Iain Klugman, Communitech’s President, spoke at the last GHVF meeting on March 21st on lessons learned from the Waterloo Region and what it will take to build a successful tech industry in the Golden Horseshoe.
The real gem, the uncensored piece of advice, came in the Q&A period. In response to a question of what the Golden Horseshoe region could do to create and catalyze a culture of innovation and commerce Klugman simply responded: drown some puppies.
He went on to explain that the Golden Horseshoe region has too many fragmented networks (”2 for every individual”), each with its own mandate and focus, consuming similar resources, duplicating services, etc.
Klugman stated that sometimes you have to be brave enough to drown a few puppies to make a stronger litter. If the Golden Horseshoe region drowned some puppies they’d be able to create a stronger organization supporting innovation within the region - by trimming fat and duplicate expenses, by clarifying confusing overlap between groups, and by being able to hire a strong director that can grow the organization.
I couldn’t have agreed more with Klugman and in informal conversations since the event it has become apparent that many people within the region share a similar view.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Social Enterprise in Vancouver
- » Fill in the Blank: On Entrepreneurship in Canada
- BROWSE / IN Startup Strategy
- « KUBA - A Change Management Tool
- » Fill in the Blank: On Entrepreneurship in Canada
COMMENTS / 11 COMMENTS
Fraser added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 6:30 amMark, thanks for the comment. You’re correct that many grassroots organizations do serve a useful purpose and can make up an ‘eco-system’ that can thrive. A problem arises, however, when there isn’t a common thread that weaves the grassroots organizations together. In the absence of a strong centralized hub, a network is nothing more than a collection of random nodes. My issue with random nodes is that: they duplicate costs, create confusion within the region as to who supports what (and when), make it difficult to scale an organization, consume resources competing with one another for existence, and can introduce inefficiencies that result in deadweight loss for the region’s innovation community. I’d rather see a common and singular organization with a number of subcommittees, or, a central hub-like organization that organizes the nodal grassroots organizations - increasing network effects and network value for the region’s innovation community.
Mark Campion added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 7:50 amI agree with the strategy that drowning only those puppies that are heavily dependent on the government purse for survival is a good thing. These types of self-serving organizations add little value to entrepreneurs and innovators. However, it is wrong to lump all these organizations in one litter. Many small grassroots organizations serve a very useful purpose. These types of organizations make up what one might perceive as an “eco-system” that thrives on diversity of players. They should not be lumped in the same litter as the former.
Fraser added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 9:30 amMark, thanks for the comment. You’re correct that many grassroots organizations do serve a useful purpose and can make up an ‘eco-system’ that can thrive. A problem arises, however, when there isn’t a common thread that weaves the grassroots organizations together. In the absence of a strong centralized hub, a network is nothing more than a collection of random nodes. My issue with random nodes is that: they duplicate costs, create confusion within the region as to who supports what (and when), make it difficult to scale an organization, consume resources competing with one another for existence, and can introduce inefficiencies that result in deadweight loss for the region’s innovation community.
I’d rather see a common and singular organization with a number of subcommittees, or, a central hub-like organization that organizes the nodal grassroots organizations - increasing network effects and network value for the region’s innovation community.
Ken added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 11:37 amThe source of an organizations funding shouldn’t be an issue… duplication of effort within any “social vertical segment” is obviously inefficient and does not bring the best value to the community, which, is the ultimate goal for these “puppies”. As Iain mentioned, the people involved often agree that some drowning would be for the common good, just not their bestest-cutest puppy.
Mark Campion added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 1:30 pmBeing in Ottawa, this topic touches a nerve given OCRI’s attempt to be a so-called innovation hub. The centralized hub model is not working here. Many folks in Ottawa would concur. I do find fascinating, however, the global BarCamps grassroots movement and it value in connecting ideas with people. I attended the March 31st BarCamps event at Carleton University and was blown away by the caliber of the people attending, the intensive networking and the quality of the sessions. The link can be found here: http://barcamp.org/BarCampOttawa3. Interestingly, OCRI “the hub” had absolutely nothing to do with this event.
Mark Campion added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 1:32 pmSorry the link to BarCamps3 in Ottawa is: http://barcamp.org/BarCampOttawa3
Fraser added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 2:12 pmMark, I’m not familiar w/ OCRI. In your opinion where/how is it failing? When you said grassroots I didn’t think you meant BarCamp and similar events. You’re right, these events don’t benefit from being included in, and managed by, a centralized hub (but do you suspect that there would be negative aspects if they were to be affiliated with a network?). I do believe that a region can benefit from having some form of structured support to augment these grassroots initiatives. In a proper form they will bring value and necessary oversight to the region’s innovation community. The current problem in the Golden Horseshoe area is that we have a number of structured networks (some government funded, some privately funded) all vying to support innovation within the region. The problem lies within the word ‘vying’ and all that it can encompass. Thanks for the BarCamp link - I have been to DemoCamps but never a BarCamp. For a great read check this out if you haven’t already: http://www.nationalcapitalscan.ca/news/2007/04/po…
Ken added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 2:37 pmThe source of an organizations funding shouldn’t be an issue… duplication of effort within any “social vertical segment” is obviously inefficient and does not bring the best value to the community, which, is the ultimate goal for these “puppies”.
As Iain mentioned, the people involved often agree that some drowning would be for the common good, just not their bestest-cutest puppy.
Mark Campion added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 4:30 pmBeing in Ottawa, this topic touches a nerve given OCRI’s attempt to be a so-called innovation hub. The centralized hub model is not working here. Many folks in Ottawa would concur. I do find fascinating, however, the global BarCamps grassroots movement and it value in connecting ideas with people. I attended the March 31st BarCamps event at Carleton University and was blown away by the caliber of the people attending, the intensive networking and the quality of the sessions. The link can be found here: http://barcamp.org/BarCampOttawa3. Interestingly, OCRI “the hub” had absolutely nothing to do with this event.
Mark Campion added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 4:32 pmSorry the link to BarCamps3 in Ottawa is:
http://barcamp.org/BarCampOttawa3
Fraser added these pithy words on Apr 09 07 at 5:12 pmMark, I’m not familiar w/ OCRI. In your opinion where/how is it failing?
When you said grassroots I didn’t think you meant BarCamp and similar events. You’re right, these events don’t benefit from being included in, and managed by, a centralized hub (but do you suspect that there would be negative aspects if they were to be affiliated with a network?).
I do believe that a region can benefit from having some form of structured support to augment these grassroots initiatives. In a proper form they will bring value and necessary oversight to the region’s innovation community.
The current problem in the Golden Horseshoe area is that we have a number of structured networks (some government funded, some privately funded) all vying to support innovation within the region. The problem lies within the word ‘vying’ and all that it can encompass.
Thanks for the BarCamp link - I have been to DemoCamps but never a BarCamp. For a great read check this out if you haven’t already: http://www.nationalcapitalscan.ca/news/2007/04/post_40.html/
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
