ArchivePage 3 of 33

Aug10th2008

BarCamp Houston 2008: I Am Still Exhausted

The Schedule

If you did not get a chance to attend the happy hour at Caroline Collective Friday night or BarCamp Houston on Saturday at the Houston Technology Center, you missed out on two fantastic opportunities to socialize, collaborate and gain an education on why Forbes magazine calls Houston a, “bubbling entrepreneurial tech scene.” Here are some things that I walked away with after the event:

  • Never underestimate the value of strong sponsor support. Many of the sponsors for the weekend had a strong showing at the event through their financial support (C-TREC, BlogCatalog and BizTools), their attendance (Ryma, DFJ Mercury and TopSpot Internet Marketing) and their presentations (Spur Interactive’s Business and Social Media Workshop, BeagleBoard.org’s demo and Clearpoint Technology’s session). Our biggest debt of gratitude goes out to Marc Nathan (as well as his wife and family) and the Houston Technology Center for letting us take over both buildings for a day.
  • Bringing lunch in was the best idea I ever had. Last year, we all broke away for lunch and the event fizzled out after that. This year, we brought in Pappas BBQ and I believe it was a huge hit. Thanks to Ed Schipul for taking charge during feeding time to speed up the process. Most everyone was surprised that lunch was catered and it helped us recharge for the afternoon sessions.
  • Houston needs more events like this. Our early survey showed that over half of the early attendees had not been to a BarCamp before and left with a nice buzz. Based on several conversations throughout the day, I have already started coordinating two more BarCamp events for Houston: GreenBarCamp Houston and BioBarCamp Houston. If you are interested in being part of the planning for these events, sign up on the wikis. In addition, REBarCamp Houston is already scheduled.

If you want to read other perspectives of BarCamp Houston III, check out some of these attendees’ posts:

The photos that Michael Cummings took are available on his Flickr page.

BarCamp Houston Crew

Thanks to everyone for making this a great event.

Aug8th2008

Houston’s Dearth of Biotech Entrepreneurship

This post comes to us courtesy of Graham Randall, Ph.D., MBA, who has agreed to become a regular contributor to Startup Houston and will write on the topic of biotech, life sciences and entrepreneurship. Graham is a Ph.D. candidate in molecular biophysics at Baylor College of Medicine where he was a fellow of the W.M. Keck Center for Computational Biology and a recipient of the prestigious John J. Trentin Scholarship Award. His research focuses on the effects of DNA topology on protein-DNA interactions. Prior to graduate school, Graham spent eight years in Silicon Valley as a software architect working for several startup companies, including Tellme Networks. He has an MBA from Rice University and a B.A. in applied mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley. Graham also writes two other blogs: Driving While Texan and Two Randalls.

Houston lags the major biotech clusters

A lot of energy has been spent in the last 10 years trying to figure out why Houston, with all the research conducted in its world-class medical center, hadn’t spawned more biotech startups. Houston lagged behind the major biotech clusters-San Francisco, San Diego, and Boston-in the number of biotech employees (~10,000 vs. 30,000-40,000), the number of VC deals (<10 vs. ~100), and the proportion of corporate-sponsored R&D (25% vs. 70-90%). The density of technology companies in Houston was far lower than the leading regions, so we had an underdeveloped infrastructure to support startups and a small pool of startup leaders.

Still, the city’s leaders wanted to see biotechnology become a major driver for growth in Houston’s economy over the next 15-20 years by creating 65,000 to 95,000 jobs and allowing Houston to remain competitive. Two organizations in town, the Houston Technology Center and BioHouston, lead the city’s efforts to encourage growth in the biotechnology sector. These organizations deserve credit for more than doubling the number of life sciences companies in Houston, as well as tripling life sciences employment.

But Houston still lags far behind the major biotech clusters. What is missing? For a while, the prevailing reason was that there just wasn’t enough biotech-savvy venture capital in town. Startups were forced to seek funding on the West or East coasts, and those deals invariably required the startup to move away from Houston.

This is only one piece of the puzzle, however.

Results of a competitive analysis

Last spring, I led a team of Rice EMBA students in an analysis of Houston’s biotech cluster. Our analysis included a look at the best practices of Houston’s competitors with the goal of identifying opportunities. The 20 competitors we considered were a selection of universities, economic development organizations (EDOs), non-profits, startup incubators, and state programs.

