Monthly Archives: September 2014

Garbage In, Garbage Out: The Garbage Can Solutions Model

Posted on by
14

The children’s story “Alice in Wonderland clearly identifies the paradigm of the Garbage Can Solution model. When Alice meets the ever-elusive Cheshire Cat they have this conversation:

‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’

`That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.

`I don’t much care where–‘ said Alice.

`Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.

`–so long as I get SOMEWHERE,’ Alice added as an explanation.

`Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, `if you only walk long enough.’

The question is if SOMEWHERE is the right place.

“Entrepreneurship is […]a way of thinking that emphasizes opportunities over threats,” according to strategic thinkers such as Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud. The “somewhere” alluded to by Alice can be either threatening or opportunistic for an entrepreneur. It can also be both. The trick is to know the difference.

The “Garbage Can Model” is one tool that is often used by entrepreneurs. The garbage can model is one where all of the entrepreneur’s historical decisions and solutions are thrown into a metaphorical can. When a problem arises, the entrepreneur is able to reach into the can to find a solution to their current problem. We see this often with serial entrepreneurs who look to their past success to solve a different set of problems. This has also been referred to as the sophomore jinx.

Traditionally, the Garbage Can Solution model describes the accidental or random confluence of four streams. A number of academics believe that decision making occurs in a random meeting of: choices looking for problems, problems looking for choices, solutions looking for problems to answer and decision makers looking for something to decide.”

In fact, one well known academic questions the validity of this particular model when she asks, “Does the garbage can model describe actual decision making or is it simply a labeling of the unexplained variance of other, more powerful, descriptions of strategic decision making?”

Additionally, does the garbage can take into account our existing bias based decisions? If we fall back on choices that worked for us in the past, does that mean they will work for us today? Do we need to solely rely on what is currently in our leaders’ bag of tricks to creatively develop new ideas, solutions, or products?

In more establish organizations, famous social scientists Cyert & March tell us that “Exogenous, time dependent arrivals of choice opportunities, problems, solutions and decision makers” are thrown together so that any solution can be associated with any choice. Never a good way to approach decision-making. What they are alluding to is that solutions, problems are often thrown together from previous experience with the hope that the right problem hooks up with the right solution. With unlimited resources and time, this may result in relevant information.

However, is the time-constrained, resource scarce environment of the entrepreneur an appropriate place to utilize this model? This is exactly where entrepreneurs slip. In seeking repeatable processes, creativity is lost. All start-ups should look to the creative solution making process as much as possible.

The answer, as usual, is it depends. Although The Garbage Can Model is not a rational method of strategic thinking, there is significant research backing up this school of thought on decision-making. On first look, this is not a particularly creative approach, nor is it direct and focused on finding specific problems and solutions. By definition the Garbage Can model of decision-making assumes that nothing new is added. The only items in the can are what has already been done or considered. It is history rather than innovation that drives this approach.

However, the creative entrepreneur is not focused on what’s already in the garbage can, but rather what the entrepreneur could be doing to add to the can in order to make rational, novel, and strategic decisions. Unfortunately, for many entrepreneurs, the right solution never gets added to the mix of ideas, problems and solutions.

The best response for entrepreneurs is to find creative answers for their start-ups that are removed as much as possible from prior bias. In order to accomplish this, entrepreneurs must be exploratory and experiential, note boundary limits and consciously develop an environment where all parties involved in the project have a strong, relevant voice. This assures more team buy in to the project. Eliminate power plays and look for the important breaks in typical industry patterns.

So get out of the building, find customer data (however imperfect it may be) and go somewhere. Whether your team decides to dumpster dive or not, I will leave that up to you. However, you should be aware of the upside and limitations for utilizing this business model in your start-up.

A Meditation on Entrepreneurial Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Most of contemporary strategy literature is based on big company strategy. Larger companies focus their strategies on a cost based model because costs are within their realm of control. They almost never think about the revenue side of the equation. After all, one can control costs, but the customer controls your revenue. This is where entrepreneurial training differs, and provides a winning strategy.

If you think of strategy in terms of costs you can win only half the battle. A recent Harvard Business Review Article by Roger Martin, calls this The Big Lie of Strategic Planning. Martin clearly sees the entrepreneurial view, to focus on the sources of revenue, i.e., customers as the key element of strategy.

Henry Mintzberg called this differential—intended strategies versus emergent strategies. Entrepreneurs work in the emergent section, because they are very opportunistic about revenues. Good entrepreneurs learn quickly that you cannot control the future, but you can try to reduce the uncertainty in getting there. Strategists would call this the resource-based view of strategy.

Resource based strategy states that an organization should use the strongest competencies of a firm to determine a strategy. Entrepreneurs think about what they could be doing with the resources in hand in order to find the opportunities. The planning school holds the thought about what the organization “should be doing” corner of the spectrum rather than the “could be doing” corner. Other strategists might view this as the Blue Ocean strategy. Swim to where no one else is playing; find a niche where there is no competition. Entrepreneurial strategy might also fall into the Michael Porter School of Positioning strategy, which is very analytical.

