How do you quantify knowledge? From the Board to rank and file, there seem to be a lack of understanding in grasping with the value of knowledge, especially regarding technologists. I’ll attempt to simplify my logic.

A few years ago, after a serious car accident, I was forced to limit my driving to five miles radius around home, so extreme was my panic of being behind the wheels. Those essential trips were to doctors’ offices, hospitals and school. It took over a year of therapy, medication and self-determination to venture beyond that radius and brave Atlanta‘s heavy traffic. I undoubtedly owe my recovery to the medical professionals. Their combined final bill was over $25,000. Simply put, I purchased their knowledge, expertise and services. It was essential for my recovery.

I was reluctant to visit referred specialists: neurologists and orthopedics. I fumed at their high hourly rate of $350-450. My silent rage: why should I pay for an hour when the actual time the doctor spent with me was less than half an hour, rest being filled by their nurses and PAs? Now, my physicians were leading neurologists and orthopedics, which translated to best care. There were, no doubt, many other doctors with much less fees. The questions were: what ‘s the price of my health? Should I save money now and see other doctors even if not commanding in their fields? Would that not mean risking permanent nerve and bone damage, ultimately spiking medical bills, perhaps for life? Or, should I continue with trusted physicians, best possible care and expert knowledge? I opted for the latter. End result? Best possible and fast recovery.

Like my physicians, many technologists too command lead in knowledge and expertise in their fields. Unfortunately, people outside technology often fail to fathom the value of those expertise. What price should be put on intellectual property? Is it fair to expect knowledge-share or pick experts’ brains without engaging their services? Could I have chatted endlessly with the doctors and expected them to share all the procedures with me before becoming their patient – could I even have had access to them without an appointment, essentially $350-450? Ridiculous? Yes, it is preposterous. Just as absurd is to expect the same from technologists.

Intellectual property is valued by result, expert knowledge, credentials, to name a few. If Apple* would not let consumer test run a product before purchase but provide guarantee, technologists too shouldn’t be expected to share their knowledge and/or intellectual property without signing a contract. It is their bread and butter, as are payslips for most. Would you apply your knowledge and skills at work if your employer doesn’t pay you, even for half an hour? The irony is that technologists themselves often fail to draw the line as when to stop sharing. One of the challenge is the industry itself – technology is very fast moving, most other business sectors trailing far behind. Thus the dilemma of putting value to a product/service that has no comparison – another challenge with early adopters and visionaries, attributes of highly successful experts.

In short, it is not in any business’ interest to avail their team members’ knowledge, in essence company’s intellectual property, without a commitment. The value of those knowledge varies on result – an engineer may write a ten lines code output being exactly as expected within a couple of hours, while her/his peer may get the same result after twenty lines of codes in ten hours. Needless to say the value of their knowledge would be highly contrasting and it would reflect on their payslip. Sound simple? Interestingly, not so in many sectors. When engaging a business for their service/product, client is essentially buying the intellectual property whose combined experience/expertise may exceed 150 years – to client’s utmost advantage.

Still, if you are able to buy a Bentley with a Kia budget, please share so that I too may dip into the impossible.

.

*An example to demonstrate that just as all tangible products cannot be tested before buying, non-tangible product, intellectual property, too cannot be “tested”. Guarantees are used instead.

.

Tags: Apple, Atlanta, Bentley, code, engineer, expertise, intellectual property, Kia, knowledge, technologists, Technology, value
Posted in Technology |

Not quite….yet.

Although Atlanta is home to numerous talented and brilliant minds – fresh graduates from the likes of Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University and outside-the-box thinking young entrepreneurs – the challenges facing young technology startup companies are quite steep. I’ve narrowed down some pointers which I consider foremost for  Atlanta to overcome these challenges that are hindering Atlanta’s growth as a technology innovation hub of the Southeast.

THEOLOGY

Theology, or religion, does not have anything to do with technology and yet it’s heavily embedded in Atlanta’s technology scene. Should theology be the foundation for technology and innovation? More importantly, should it be practiced in a field that require pure science? How do you decide which school of theology will be embraced and which will be rejected given ideas arise from minds that may or may not practice diverse schools of theology? Ideas thrive in openness and has little, if any, boundary. Ideas cannot be predicted or controlled. Nor can any one entity, individual or organization determine the source of next best idea. It may originate from a completely unforeseen or unheard of source – a nobody is a somebody in waiting, to quote Guy Kawasaki (?). It’s only smart to nurture and encourage ideas in an open, transparent and fair environment. An idea by itself is useless if not executed. Compelling ideas must be embraced, supported, nurtured and advocated for success and sustainability, regardless of the person’s gender, race, religion (or non-religion), social and economic status.

Atlanta’s challenge: Eliminating theology from technology scene. It’s easier said than done, but, it’s possible. When theology is embedded in organizational structures, both established and startups, it limit possibilities.

Solutions: Provide and practice an environment and build a foundation that is completely devoid of religion and politics – that is if you are an organization claiming to serve the technology community at large. Limit religious breakfast classes and/or weekly religious practices to personal choice and not be a sponsor/supporter of any one religious institution – it opens the gate for more questions than provide solutions/support, rightfully so. Otherwise, it may be perceived as favoritism and those technology institutions and/or organizations does not serve the community at large but special interest group(s).

