We periodically survey the CEOs in our network on topics we feel are relevant to aggregate information around and rediseminate.

Below is our Q2 2010 CEO Survey.  Please participate, and we’ll share the results back with you once the survey closes in the next week or so.

Click on “Take my survey” below.  It won’t take more than a few minutes for mere mortal CEOs.  But, as you’re more the superhero CEO type, it will no doubt take you a fraction of that time to complete.

To see the results from our last survey, titled “Outpacing Competitors in the Recovery”, go to http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/3rd-quarter-innovation-ceo-survey-results-outpacing-competitors-recovery/

When It’s Time to Replace a CEO

During a moment in recruiting history when most executive search professionals are suffering, our practice in for-profit education has been thriving. Part of the reason is what I call ” board fatigue”–PE or VC partners and other board members who’ve grown impatient with the CEO of a portfolio company. In some cases their dissatisfaction is known to the CEO; in others, for various reasons (such as accreditation issues in the postsecondary education market), the board has chosen to conceal its desire for change, even from the sitting CEO.

The call to me typically begins, “We’re thinking of replacing a CEO. But we need this to be done in confidence. Can you do it and still be effective?” The answer, of course, is, “Yes, but first give me one good reason why you don’t sit down with your CEO and discuss why the change is needed.”

Answers vary, but the most common is, “We don’t want to lose momentum or cause uncertainly within the company,” i.e., “We’re afraid that news the CEO is being replaced might affect morale and revenues.”

This may be true, of course, but before embarking on a sub rosa search for a replacement, consider these issues–

•    Are you sure the situation cannot be resolved without the CEO being deposed? Have you tried everything to turn him/her around? Is the problem focused on a few concerns–work ethic, slow decision making, failure to address a single overriding market challenge, etc.–or is it overall leadership?

•    Are there intermediate steps you might take to at least put the CEO on notice? “Probation”? Come to Jesus? Sabbatical? Revisiting compensation?

•    Could the problem be resolved by bringing in the right support, e.g., a COO or new CFO?

•   Could the CEO be moved into a different to position, allowing you to bring someone in above him/her? Would your CEO accept demotion to President and COO, for example? Could the CEO be moved into a Chairman role?

•    How can you present the decision to replace in such a way that the CEO sees the wisdom in your decision? Obviously the CEO has a financial stake in the company’s success. Might it be that he or she will be relieved? See this as a win-win?

•    How valuable could the CEO be in the process to find the replacement? Do you want him/her to play an active role, and would s/he be effective in this role, if properly motivated?

•    What are the risks if word gets back that a search is being conducted for a new CEO?

•    What are the risks that a disgruntled CEO could sabotage the search process? Agree to participate in interviewing, then blow candidates out of the water?

•    What effect will conducting the search in confidence have on the overall quantity and quality of candidates? On your ability to secure the best among these?

•    How and when do you expect to inform the CEO what’s going on?

•    What role will the departed CEO have in the transition process once the new CEO is named?

click here for more More…

CEOs and executive leaders of innovation-stage companies often ask themselves what is the best approach to employee appreciation, productivity and retention.

We’ve all heard the stories around the lengths some venture capital-backed companies go in their efforts to service the needs of their employees.  What started as the water cooler and drip coffee pot, fast-growth companies have super-sized, continuing to up the employee pampering ante–  installing company-paid cappuccino machines and Kurig coffee makers with what appears to be an endless supply and variety of coffees and teas.  Keeping well-stocked office kitchen pantries with either favored junk food, healthy snack choices, or both.  Catering lunch, breakfast, dinner, sometimes all three meals plus a midnight snack that rivals food options found on luxe cruise liners.  Car valet services, onsite dry-cleaning pick-up/drop off, massages, yoga, concierge services, onsite daycare/nanny service, bring-your-pet-to-work options.  And on and on and on, the calories and comfort food arms race continues its grim march toward caffeine OD and adult-onset diabetes.

However, there’s a moral and dilemma CEOs often face when trying to strike the right balance of perks and austerity.