For each of the competitors, we examined their organizational philosophy and vision, primary target audience, scale, activities, and fundraising model. For the universities, we found extensive cross-campus programs with strong ties to the local business community. The schools actively promote technology transfer to students, postdocs, and faculty through a variety of cross disciplinary events designed to encourage attendees to think about how research can be commercialized. The integration of technology transfer with research stood out at UCSF, in particular, where the Center for BioEntrepreneurship is officially housed in the Office of Research. Similar initiatives to link academic research and local industry were found at the EDOs, non-profits, and state programs, with the additional focus on developing biotechnology-friendly public policy. Continue reading ‘Houston’s Dearth of Biotech Entrepreneurship’

Jul30th2008

Countdown to BarCamp Houston 2008!!!

It\'s hotter in Houston!

In 2008, Houston’s finally seemed to break through the public relations barrier on the national stage with some major dap provided but such notables as Forbes, Newsweek, and Kiplingers. The tech community is thriving, entrepreneurs are coming out of the woodworks and we seem to be getting some traction on the venture capital front (more on this at a later date.) So what could make things get any better?

BarCamp baby!!!

For those of you not familiar with the BarCamp concept, think of it as an open-source conference where subject matter and presentations are determined by the conference attendees the day of the event. The day can start on one path and end somewhere left of Tibet. It is a fantastic place to network, get to know your fellow community members and take the opportunity to present an idea or conept that you feel is ripe for discussion. Before you get too excited, let me tell you what else we have in store for the weekend.

Friday night, August 8, kicks the weekend off with the Startup Houston Happy Hour on a Friday instead of the usual first Thursday. The event will be at Caroline Collective and will include drinks provided by us through BarCamp’s sponsors. We’re still working on the details but plan to show up around 6PM and we’ll go to until we get kicked out. Alongside of us will be the Houston Business Meetup Group and AIR Houston who’s members have been invited to join us for the event. Should be an awesome party!

Saturday morning, BarCamp begins at the Houston Technology Center. A debt of thanks go out to Walter Ulrich and Marc Nathan for making this happen with little notice (our other site choices didn’t pan out.) Marc has assured us that this year we will have free range of the building to use multiple conference rooms and not be confined to the downstairs like we were last year. Parking might still be tight but since the event is free, suck it up!

Thanks to our sponsors this year, we have raised enough money to also bring lunch in for the event. Check out the wiki for updates but I am ordering BBQ for everyone so the more accurate count I can get before the event, the more likely there will be enough food for everyone. You can still saunter out for your own fare, but you may miss the craziness so go at your own risk.

After the day simmers down, we will then kick things back up and head over to Caroline Collective again to wrap up the festivities. Hopefully, we will not go through all the drinks we squared away for the weekend but if we do, we’ll figure things out.

Bottom line here, folks: miss this event at your own peril. Last year’s BarCamp was a seminal event and this one will exceed expectations…but only if you come!

‘Nuff said.

Jul29th2008

Site redesign underway

I am in the process of revamping the site and making it more functional and user-friendly. If you experience any major problems, please let me know. Posts should still be visible but the calendar and directory will be mostly unavailable. I expect that we will have the new site up and running in no time but please bear with us as we work through making Startup Hosuton even better than before.

Jul29th2008

Forbes Showing Houston Lots-o-love: Best City to Buy a Home

I’m not sure what sparked this but the writers at Forbes have come to realize what we’ve known for some time. Besides being a Top 10 Up-And-Coming Tech City, Houston has topped the list of Best Cities to Buy a Home. What jumped out at me while reading this was the following statement:

“Well known as an energy industry hub, this growing metro area recently made Forbes.com’s Top 10 Up-And-Coming Tech Cities thanks to the Houston Technology Center and bubbling entrepreneurial tech scene.”

I wonder what they could be referring to when they say “bubbling entrepreneurial tech scene?” Any one have an idea?

Jul24th2008

Help Us Redesign Startup Houston

Please help!!!

We are all about change…and want to walk the talk. That being said, we also know what we are and are not.

The site has been functional (and non-functional at times) but needs to better reflect the diversity of Houston’s startup community. So I am placing an all points bulletin to anyone with some skillz (which I lack) that is interested in helping us revamp the site to reflect some expansions we want to implement.

If you are interested in donating your time, either comment on this post or email me (josh@startuphouston.com) so we can discuss what we need done. Startup Houston wants you!

Jul24th2008

CareFlash Starring Leatherman

YouTube Preview Image

A little bird told me about this lighthearted view of what CareFlash does that was created by some young fans…social media is a funny thing, but not nearly as funny as Leatherman. What I find odd is that his beard disappears and then reappears in different clips. Love it!