For information of the various schools of strategy read Henry Mintzberg’s book Strategy Safari. Unfortunately, the entrepreneurial school has changed dramatically since the book was published and it shows less relevance for entrepreneurs. However, this book is recommended as a great summary on the various strategic schools of thought and it is still relevant today as a great primer on the major thought patterns in the strategy discipline.

A good strategy (or whatever term is used – mission statement, mantra, culture) communicates behavior to employees. This strategy communicates what decisions should be made and the boundary limits for what should be the focus of the organization.

Another way to determine and validate a strategy, entrepreneurs may prefer the VRIO framework as popularized by Jay Barney. Are you building something Valuable? Is it Rare? Can it be easily Imitated? And can your Organization implement on the concept?

Possibly, the most important considerations for a startup concern (1) whether a strategy is necessary, and (2) at what point does a strategy become necessary for an organization. Should every company act like entrepreneurs and be opportunistic? Early stage startups do not necessarily engage in long-term strategies. For them, it comes down to tactics and execution. Execution trumps all organizational strengths every time.

The bottom line is that entrepreneurs should talk to their customers. Entrepreneurs have a venture. A business is created when the product or service of the venture can reach at least twenty customers who will make a purchase at a price that provides sufficient margins. If the entrepreneur doesn’t have a product and a price then they don’t have a business…yet.

Convertible Notes or Price Valuation: A Question of Risk and Alignment of Interests

Posted on by
Reply

I am not a fan of convertible notes for entrepreneurs for a number of strategic issues. I also understand the reasons why convertible notes have become so popular with entrepreneurs and investors because of the simplicity of the closing. I believe series seed equity can close just as quickly and inexpensively as convertible notes.

For the uninitiated, convertible notes are debt instruments with an implied interest rate, maturity date and a convertible option to shares usually offered with a discount offered to the next pricing round. The intended purpose for investors is to avoid negotiating a valuation with the entrepreneur that might affect the follow- on round negotiated with the next group of investors. For entrepreneurs, convertible debt offers a faster option to close, and ergo cash in hand.

On the other hand, priced rounds offer each investor a price per share. Because of negotiation over valuation they can take longer to develop.

One of my favorite posts on why convertible notes are unfavorable to startups comes from Mark Suster. He offers significant details on the terms of the note and why they are not a good idea for entrepreneurs.

In addition to what Mark has written in detail, my take on this is much more strategic and focused on the alignment of interests between investors and entrepreneurs. First, by placing a maturity date on the convertible note, the entrepreneurs must strategically change their focus from company building to fundraising. Often the maturity date for the convertible note is set for approximately 18 months away. A better date for the entrepreneur would be 24 months, although sometimes they are set as low as 12 months, which is disastrous for the entrepreneur. Given the hunt for funds from new investors, due diligence and the negotiation of valuation—all of this activity can take time away from building and running a company.

The pro convertible funds side of the equation believes that that the time involved on a convertible round is much faster and settles quicker, ergo the whole purpose of a convertible note. My belief is that the function of the convertible note should not be necessary if the interests of the investor and the entrepreneur are strategically aligned.

In early stage companies, the best way to build a startup is through customer development and acquisition. What would an early stage investor prefer? Using their money toward the next fundraising round or focus on customer building? This leads to be an inherent conflict in strategy between the entrepreneur and investor on a convertible round. There is a specific imbedded date to obtain new funds. If that funding is not achieved by that date, the funds become a debt—and entrepreneurs sometimes need a longer runway to launch their companies.

The second issue regarding convertible notes revolves around the purpose of Angel investing. First or second sources of funding after the first formal funding round means to accept the significant risk involved with early stage technology financing. Angels understand that investing at this stage is inherently risky, and the reward is a significant uptick in pricing on subsequent rounds. Convertible notes are an attempt to hedge the risk by not pricing the financing round. Are the protections from down rounds or failures truly built into a note? Yes, a note may be higher in the pecking order of a fire sale in case of a failure. However, if a startup fails, what are the assets truly worth? If the round is not priced, the value cannot be determined easily.

What happens if the entrepreneur does not achieve the steps needed to get the next round of funding? The original Angel has a choice, put in a second round or let the company go broke. However, if the entrepreneur has been able to find another investor, the golden rule applies: “He who has the gold, rules.” The investor leading the next round may decide to offer to fund with the original note holders waiving a number of their protective rights.

Pricing a round allows the Angel to see the negotiating techniques of a founder and the founder to see how helpful an Angel is to the startup. They can begin to see whether their interests are truly aligned. Are both negotiating with the same sense of fairness and aligned interests? Why not have that difficult conversation about pricing, now? It shows the mettle of your CEO. It determines Angel alignment with company goals. If a valuation can’t be agreed upon fairly quickly then perhaps the deal should not have been done at all. Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures said it well, “Equity is simple and you own what you own.”

As an investor, I attempt to understand the upside risk and prefer a clear valuation. After all, this is my risk capital portfolio. I want my entrepreneur to focus on building the company by creating a sound customer base, so that the next round is a growth round, not another marketing round.