The argument for pampering:  In the new knowledge-worker driven economy, there is often precious little machinery or automation.  So every time an employee walks out the door to Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, the sandwich shop, or the drycleaner, the corporate engine slows down a notch.  Therefore, the logic emerges that if you can remove all interruptions for employees, you’ll get far more in productivity out of them than junk food and pampering you put in to them.

The argument against:   It’s expensive.  It creates a sense of entitlement in employees.  It creates a false sense of prosperity in a company that may be pre-revenue and in need of several more rounds of funding before it can stand on it’s own two financial legs.

Some might say that economic recessions pound the potential for excess back to square one.   OK, so perks have slowed down a bit after each economic set-back in the last decade, starting with the Internet bubble bursting and post-Y2K malaise, the aftermath of 9/11 on the U.S. economy and, most recently, the banking sector melt-down.  However, after each setback it seems a new “floor” gets set that’s just a bit tonier than the last one.

So how do CEOs handle this arms race in employee perks you ask?

Below are a few lessons learned and secrets shared by a number of CEOs who know a bit about the word “value” in serving up employee perks-

Perks Case Study A: Intra-office “micropreneurship.” The secret of the concession license

One venture-backed CEO wanted to offer some of the perks, but not all when it came to stocking the pantry.    So, rather than facing an all-or-nothing approach, the CEO decided that a business principle was in play that could be exploited in a win-win-win fashion–  what the company had as an asset was the equivalent of a monopoly.  He reasoned that employees were a captive audience.  If the CEO offered the “vendor concession” contract to an aspiring employee who wanted to make a few bucks, the company would offer exclusive stocking/inventory rights to that employee to stock the pantry.  However, in trade, the employee had to agree to offer below-market pricing on food and beverages, and also manage the “SKU requests” that the employees would log from time to time regarding food selection and preferences.  His formula in a nutshell looked like this:

-          win for employees-as the got a below market food and beverage offering, the equivalent of a “company subsidized” pantry offering

-          win for the “intra-preneur”-who was given the food concession to run, and could make a few extra bucks running the business

-          win for the company-the company didn’t have to provide all the food gratis, nor had the headache of fielding all the requests from employees

Perks Case Study B:  Serving dinner not as an entitlement, but only to the truly meritorious

[click more button below for rest of post]

More…

One of the questions we as executive recruiters often get asked  is the trade-off between experience and aptitude.   Both sides of the equation are prone to asking it, clients and executive candidates alike.  Sometimes this teeter-totter is referred to as “domain expert versus best athlete.”

What do they mean when they ask?  There’s actually a lot of nuance in the question-when are skills and experience most important to success in the role versus pure talent and aptitude?

• •    Just because a CEO is moving from one industry to another, does s/he lose his ability to successfully lead?
• •    If a VP Sales has been successful at one stage of company growth, can s/he take that same sales toolbox and be successful in another stage company, say either emerging-stage or mature-stage?
• •    Can a VP Engineering be equally effective managing in large companies and small?
• •    Do companies look for the same types of leadership in good economic cycles as well as bad?
• •    How does an executive’s move out of their wheelhouse of skills and experience impact their compensation and/or level in a new industry and company?

These questions are only a few of the factors that impact the answer.    The following discussion is aimed at trying to lend some clarity and context to question.

Let’s take a look at the hour-glass graph below to lay down some of these factors against our “expert or athlete” question:

1)     Level of management: The first factor is where an employee sits in the organizational chart.   In general, skills and experience are most critical at the “waist” of the hour-glass graph-mid-to-upper level management, starting at manager, through director- and VP-level.  At the top and bottom of the hour-glass, aptitude often ends up as the greater emphasis in “hireability.”  This may be fairly intuitive for many.

a.     Entry-level: When you first get out of school, employers often hire for a combination of attitude and intelligence and look for those who exhibit room to grow or “headroom.”   In fact, at entry-level, skills and experience for those roles are often a liability.  Employers may feel someone is overqualified, or a “flight risk” if that employee finds another better-paying and/or higher level position at another company.

