Reading time: 2 – 3 minutes

Chatter in the media about Chicago’s status as a technology hub seems to be growing. In the last few weeks I have been quoted in a couple articles on the topic. The first was a Medill article by Melissa Aparicio that looked at some of the policy issues in the state focused on technology growth. The second was a piece in the Tribune by Wailin Wong that focused on the possibility that Motorola may move their handset division to the west coast after they split the division off in 2011 and what the move may mean for technology.

In both articles I consistently stated my thinking:

• Chicago shouldn’t try to be Silicon Valley.
• Chicago should focus on what it is good at (e.g. building companies that use technology to disrupt businesses like trucking and printing and companies that focus on online advertising, ecommerce, etc.)
• Early stage funding in Chicago is getting better but is still extremely lacking (we need family capital focused on supporting companies in the region).
• There is a lot of great development talent in Chicago but keeping them here is hard and building tech teams is equally difficult.
• What you really need to build the scene in Chicago is to have some home runs hit and then help the lieutenants from those companies start their own companies (we’re starting to see more of that now).

Chicago has a lot going for it but also has some holes that are tough to fill (since they are chicken and egg problems for the most part).

Matt McCall – my former boss and one of my mentors – has a great interview in Fast Company (source: VC Confidential) where he describes his thoughts on the technology scene in Chicago (he even mentions a study/chart on exits in the area that he and I prepared a year or so ago that shows how many billions the Midwest has generated in the past five years). I agree with him on most points but I will say that being an entrepreneur here in the earliest stages is still very hard (but not nearly impossible).

Reading time: 2 – 3 minutes

Vote for my SXSW 2010 panel

I had a fantastic time at SXSW last year but I was left wanting one thing and that was more finance and economics related content. There are so many interesting things happening at the convergence of interactive media, technology and finance and the field is ripe for innovation.  Given that, I was amazed at the lack of content around finance.

So, I decided to do something about it. I put forth an idea for a panel for SXSW 2010 called “Data is Money: How geeks are changing finance.” (Please vote for it here: http://bit.ly/LBApG and spread the word!)

This panel will bring together experts in finance and technology to talk about how the future of finance will be influenced by data geeks and technologists. We will explore new financial data formats, like XBRL, and discuss how these formats, along with other recent advances, will allow all of us to play a role in the creation of a better financial system.

Jesper Andersen, co-founder of Freerisk.org, is already on board for the panel and Charlie Hoffman, the father of XBRL and author of the forthcoming book XBRL for Dummies, will be joining us as well (schedule permitting of course).  I will also pick up one or two more speakers if the panel is chosen.

It should be a great panel and I hope all of you out there will vote for it so that it will be chosen. The topic is important and certainly relevant given where the economy is today.

Vote for my panel early and often: http://bit.ly/LBApG Thanks for your support!

—————————

Other great economics and finance related SXSW panels you should vote for:

“Saving the New Economy from the Past”

“Banking 2.0: Financial services driven by people and emerging technologies”

Reading time: 3 – 5 minutes

I have seen a lot of talk both in my circle of friends and in the social and mainstream media circles about the space program.  Some of the talk focused on the large price tag that comes with a focus on the space program.  These people generally come to the conclusion that the money spent on the space program could do more good elsewhere.

This seems like a very valid point, especially in this day in age.  We’re in a decent size recession and there are a significant number of people around the world suffering.  Why in heck should we be funding a trip to the moon?  After all, it is a place we’ve already been!  I believe this viewpoint is very shortsighted though.  Here’s why.

First, the space program has either created or significantly pushed forward technologies that are crucial to our economy.  One of the most well known would be the semiconductor.  The space program was one of the influences that pushed the semiconductor forward and now the semiconductor, and things based upon it (i.e. computers, software, etc.), make up a huge chunk of our economy. The space program also created the technology at the base of:

• Cordless power tools
• Smoke detectors
• Home insulation
• Lasers (for surgery, etc.)
• LEDs
• Pill Sized Transmitters
• Camera on a chip
• Body imaging
• Oil spill control
• Alternative food production methods
• Firefighter breathing system
• Jaws of life
• Global communications
• Historical document and painting protection
• and many more…

Second, the human need to explore should not be pushed aside. Exploring new frontiers is in our genes and we should continue to push the boundaries.  I am not sure a world where humans were not continuing to explore would be a healthy place for any of us.  Along the same lines I think the exploration of space does a lot of good for the world from the standpoint of giving us perspective (for more on that see my post on Sagan’s Blue Dot).

Third, and my last point, I think suggesting that the space exploration budget could be better spent is only partly true.  Could the money be given out to people who need shelter, food and other human essentials.  Potentially.  However, I don’t think handouts are what we need.  If microfinance has shown us anything it is that the poor can help themselves by creating businesses and these businesses are sustainable.  Handouts aren’t sustainable.  Do we need handouts for some things, sure, but I don’t think the difference that would be made by diverting the space exploration budget elsewhere would be as big as people think.

I am curious to hear what you all think about this.  It is certainly a debate that splits the country and one that I am sure will be argued for quite some time.

Bonus point (my 4th point): space exploration inspires future scientists to be scientists.  I am sure there are a number of scientists who have done a lot of good for the world that were inspired to dedicate their lives to science because of the space program (although I don’t have any data for this).