Jul24th2008

Texas-Sized Nanotechnology

Dr. Howard Schmidt is a native Texan, a long-time Houston resident and a serial entrepreneur.  He grew up San Antonio and moved to Houston to attend Rice University, where he got a BS in electrical engineering in 1980, and then a Ph.D. in physical chemistry in 1986.  Since then he has been involved in four technology start-ups, including SI Diamond Technology, an early nanomaterials company that he took public in 1993.  In 2003, Dr. Schmidt joined Rick Smalley’s research team as the Executive Director of the Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory.  Schmidt is now a Research Fellow in the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department at Rice, mainly focused on developing energy-related applications of single-wall carbon nanotubes.  He also serves as Senior Nanotechnology Advisor to the Advanced Energy Consortium, and is on the board of Axion Power International. Dr. Schmidt has agreed to become a regular contributor to Startup Houston; this is his first post.

The Advanced Energy Consortium (AEC) just officially announced its first Request For Proposals (RFP). This is big news for us little (nano) people, and it seems a good topic with which to kick off a new column on nanotechnology, commercialization and start-up companies.

And it fits in nicely with my personal perspective on technology and start-ups. For me, technology is pure fun - it’s using science, engineering, imagination, persistence and a little luck to solve a problem, make something work, make some novel material, etc. But starting a company is serious stuff. There can be fun involved, of course. Watching a new company progress and grow is big fun. But you don’t start a company for fun; you start a company to make money. And money comes from customers. Customers fork over money because you and your technology solve some problem they have. Many technologists start companies because they love their technology, not because they have a customer asking them to turn pro and sell them a zillion copies of their new widget.

And that is what makes the AEC and their RFP soooo cool. It’s a collection of well funded customers that are telling us what they want to buy. The AEC sponsors include six integrated exploration and production companies (BP America Inc., ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp., Occidental Oil and Gas, Shell and Total) and three major well services companies (Baker Hughes Incorporated, Halliburton Energy Services Inc., and Schlumberger). At this point they’re looking for basic micro- and nanotechnology research and development services. Eventually, the hope is that this research will generate fieldable technologies for locating and extracting oil from known reservoirs. They’re essentially shopping for technologists that they hope to pay to develop new tools that they will eventually buy to produce oil.

In general, my expectation is that this R&D activity will spawn new materials and sensing methods; some may get used directly by the majors, but most will get bundled into a package and distributed by the service companies. A likely play for entrepreneurs is to manufacture the materials and components and then provide them to the integrating service companies. Talk about soup-to-nuts market pull!

The RFP is open to all bidders (universities, small businesses, large companies, national labs, you-name-it) world-wide, although I would have to predict that academic researchers will gain the lion’s share of the contracts. They have an advantage in cheap labor (graduate students) and extensive facilities for characterizing new materials. But something nanotechnologists usually do not have is a) a working knowledge of hydrocarbon production and b) experience at commercializing some new widget.

This makes for an important opportunity for Houston entrepreneurs. Since Houston is the energy capital of the world (right?), there are plenty of working and retired experts here in oil and gas production. Those academic researchers will be well served by teaming up with O&G experts to round out their teams via consulting or subcontracting arrangements. Similarly, if you have a killer idea, you could find academic researchers to help perform the research or characterize the materials. You can find potential partners by trolling the ‘research interests’ websites of individual profs at the local research universities, Rice and UH. UT and TAMU are not too far away to collaborate with, either. Most professors are quite approachable if you a) know what you’re talking about and b) can provide some complementary resource. They’re amazingly pressed for time, and complete experts at evaluating ideas quickly (from peer reviewing each other’s papers and proposals), so don’t take it personally if you get a ‘no’ pretty quickly. Also, keep a look out for PR coverage of breakthroughs from AEC funded research over the next year or two. They’ll also turn up at events like the Rice Alliance meetings. Those research products will need experienced entrepreneurs to make the commercial transition.

Overall, I think this bodes well for generating a number of great start-up opportunities in Houston. Happy hunting!

Jul21st2008

Don’t Let the Numbers Fool You

So today I got a nice little note from the guys at DFJ Mercury letting me know that they made Entrepreneur Magazine’s VC100 list of Top 100 venture capital firms for a second straight year. The guys did 4 “first time fundings” last year (Phurnace, Marval, Illumitex and Glycos Bio) which was as many as our friends to the west of us did. Congratulations to the guys for a heckuva year and continued success.

As part of the note, DFJ Mercury founder and Startup Houston supporter, Blair Garrou was quoted as saying:

“Although we appreciate the recognition, it’s not a numbers game for us. We are excited about playing our role in the Texas startup eco-system and look at every deal, one at a time. We only wish more VCs were funding seed and early-stage Texas companies.”

First of all, G-d love Blair’s humility. For those of you who have never spent quality time with him, you are missing out on his wisdom and passion for Houston’s technology eco-system. But my digression is not to lay praise on DFJ and Blair as much as broaden the discussion about the venture market’s current temperature.

