Month: May 2013

Since my last post three options have emerged as “real” opportunities.  These are startup opportunities that are of interest to me, are seeking to immediately expand their leadership teams, and have expressed interest in me.  Interestingly, they are arrayed along a risk/reward spectrum that helps me think about them and assess their relative attractiveness.  (For me, the “reward” component encompasses a variety of factors beyond just financial reward.  Also of importance is the ability to make an impact on a company and its customers, employees, and fortunes; the opportunity to learn new skills and take on new challenges; and the gratification from successfully creating something new and meaningful.)

At the most conservative end of the spectrum lies an opportunity to join a Boston-area semiconductor startup that is seeking to apply its technology to develop a standard products business.  This company already has a few vertically oriented businesses and is looking for someone to focus on and lead this new business.  I met with the CEO and COO of this company a couple weeks ago and discussed their needs and my background in depth.  Of particular relevance was my iCoupler^® experience at Analog Devices.  This was a role where I had done a very similar thing (albeit with the support of a large corporation) in terms of starting at zero with a new technology, figuring out which markets to target, determining the right products, engaging with the right customers, developing a team, and building a broad, profitable business spanning multiple applications.  I had been introduced to this company by one of their investors and was the first candidate with whom they’ve spoken.  They noted that they would follow up with me after going through their search process over the next few weeks.

At the other end of the risk/reward spectrum is an opportunity to be a co-founder in a new startup.  I don’t have many details on this yet but I was recently introduced to someone with a new product concept that is in the process of having a patent application filed.  She has a potential technology co-founder and is seeking a business person to round out the initial team.  I need to reserve judgment until I hear more about the concept and explore it more deeply, but the possibility of participating in a founding team definitely interests me.

The third option lies in between in terms of risk and reward.  It is with a Boston-area test equipment startup that has boot-strapped itself to a position where it is shipping product and is looking to scale.  Their founder is looking for a “business person” who can drive sales/marketing/business development in the near term and help transition this small team into a larger, more impactful company over the longer term.  I have had several meetings with the founder and welcome this opportunity to get involved in a company early.

Given what I know today it is this last opportunity that interests me the most.  It offers me a greater opportunity to learn and make an impact compared to the semiconductor company which offers a role that would have many similarities to what I’ve done before.  On the other hand, I am intrigued by the notion of starting my own company and am reserving judgment until I learn more about that option.  I expect that to happen over the next 2-3 weeks and would then hopefully be in a position to make a decision how to proceed.  I should note, of course, that all this assumes that the decision-makers involved conclude that I am the person they want.  While I’ve receive positive signs in this regard none of these engagements has yet reached the point where I have been formally offered a position with any of these options.

In any event, it feels good to be looking at a few solid possibilities now.  What’s interesting is that only one of these has emerged from my primary strategy of seeking introductions from investors.  The other two came via introductions from a former colleague and from an experienced entrepreneur.  This just underscores the importance of casting a wide net in a search like this and engaging with as many people as possible.

In late April I wrote that I had identified six startups of interest that are likely to expand their leadership team within the next six months.  Since then, I have spoken with four of these six companies as well as have found six additional ones.  Below is an update of where things stand.

“Original Six”

All four of the startups with whom I’ve spoken have identified a need to expand their leadership team in the next six months but are not ready to do so immediately.  Three of them are focused on securing their next round of funding before they add a new executive.  Of these, three are confident this will happen by the end of the summer while the third seems to be struggling and has a lot of uncertainty as to if and when it will get funded.  The fourth company with whom I’ve spoken is well-funded but is still working to determine exactly what kind of executive they want to add and when.  A position of interest may emerge from one of these four later this year but for now I a considering them to be “on hold”.

I have not yet spoken with the remaining two companies.  I am meeting with one of them this coming week while the other has not yet responded to the introduction I received from one of their investors.

“New Six”

My continuing outreach to investors and others has yielded introductions to a second set of startups that may be expanding their leadership team this year.  So far, I have spoken with just one of these companies and am following up with the rest.

• Four are in semiconductor or semiconductor-related areas, one is a test equipment company, and the sixth is a smart-grid equipment company.
• Three are in the Boston area, two in California, and one is in Canada
• Three are at the seed/angel stage, one has Series A funding, and two are at Series B or later.

Within this composite set of twelve companies there certainly are some that are of higher interest to me than others.  There also are certainly some that will have a greater interest in me than others.  For now I am maintaining a wide funnel and am engaging with them all.  Even if I do find a match the likely initial arrangement would be one in which I work on a fixed-duration “interim” basis with no commitment from either the company or myself.  This is beneficial to both sides as it provides a risk-free way to assess whether a match is truly a good one before committing to a permanent relationship.

This also provides, for companies not yet fully funded, a way to engage me without committing to a significant cash expense.  I am able to go without a steady paycheck for an extended period of time and am comfortable favoring equity over cash in a compensation arrangement.  But that is a story for another day once I find that match I am seeking.  For now, the search continues…

As I talk with more and more startup CEOs who are seeking leadership help a common theme has emerged.  In the overwhelming majority of situations it is experienced execution leadership that is needed as opposed to things like strategic planning, marketing, and customer engagement.  This is reflective of the fact that I have been targeting Seed and Series A companies where the priority is to get the first product commercialized.

What I’ve found, in general, is that these CEOs are looking for an experienced executive who can bridge the gap between having a prototype and shipping a commercial product.  The precise needs vary but in general they encompass the following:  translating customer inputs into a product definition, establishing a disciplined product development structure, leading the product development team, establishing a supply chain, and ramping up production.

The typical situation I’ve encountered involves a CEO with just modest experience or fully consumed raising money coupled with a set of young, aggressive technologists that have succeeded in building a prototype and attracting customer interest.  In these situations the CEO has recognized that a new skill set and focus is needed to bring his first product to market and that an experienced operations/product development executive is required.

I think I once again am writing about something that is obvious to experienced entrepreneurs and investors but was not to me until I started talking to these CEOs.  But that’s ok as that is precisely in line with the expectations I had established for myself upon leaving Analog Devices—that I would end up spending as much effort learning about startups as in seeking out my next position.

So, what does this mean for me?  Fortunately, I have a lot of experience leading product development teams and am confident in my ability to take on such a role.  Having said that, a pure product development role is not what I had been seeking out of concern it would take me too far away from customers, the marketplace, and an ability to impact a company’s strategy.  But my impression so far is that these startups’ product development leadership roles are not so narrowly defined.  If that’s the case, and I can find a product development leadership position that has a sufficiently strong connection to the marketplace and the company’s strategy, it would be attractive.  For now, I am simply continuing my outreach to VCs and the CEO’s they refer me to.