Addendum (9.23.09)

After re-reading this post a number of times it occured to me that I did not touch on a crucial issue in this post. I do think that NASA is very inefficient. That said, perhaps the funding that goes to the space program, specifically the manned missions piece of the program, should be pushed out to private sector entities (like Space-X) that do the job better, faster and cheaper.

The function that NASA does really well, and that we should continue to fund indefinitely, is scientific research. They have those processes down to a science (hahaha). Manned space flight, however, is another story.

Reading time: < 1 minute

Just read this quote in an article in the Economist and had to share it:

“Truth and technology will triumph over bullshit and bureaucracy.”

- Rene Anselmo: Spaceflight privatization pioneer and founder of PanAmSat.

Awesome.

Reading time: 4 – 7 minutes

Crain’s Chicago Business published a great article about technology transfer in the Midwest a few weeks back entitled “Seeking a breakthrough“.  The article specifically focused on tech transfer in Illinois and mentioned that, to date, Illinois has not done a great job of tech transfer.

Having come to Chicago from one of the most vibrant tech transfer centers in the world, Boston, MA (second only to Silicon Valley imho), I have seen what a great tech transfer system looks like and what it can do for the local economy.  Compared to Mass and the Valley we haven’t been doing a great job of commercializing technology from university labs (and from government labs) here in Illinois.

We all know the stories that still break our hearts.  Mosaic/Netscape, PayPal, YouTube, etc.  All of these companies were founded by Illini and yet ended up on the west coast.  The numbers also back up our lack of tech transfer.  From the Crain’s piece:

Between 1996 and 2006, Illinois universities spun off 124 companies and made $180 million from startups and technology they licensed directly to existing companies, according to the Deerfield-based Assn. of University Technology Managers. In that same period, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology alone started 220 companies and made $344 million. Stanford University made $209 million between just 2002 and 2006.

Those numbers say it all but we can (and will) turn this around.

What can we do to turn this around? One of the first things we need to do is not so easy.  We need to build some high profile success stories here in Illinois.  I would argue that is already happening with FeedBurner (acquired by Google in 2007) and TicketsNow (acquired by Ticketmaster in 2008) along with a handful of other solid companies that have exited recently (disclosure: DFJ Portage was an investor in FeedBurner and TicketsNow).  That said, those companies did not come out of university labs.  However, the success stories should still show people both in and out of labs and investors that great companies can, and are, built right here.

As the Crain’s piece suggests, more high profile successes in the state will create more technology millionaires who will then help to mentor and seed the next generation and so on and so forth.  This is the same way Silicon Valley and Boston, MA were born and why the biggest thing we can do is build some very successful technology companies here in Illinois.

The infrastructure is also being put into place to make technology in Illinois a mainstay.  The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has built a fantastic research park and incubator (which I frequently visit and which will house TECH cocktail Champaign this week) as has the Illinois Institute of Technology (again, another place I frequent).  Both of these places along with other facilities are helping to change the tide of tech transfer here in the state.

What about the money though?  We all know that investors like to be close to their companies, which is why many Illinois startups have to leave the state to get up and running.  So we also need more investors here in the state.  The good news is that we are starting to see a growth in the investor pool here in Illinois.  From the Crain’s piece:

U of I created an independent fund, Illinois Ventures LLC, based in Chicago, with the help of private donors in 2002. Its goal is to provide early-stage money and logistical help to university-based startups.

Illinois Ventures has invested $20 million so far in 15 companies, among them Tetravitae Bioscience Inc., an alternative fuel company in Chicago, and has attracted another $300 million in outside investments, much of it coming from venture-capital funds on the coasts.

Ron Kirschner, a retired physician with an MBA from DePaul University, started Heartland Angels in Skokie in 2004. The group has grown from six to 22 investors and has put more than $3 million into six early-stage Midwestern companies. Four of those grew out of universities, among them Abiant Inc., a Deerfield company based on research from the University of Chicago and New York University. The startup uses imaging to help drug manufacturers improve products by mapping how they affect the brain.

I would also add the the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce created a fund a little while back called the Illinois Innovation Accelerator Fund (i2A for short) which is a $10mm vehicle dedicated to funding innovative technology companies here in Illinois.

Also, as most of you know, the firm I am an associate with, DFJ Portage Venture Partners, focuses only on the upper Midwest and has for quite some time.  We are able to bring the global resources of Draper Fisher Jurvetson (DFJ) into the region while remaining locally focused, something we think will really help the region grow and help entrepreneurs create world class companies right here in Illinois (and throughout the Midwest).  As you can imagine we are very bullish on the Midwest as a technology center and we are excited to be part of the growing technology community here.

Successful technology transfer efforts will be a big part of what ultimately makes Illinois a leader in technology and tech transfer efforts are certainly getting exponentially better each and every day here in Illinois (for example Northwestern did a $700mm deal last year to sell part of its royalty rights to Pfizer’s pain drug Lyrica – a drug based on Northwestern research).

We are just now hitting the big upswing in the “hockey stick” here in Illinois and across the Midwest.  We are well on our way to rivaling the coasts when it comes to technology but we’ll no doubt do it our own special way making the Midwest a unique and exciting place to start and build technology companies.

Further discussion on this topic: Chicago Tech Report: “Understanding why Marc Andreesen left Illinois” by Blagica Bottigliero