b.     CEO-level: When you achieve P&L/CEO status, employers often will place more emphasis on the track record a CEO has in leading a company versus a tenured career history in a specific industry area.  Can a CEO move from rust-belt manufacturer to biotech?  Likely not.  However, there isn’t the same granularity of fit applied at the CEO-level as at the middle-management layer.  If a CEO has been broadly successful in in a number of software companies, it often becomes less important what type of software, or what industry vertical that software was developed for.  Certainly some screening is applied to industry, with some of the below more general industry characteristics takingi precedence-

i.      Experience in selling to similar customer base, B2B vs. B2C or government

ii.      Experience raising equity capital from venture capital or private equity

iii.      Experience creating exits for investors that have generated good returns for those investors

iv.      Experience taking a company from one industry into other industries, popularly referred to as “crossing the chasm”

c.     Mid-to-upper management:   Mid and upper management are where skills and experience over mere aptitude are often most sought after by employers.  Those who are hiring at this level will often even emphasize industry skills and experience above managerial experience, giving the edge to a candidate with industry-relevant background and a lesser degree of leadership experience, assuming that management is a learned skill and can be taught or picked up on the job.  Is this right?  That’s not the focus of our discussion here.  Rather, our goal here is to describe corporate hiring  norms from our observations.

[click more button below for rest of post]

More…

Our client is tearing down the walls of the pixel landscape.  The Company has developed proprietary breakthrough software that functions as a pixels operating system, moving video display from one source projecting one visual, to infinite sources projecting virtually unlimited visuals.  And all of this is at a pixel-density that can go beyond high-definition quality, at commodity projection device cost, with no manual calibration or image “stitching” required.  The Company’’s technology is used in various applications ranging from simulation and training to museum displays and digital signage.  The company serves corporate, government, and academic organizations.

Market Opportunity

Industry Outlook (software-enabled displays):

• •    Visual simulation and Large Venue Display – $1.4B and $22.2B
• •    Growing rapidly – 14.1% and 23.3% CAGR
• •    Incumbent companies expensive, inflexible, and manually aligned – the bottleneck to widespread use of advanced display
• •    Commercial public venue display increased from $16.5B to $22.2B from 2005-2007
• •    iSuppli (major research firm) predicts $51B by 2011
• •    Multiple options for use: API for large, seamless displays and computing clusters with over 6xHD resolutions displays; or seamless displays up to 6xHD with no application integration.

A single Company server can calibrate multiple displays and is not limited by projection hardware type or resolution.

The Position

The CEO’s core responsibilities will include:

Marketing direction:

Marketing strategy & product marketing– Establishing a short and long-term business direction the drives the company to become an industry leader and maximize the penetration of the markets served.

Business development, including channel sales, OEM & relationships, and all distribution agreements

Operations– Product delivery, deployment, fulfillment and post-sales customer relationship management.

Manufacturing & Operations:

Oversight of manufacturing and production teams responsible for commercializing the technology, establishing build/buy/outsource decisions, etcetera. Working with the rest of the team, oversight of quality assurance, working with the CTO to ensure that product development meets various international multi-regional market-driven specifications and is “rolled out” smoothly and on schedule.

Staff- team building, development, mentorship:  The CEO is responsible for human capital planning and hiring.  As important, the position will actively be responsible for developing new and existing staff to help prepare them for company growth and increased leadership responsibilities at all levels.  Finally, the new CEO will serve as leader and mentor to the founding team and as a complement to their existing skills.

Investors/shareholders & board - milestone management, follow-on fundraising, liquidity strategy: The new CEO is primary liaison to the board and will aggressively manage milestone deliverables, be a key contributor at board meetings and to board/investor communications.  The CEO will be responsible for developing and managing against an annual operating plan and in addition to possible follow-on fundraising, will be accountable for optimizing the harvest for all shareholders.

Ideal Candidate Profile

The diagram below illustrates the intersection of competencies critical in the new CEO:

Compensation

Compensation is competitive with the position’s requirements.  In a performance-based environment, this will include base salary, milestone/incentive bonus structure, and a stakeholder position in the company.

We’re often asked how to establish fair market compensation when it comes to CEOs of privately held companies, often with venture capital or private equity backing.