Jeff Cornwall (I love this guy…it’s a forum, not a blog) addressed some interesting points that came out of a recent report from the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). It is no secret that the IPO market has all but dried up and strategic sales will also be under pressure with expensive oil and a cheap dollar. With all of that plus global unrest shoved in our faces by the media, I can imagine startups are quaking in their boots.

Don’t.

Let me explain venture investing once again: money goes where it can earn a return high enough to compensate for the level of risk involved in the investment. Higher risks require higher potential returns. Luis Villalobos and Bill Payne, Managing Director, Angel Venture Partners wrote about this in a piece for Kauffman eVenturing:

“In a typical angel investor’s portfolio of ten investments in seed/startup companies, half the companies perish with no return to investors, and an additional three or four companies return some capital or provide a modest return on investment. Investors hope these three or four companies will at least return the capital for the entire portfolio-all ten investments. Ultimately, only one or two of ten investments will strike it big and bring virtually all of the return on investment to the portfolio.”

What this tells me is that venture investing is a numbers game and that the numbers need to be big for it to make any sense to play the game. Think about this, venture capital funds sustain themselves until the fund returns back to the limited partners (which could be 5-10 years) anywere from 1-3% in the form of a management fee. To make that number material enough for you to quit your high paying job and start a fund requires a large enough fund to keep you out of the poorhouse. So now you’ve got $100 million dollars and the average indicates that 50% or more of your bets will fail miserably. That leaves you with 30%-40% that may make the partners money back for them. Since the fund managers did not get into this crazy business to breakeven, that leaves you with 10%-20% that are potential black swans that might generate the >35% return that venture investors look for at a minimum. And don’t even get me started about dilution.

So ignore what you read…stats are not gospel. Venture capitalists need to keep laying bets all over the place just to make the returns happen. Without volume, they will succumb to the bell curve and be back looking for work in no time. And just because for 3 months out of the last 60 some odd years there were no venture backed IPOs does not harken the apocolypse. Come up with a disruptive technology or business model and funding will fall like manna from the heavens…or maybe from a guy named Blair.

Jul13th2008

The Great Startup Derby

I got the horse right here
The name is Paul Revere
And here’s a guy that says that the weather’s clear
Can do, can do, this guy says the horse can do
If he says the horse can do, can do, can do.

“Fugue for Tinhorns” from Guys And Dolls

I like analogies (and music lyrics also if you can’t tell by now). People often ask me what investors look for when evaluating an investment in a startup company. Marc Andreesen identified three core elements of a startup: team, product and market. One could argue which is the most important of the three and Mr. Andreesen makes the case for market…which I somewhat agree with and will explain how momentarily.

But many would-be starter uppers seem to have a difficult time comprehending the issues with ensuring that all three core elements are focused on. So here is another way of looking at this: horse racing.

  • Product - the horse is the product and is developed from a young age to compete through natural (organic growth) and artificial means (mergers and acquisitions). The owner (founder) is usually the one with the vision and keen eye (not always) who identifies the horse at a young age or acquires stud rights to a proven race horse (commercialization or technology transfer) from a quality breeder (university or research and development arm within a company).
  • Team - In a race, the team is comprised of a jockey, trainers and owners (think of investors as the people in the stands placing bets on the race and not as owners…investors own to sell.) We’ve already identified the owner and the trainer is usually the second hire or partner (technologist or engineer) brought into the team. The trainer develops the horse by means mentioned above and as the horse shows promise, adds to the team to compete on a grander scale. The jockey (CEO or team leader) is either an up-and-coming talent or an experienced racer whose sole purpose is to get the most out of the horse on race day.
  • Market - This is the race or season in which the horse and jockey compete. Horse racing occurs on a dirt track. Track conditions play an important part in the race as well as position, field, stakes and multiple other factors.

Here is why I agree that the market is the most important element: the best horse trained and run by the best team will lose if they run the wrong race, at the wrong time, under the wrong conditions, etc.

Skill, preparation, experience, funding are all of tantamount importance in getting up to the day of the race. You will not even be able to compete without them. That being said, once the gun sounds, luck has more to do with winning than any other factor. Investors know this (and so do the bettors…venture capitalists are the ones in the fancy hats and blazers) and can only evaluate what is known. That being said, investors like to bet where the odds allow for a big fat return.

So back to the original question: what are investors looking for?

Investors are looking to make a bet on a good horse managed by a good team to run a race with a purse big enough for him/her to make it worth there time and effort. They will evaluate the jockey’s history, trainer’s experience, strength and conditioning of the horse, conditions of the race, the odds of a win, place or show and how large the payoff will be.

If you don’t get it now…let me know and I will try another analogy.