AMBIGUITY

There is confusion and ambiguity in distinguishing between technology innovation and marketing/sales initiatives as well as “service”, “solutions” and “products”. Same may be said of differentiating between investors and startups seeking funding. Both established and startup organizations discourage and/or exclude people from “service” industry. What does that mean? Does IBM fall in that category, given a large sector of their business is service? How about technology staffing firms and companies that provide social media services? Are all of these service-oriented businesses excluded? Not exactly. Companies and individuals are randomly included (or excluded as may be the case), effectively by organizations (who themselves fall under service industry) contradicting their very own statements. It is so in both established and startup organizations.

Example: Startup Riot*. On their FAQ page, it clearly states “Who can’t attend”. Now if service industry is excluded, IBM, staffing companies (or their representatives), social media providers should have also been excluded. But, they were not. What’s more confusing is, if an industry is excluded, how can organizers expect that same industry to be sponsors? Is that not a contradictory statement? Now to be fair, I’ve not attended any of their events and am unaware of unpleasantness that may have transpired in 2008 (as an inclusive person, I’m reluctant to attend or support events/organizations that exclude people). But, FAQs pages should be designed to clarify and not confuse – that is if events are open to the general public and not to a selected few.

Atlanta’s challenge: Avoid ambiguous statements and practices that hinder growth. Embracing of certain personalities from the same industry (service, just as an example) while rejecting others of similar and/or equal strengths send discouraging message and create obstacles for innovation not to mention unfair practices.

Solutions: a) Clearly define technology innovation and marketing initiatives. Social media platforms are merely a new medium for marketing, sales, communication, branding. Usage of that platform is not technology but marketing innovation. b) Broaden investor prospects. Do not underestimate the influence and/or ability of new and unknown investors – many investors are private and maintain low profiles. c) Use “target” audience vs “exclusive”. While the former approach is inviting and specific, the latter closes the door on potential innovative minds. Innovation cannot survive (or grow) in confined and closed environment. An inclusive approach and environment energizes and motivates communities opening the door to endless possibilities – a haven for innovation.

LACK OF LOCAL SUPPORT

Atlanta technology startups have failed to gain support from local investors, enterprises and the community. I am not sure of the reason but I’ve a theory – bear with me a little.

Will every idea lead to next Google or E-bay? Absolutely not. But, there are startups who command innovation and are no less than their counterparts in any way. While Mashable, a social media guide (effectively marketing) boasts huge reader-base and corporate partnership, Regator provide an impressive platform that aggregate blog posts and categorize them according to topics and has a searchable archive of more than 3.5 million posts. With the right support and patronage, Regator may very well be next success story in the world of blogs. But, reasons unknown to me, local businesses and deep-pocket investors are attracted by similar innovative initiatives of other cities, primarily. Same comparison may be made between Constant Contact, based in Waltham, Massachusetts and MailChimp based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Of course, businesses are not expected to support local grown startups by default. But, why do companies pay twice as much (sometime more) in engaging out-of-town services/products when exact same solution is available in Atlanta at a much discounted rate? Perhaps a Venture Capitalist and/or an enterprise will be able to answer that question. I personally think, one of the reason is lack of exposure by mainstream media, be it television or newspaper. While groups or personalities from outside of Atlanta are heavily promoted in local media when they visit the city, same cannot be said of local talents of equal and/or more qualifications.

Examples: a) Mashable in Atlanta, were interviewed by local media and gained corporate partnership as mentioned earlier while Regator, a partner host, was left out of the equation. b) While on a book tour Chris Brogan received huge followings from the Atlanta technology community. It should be noted here, neither Mashable nor Brogan are technology innovators – former providing blogs related to social media while the later is the president of a new media marketing agency, according to his site. The platforms that they both use are technology innovation – they are merely utilizing these new mediums for marketing, very effectively, mind you. Now, why same exposure is not granted to local talents, be it Barbara Giamanco, Taryn Pisaneschi or smart and bright recent graduate Courtenay Bird, is beyond me. When local talents are engaged, without sacrificing quality, companies essentially contribute to economic growth and boosts innovation and sustainability.

Atlanta’s challenge: Embracing and adopting ideas and innovative solutions initiated by Atlanta startups by local businesses and investors alike.

Solutions: a) Build a strong relationship with businesses by listening to their needs. Solutions should be based on demand. b) Listen to your community and businesses. Understand what is missing and build around those needs. c) Gain the trust of local companies – Atlanta is the home to many large companies’ headquarters – and initiate reaching out to provide a sustainable solution. d) Execute ideas that meet a demand, existing or future, with a focus on sustainability. Investors look for products/ideas that hold promise in the long run and not some fly-by-the-hour-quick-cash-scheme initiatives.

In a separate post I’ll highlight few other pointers that will help expedite the growth of technology startups. Inspite of the above challenges, there are many technology success stories which prove that any challenge may be overcome with determination, persistence, confidence. Belief in yourself is the ultimate key to success. Finally, network, network, network – know your market, competitors, buyers.

Will Atlanta be a hub of innovation for technology startups in the near future?

*I’ve taken Startup Riot as an example because it’s founded on the ground of providing a platform for mainly technology startups seeking funding.

Tags: Atlanta, Constant Contact, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, idea, innovation, investor, MailChimp, Mashable, Regator, Social Media, start-ups, Sustainability, Technology, theology
Posted in Business, Technology |