Below is one method that can be employed as a jumping off point for this calculus:

1)     “De-risked,” how much is a CEO worth?  Is  $500 -$1M a year too much?  For our purposes here, we’re talking about a talented CEO.  Not someone below average, but above the average, one that a retained executive search firm, venture or private equity investor, or board of directors would be proud to put in the role.   Rather than pick some arbitrary number, this should be  ”market set,” by looking at what someone working for any global 2000 company (i.e. General Electric or other similar) earns annually.  From our executive search experience and database of compensation comparables in these companies, base salary is usually between 250K and 400K, depending upon how big the divisional P&L responsibility is, there is usually a bonus that is between 50-100% of base, and an LTIP (long term incentive plan) that-once partial vesting begins-can generate from 100K up to 250K or more a year in cash.

2)     So, the cash component of a comparable, including average base, annual average bonus, and yearly LTIP pay-out looks something like this:

Base ~ 300K

Bonus ~250K

LTIP (cash only) ~ 200K

TOTAL: 750K

* This does not include any meaningful RSUs (restricted stock units) that are usually also part of that package, which could add another 200K or more per year in value to a general manager’s package with true P&L responsibility for their division, group, or sector/segment.

* This is also not indexed to geography/cost of living.  If the position is in New York City tri-state area (New York, northern New Jersey, southern Connecticut), San Francisco, Boston, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Tokyo, a multiplier factor needs to be used to level-set for cost of living increase required for those metropolitan areas.

3)      Now, back out the cash portion of a CEO’s compensation for the company that they’re stepping into (say 250K a year in cash in smaller companies as all base, or combination of base + cash bonus).  So you’re left with say 500K that needs to be made up in equity, on a per anum basis.

4)      Over how many years is the liquidity horizon (and/or vesting rate, 3, 4 ,5 years)? Let’s say it’s 4 years, at net 500K, equals ~$2 million

5)      Now, this is with ZERO beta risk factor.  Add back the beta risk of an earlier stage company.  Let’s assume a global 200 company equals “1.”  A CEO role in a privately held, externally backed company is not “1″.  It’s probably a multiplier of 1.5, or 2.  For a pre-revenue, VC-backed company with high burn rate, it could be as much as in the 3 to 5 range.  Note that any illiquid company is inherently risky in terms of cashing in any equity at a reasonable price.  Let’s pick a beta risk multiplier of 2.5 times riskier than “average.” So, 2M * 2.5 = 5M.  Note that when there are preferences for the investors that create an exit hurdle rate before any common shareholders get paid, beta risk goes up accordingly unless the CEO participates in any exit event via cash carve out or other instrument.   As mentioned above, a recent IPO that represents a reasonable market comparable netted a CEO who joined the company 4 years ago $20M.  Using this number, the CEO’s compensation was $5M a year, or a beta multiplier of approximately 5.

6)     Then, are there any combat pay provisions you need to add in (warts that a CEO or executive team member is required to overcome and vanquish in their role that are above and beyond the normal call of duty)-reconstituting the executive team, or raising an outside round of capital because existing investors are tapped out, or starting up an Asia manufacturing capability that will require the CEO to take a dozen 15-hour flights one-way to get up and running.

7)      Finally, you have to look at what likely dilution there is going to be to an initial options grant for the CEO.  If you start with a 6% stake in an early stage company in a Series A funding, and you then raise a series B and C, depending upon valuation for those rounds, the CEO will likely end up below 3% as a “fully diluted” stakeholder.  There is an argument to be made that any of the management team critical to the success of the company will be “topped off” at later funding events in order to keep them motivated.  However, there is no guarantee that this happens.  It’s only good business sense to do it.  For the CEO, it is more important what s/he ends up with, not how much with which they start.

