’t go into detail here but should include desk-based research to look at: previous jobs, ex-colleagues and their new positions; professional networks; family, etc.)


4. Pick the optimum prospect from each referrer's network


5. Structure the optimum approach for each prospect


6. Ask for the referral


7. Thank your referrer and provide them with an update of the outcome

It should be noted that all of this is very straight forward. The key to winning more referrals is to bring the process in line with the rest of your marketing efforts by designing (and subsequently measuring the effectiveness of) a systematic approach. The above is simply an example of such an approach.

Should you push your company overseas?

I wrote a guest article for Boston-based VC firm OpenView Venture Partners' excellent OpenView Labs blog, on the topic of going international as a strategy for increasing revenues or reducing costs.

OpenView Venture Partners is a venture capital firm that typically invests $5-$15 million in companies that have $2-$20 million in annual sales.

The principal argument was that arti­fi­cially con­strain­ing your growth by choos­ing at first to focus exclu­sively on your domes­tic mar­ket can put you at a dis­ad­van­tage at a later date when you need to main­tain your early growth rate.

Read the full post here.