8)     Add water, and stir…

Notes & disclaimers:

• * This is not intended to be biased in any direction, to any party, neither CEO candidate, nor company and/or investor.
• * This is only one way of calculating compensation, indeed there are many others.
• * There is no way an earl- stage emerging/growth company will be able to compensate a CEO in all cash, nor truly be able to offset the risks inherent in this stage of venture.  The CEO either accepts this, or is not truly capable of working successfully in this milieu.
• * Other than the impact of cost of living  adjustments to base compensation, each CEO candidate comes with what we refer to as their own subjective “keep the lights on” cash needs.  We calculate this simply as the amount of cash required on a yearly basis to cover their living/family obligations without having to write checks out of savings to cover it.  Some CEO candidates may have 3 children in private school or college, while others may have no children and no mortgage.  Cash needs therefore may range widely, and need to be adjusted for using equity as a “leveler” (less cash-needy, higher the equity, and vice versa)
• * Alternatives to paying bonuses in cash might be to pay bonuses in equity, upon achievement of key milestones for the company
• * This same calculus can be applied to the Vice President level as well, subject to appropriate adjustments downward in cash and equity
• * In a circumstance where there is a “turn-around” required, equity may not be enough of a certainly to attract a competent CEO for the challenge ahead.  In these circumstances, a cash carve-out may be warranted in addition and/or in substitution for a stakeholder role.  The cash carve-out may be just for the CEO, or for the key management team required to achieve the turn-around.  Often, the cash-carve out structure is a percentage of total sale price over a certain amount, with the possibility for an accelerator depending upon exit/liquidity circumstances/outcome.
• * Often the question of anti-dilution comes up in an effort to assure a CEO of a certain percentage of equity upon liquidity.  Granting 5% equity to a CEO at a Series A financing with anti-dilution would ensure that the CEO retained his or her stake across the growth and additional funding needs of the company.  However, this is rarely a good mechanism, as the CEO becomes less interested in new company valuations at subsequent funding events, and becomes misaligned with the company’s investors.

There’s a lot written about the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, and what ingredients make for success over failure in the industry of business venturing.  Much of it is pretty shallow, pop psych fodder, meant to be read in a short trip to the commode, and disposed of similarly.

Books like Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers takes a much more thoughtful approach, one of myth-busting versus myth-making.

Another similarly thoughtful deconstruction of entrepreneurship was brought to my attention via Babson College’s new president, Len Schlesinger, and his efforts to better match entrepreneurship’s leading institution for  higher education and its curriculum with a more effective toolbox for start-up success [full disclosure, Babson is my MBA alma mater].

Dr. Saras Sarasvathy, Professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business, is the author of this piece, written back in the dark corners of the 2001 post-Bubble recession, when entrepreneurship was the worst nightmare of those smart enough to avoid its allure while clinging to safety in their day jobs.    The full piece can be found at www.effectuation.org/ftp/effectua.pdf.

As a foundation for the suppositions Sarasvathy makes in her article, she interviewed 30 founders of U.S. companies ranging in size from $200M to $6.5B across the spectrum of industries.  She also had them each tackle the same case study to see how each founder approached the problem-solving required.  Her goal was to try to determine whether there was a common denominator in the way entrepreneurs thought, and if so, could it be distilled to several core nuggets of “teaching wisdom” to help aspiring entrepreneurs.

After Sarasvathy completed her interviews, she transcribed the tapes in search of a common set of principles each entrepreneur operated from in problem-solving.  Sarasvathy strings the principles she identified together into what she terms “effectual reasoning” of the entrepreneur.  Effectual reasoning is a different approach to problem solving than what is used in large corporations, or already successful and established enterprises.  She refers to the mature company’s approach to problem solving as the inverse, or predictive, “causal reasoning” -

Causal rationality begins with a pre-determined goal and a given set of means, and seeks to identify the optimal – fastest, cheapest, most efficient, etc. – alternative to achieve the given goal.

However, effectual reasoning takes a very different approach, and the metaphor Sarasvathy uses paints an evocative image of the difference-

It does not begin with a specific goal.  Instead, it begins with a given set of means and allows goals to emerge contingently over time from the varied imagination and diverse aspirations of the founders and the people they interact with. While causal thinkers are like great generals seeking to conquer fertile lands (Genghis Khan conquering two thirds of the known world), effectual thinkers are like explorers setting out on voyages into uncharted waters (Columbus discovering the new world).

Sarasvathy identified that there is no question that creativity is the cornerstone of effectual reasoning.  Another metaphor she uses is that of cooking – a chef given a recipe, versus a chef given the ingredients.  The chef given the recipe can go out and shop for what they need, compare cost versus quality versus convenience given the time allowed to prepare the meal, and create a very “causal” approach to the preparation.  However, the chef given the ingredients must use his or her creativity and invent a dish out of a combination of what raw materials they were given, and the background and experience they have had in cooking across their career.  Sarasvathy refers to this creative chef as having three categories of means:

1.      Who they are – their traits, tastes and abilities

2.      What they know – their education, training, expertise, and experience; and

3.      Whom they know – their social and professional networks.

From these means, they start to cook up their idea, be it a product, service or invention.  More…

Every few months we survey the innovation-stage community of CEOs with the goal of leveraging our C-level relationships as executive recruiters to generate collective wisdom to share back.    We hope below you find insights that help to run your companies more strategically.

In August, we surveyed our CEO community and had more than 60 CEOs participate.  Thanks to all who contributed.   The theme of this survey was centered around whether a different strategy is required to succeed post-recovery than that which was in place pre-recession.  These CEOs came from those practice areas in which we focus, and included broad based technology companies in the media, software, mobile and telecom sectors, Biotechnology, medical devices, and cleantech / renewable energy.

The 60-plus participating companies were spread across the growth-stage spectrum, ranging from pre-revenue through profitable/shipping product, most being seed-funded through post-Series C, as well as private equity-backed–

To set the stage for the survey questions, when asked when CEOs were expecting the recovery to materially reach their companies, the results were still quite bearish, with more than 50% responding Q2 2010 or later–

Although entrepreneurs are supposed to be eternal optimists, when asked what sort of recovery CEOS expected, again, the majority picked the worst of the alternatives, with more than half opting for a “W” recovery (in graphical terms, a double dip, with the last year starting September 2008 to now equalling the first “u” of the “W,” and another anticipated dip between now and Q2 2010 or later.  Almost as bearish, 28% of CEOs chose an “L” recovery, indicating that they felt “recovery” was really better defined as a flatting out of the downward trendline, but no corresponding upward rebound–

The next several survey questions focused on business strategy.  58% of CEOs indicated that they were not planning on pursuing the same strategy after the recession than before–

In executing on their strategies, CEOs responded somewhat intuitively that sales & business development functions would be two of the most important executive level functions that would help them in executing successfully post-recovery.  Somewhat less intuitively, the third most important functional area ranked was product development–

The last strategy question posed to CEOs was whether - if a majority of the CEOs were executing on a different strategy in post-recovery than pre-recession – did CEOs feel that the same executive team they had could execute effectively on both.  More than a third of CEOs surveyed indicated, no, their current executive teams were not the right teams for their new post-recovery strategies.

As for their companies’ financial condition, 60% CEOs responding indicated they were still burning cash, 15% were cash flow break-even, and 25% were running their companies in cash positive position–

And answering the perennial question as to whether CEOs were planning on raising equity capital in the near future, slightly more than half responded in the affirmative–

In conclusion, the survey pointed up the fact that innovation-stage companies are still very cautious around the economic forecast, have recast their strategies as different from pre-recession in preparation for the recovery, but still have some retooling to do within their executive teams to optimize the chances of outstripping their competitors in 2010.

Thanks again to the CEOs who participated.  Knowledge is power.  Collective knowledge is actionable.

Below is the hyperlink to our latest CEO peers “speed-survey,” exclusively for growth-stage CEOs.  Topic– “Preparing for Recovery?”

http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/D3642F14267CCC14/

We at BSG Team Ventures periodically take the temperature of the markets we serve. This speed survey is no more than 10 questions, simple multiple-choice.

Knowledge is power.  Aggregated peer-provided knowledge is “actionable power.”

We make an effort to survey only those who fit the category (in this case, sitting CEOs or board member/founders of technology/science-driven growth-stage companies). [Note, if you don't fit the aforementioned description, please refrain from responding.]

Feel free to forward to the qualified CEOs in your sphere of influence.  The more data generated, the more accurate the trend lines.

All responses are anonymous due to the web-based survey technology employed.

We will forward the survey results within the next two weeks to the email address on file.  Please let us know if there is another email address you wish us to send the results to as well.

August 7th, 2009

INmobile.org released their first collective intelligence research paper today, titled “Harnessing Collective Wisdom to Forecast the Near Future of Mobility.”

INmobile.org – Harnessing Collective Wisdom to Forecast the Near Future of Mobility Aug 2009

 

The Idea in Brief

 

A problem presents an opportunity: Periods of economic slowdown such as the one we are currently operating within offers us the unique and incredibly valuable opportunity to reflect upon past periods of expansion and prepare strategically about the upcoming period of recovery and growth.�This practice should be universal but often is not and too often the methodologies used are flawed, outdated, or both. The remarkable opportunity for assessment and planning may in part be unintentionally squandered when companies continue to rely upon the same perspectives and methodologies that have disappointed in the past regardless of where they are in the economic cycle.Previous techniques to forecast vary historically based upon cost and theory.Some rely upon internal perspectives, outside or analyst input, and market data.Often they range greatly in their level of sophistication, objectivity, and conjecture.While many remain valuable, they are perhaps too often relied upon.Here we begin to offer a more innovate and arguably more accurate means to acquire that knowledge.It is the tool of collective intelligence.

 

The idea of collective intelligence: Collective intelligence can perhaps be best understood as the intelligence which results�from the competitive collaboration of a group of individuals. Published in 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds � Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki argues that the aggregations of information in groups results in decisions that are better than those which could have been made by any single member of the group. In Surowiecki�s book, he argues that under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent and often smarter than the smartest individuals within them. When faced with a cognition problem such as, Who will win?, the idea of posing it to 100 experts was suggested as a collective �wisdom of the smart crowds exercise.As we currently seek to gain more informative and credible insights into the next five years of mobile technology, we should begin to take hold of this incredibly useful and adept tool called collective intelligence and apply it to the task.

 

The power of INmobile.org: INmobile.org is a private, global community of senior executives focused on mobility and convergence.This vital community of global wireless industry leaders enjoys both on-line and in-person events. Its private forum is fueled by a genuine and generous exchange of ideas, informed observations, timely information, empirical knowledge, and analysis.

 

The opportunity taken:In order to harness the collective intelligence and predictive abilities of INmobile.org, we interviewed one hundred senior executives from within this on-line community.We independently asked these executives the identical question during a one on one conversation and under similar circumstances.No previous conversations or predictions were referred to during these interviews in order to avoid the potential problem of group think.Based upon this methodology, it is our expectation that the whole of the INmobile.org community represented by these one hundred executives will show itself to be significantly more than the sum of its many parts.

 

The question:We posed the question, What industries will be most affected by the growth of wireless technology over the next five years? This question was suggested during the INmobile.org member reception held on March 31^st at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas, NV.�Over 200 senior executives attended the private reception where the concept of �capturing the collective intelligence� of INmobile.org was initially discussed.

 

The executives who answered:�The identification and selection of the 100 interviewees was done in two stages.The initial selection targeted fifty senior executives to represent the vital components of the mobile ecosystem with the broadest and most relevant perspectives for this specific question.These included mobile carriers, handset OEMs, OS vendors, and mobility focused venture capital and private equity.A call to action was then sent out to the INmobile.org membership requesting additional participants in this research project. Those additional participants provided increased geographical reach and diverse areas of mobility.Telephone interviews were conducted from April to June of 2009 and were conducted by either Matthew Corbett or Mark Newhall.

 

The results:Consensus predicts industries most likely affected by mobility because the predictive likelihood is heightened if and when a majority of experts independently think the same industry will be affected. These findings have been aggregated and documented in the report.

 

 

 

For more imformation, contact Matthew Corbett at mcorbett@bsgtv.com or at 1-617-266-4333 x241.

 

www.bsgtv.com

www.inmobile.org