If interested, please email clark [at] bsgtv.com.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 |  12:00 noon – 7:00 pm

Mandarin Oriental, Boston 776 Boylston Street  |  Boston, Massachusetts

Cooley LLP, Ernst & Young LLP and BMO Capital Markets invite you to an exclusive gathering of leading executives, investors, entrepreneurs and thought leaders in the medical device industry for the second annual Cooley Medical Device Growth Conference in Boston. This event will focus on the key drivers affecting the medical device industry and explore growth strategies for medical device companies.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

Dr. Michael J. Cima – Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED [ view full agenda ]

• Pulse of the Industry: Medical Technology Report 2011 – Ernst & Young’s annual report on the medical device industry
• Developing and Implementing a Sales & Marketing Strategy -  Keys to achieving growth and ensuring regulatory compliance
• An Open Discussion with Thought Leaders – A fireside chat with CEOs at revenue stage medical device companies on the medtech industry, opportunities and challenges, lessons-learned, etc.
• What’s Getting Done? A discussion of trends in IPOs, M&A deals and strategic collaborations

REGISTRATION REQUIRED. This event is by invitation only. Registration is limited to representatives of medical device companies and investors, and is subject to approval.

PANELISTS AND MODERATORS INCLUDE

• Joseph Army – General Manager, Medtronic Advanced Energy (Formerly President and Chief Executive Officer, Salient Surgical Technologies)
• Michael Cima – Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Kevin Casey – Partner, Ernst & Young LLP
• Drew Gantt – Partner, Cooley LLP
• Ron Goldman – Chief Executive Officer, Accuvein
• Larry Knopf – Senior Vice President and General Counsel, HeartWare, Inc.
• Michael McGrail – Attorney, Cooley LLP
• Yiannis Monovoukas – Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, TEI Biosciences Inc.
• Michael Neuberger – Managing Director and Head of Healthcare Group, BMO Capital Markets
• Stu Randle – President and Chief Executive Officer, GI Dynamics
• Charles Sherwood – President and Chief Executive Officer, Anika Therapeutics, Inc.
• Mark Speers – Partner and Managing Director, Health Advances
• Peter Stebbins – Vice President, New Business Development, DePuy Mitek and Codman, J&J Family of Companies
• Kevin Seifert – Chief Executive Officer, Facet Technologies, Inc.
• Don Stern – Partner, Cooley LLP (Former US Attorney)
• Mark Weeks – Partner, Cooley LLP
• Robert White – President & Chief Executive Officer, TyRx, Inc.

How & What Growth-stage CEOs Are Ending 2011 & Planning for 2012

Below is the hyperlink to take the Q4 CEO peers speed-survey, exclusively for growth-stage CEOs. This survey focuses on “How & What Growth-stage CEOs are Ending 2011 & Planning for 2012″

This shouldn’t take more than 5 minutes of a busy CEO’s time–

We here at BSG Team Ventures periodically take the temperature of the markets we serve. The survey is no more than 15 questions, most simple multiple-choice.

These surveys are created and compiled by BSG Team Ventures as a courtesy to our executive ecosystem with the belief that knowledge is power. Aggregated peer-provided knowledge is “actionable power.”

To compare how you’re feeling a year later with the survey results from Q4 2010, titled “CEOs Plan for 2011”, go to http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/q4-2010-ceo-survey-of-growth-stage-companies/

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.

“]

Rob Day, Black Coral Capital | Michael Balmuth, Edison Ventures | Alexis Borisy, Third Rock Ventures

Once or twice a year we as a firm gather CEOs from the Boston innovation ecosystem to share thoughts amongst themselves.  Often, the format is lubricated by a panel to kick things off.  Always, the format is lubricated by an open bar and dinner.

 This Fall’s CEO gathering in early November brought together 50 or so CEOs around the topic of planning for 2011, and what to expect as a CEO. 

Whether early-stage venture, or mid-stage growth, investors are adopting a different approach to what they are looking for, how much they are putting to work, and what they expect to see as an end result.  This is proving true not just in the tech sector, but cleantech, medical device, and biotech.

 If CEOs are looking for more investment, whether growth equity, seed capital, or something in between, what are the “new normals” to think about going into 2011.  And if CEOs aren’t looking for money, but looking for exits, what are the expectations of investors in 2011 and beyond? 

 We assembled a panel of venture capital investors who all had raised new funds in the last year or so.  These investors also represented a different flavor than traditional venture capital.

 On the panel? 

• Michael Balmuth, General Partner, Edison Venture Fund
• Alexis Borisy, Partner, Third Rock Ventures
• Rob Day, Partner, Black Coral Capital

 What were the “new normals” CEOs and VCs talked about?

 Here are a few that got some air time:

2011 is likely to be an economic “ground hog year.”  The current economic cycle of “flat is the new up” is here to stay for the medium term;  In taking a flash vote of the room, the overwhelming majority felt that the economic conditions in which companies are being created are not going to change for the better any time soon.  Simply turning the calendar over from 2010 to 2011 is not likely to yield a more fertile or forgiving economic climate in which to grow innovation-stage companies.  In our recent survey  of growth-stage CEOsfor Q4 2010, we noted in a prior blog post that the vast majority of CEOs had already shifted their strategies or were planning to in the near future as a direct result of an expectation that 2011 might look a lot more like the end of 2009 or 2010 than ‘07 [see CEO survey pie chart below]

Seed rounds are becoming pervasive compared to prior quarters.  And these aren’t for Web 2.0 companies only.  CB Insights in their Q3 2010 summary demonstrated that this is a trend that is occurring in cleantech / greentech as well as healthcare IT.  All 3 investors on the panel agreed that seed funding makes sense.  Alexis Borisy, Partner at Third Rock Ventures, talked about their approach to seeding, saying that they tend to help start the companies, not just fund them, often taking an interim role on the executive team to incubate to a point of value inflection.  Michael Balmuth mentioned that although Edison Ventures doesn’t do “seed stage investing” per se, he loves to see companies that get seed rounds, as it often is an effort to drive toward profitability faster.  At that point, Edison may be more interested in a seed-funded company that achieves an early positive cash flow position than a typical heavily syndicated, multi-series venture-backed portfolio company.  Black Coral’s Rob Day added that he felt that investing in capital-efficient companies, even in the cleantech sector, was something he has advocated for a long time.  [see CB Insights graph of growth in seed round funding over last 5 trailing quarters, 2009-2010]

• As an asset class, venture funds have lost money for a while now.  Limited partner investors in venture capital and even private equity believe that they still have to invest in this asset class because it does make money during economic or industry sector bubble periods, and to invest once a bubble has been established would mean missing the upside.  During other times, LPs try their best to pick the funds that outperform their peers.

• Using investment banks to raise equity capital  should be done selectively.  If the industry is a small one, and the network is well established (like biotech investing Alexis pointed out), using an i-bank at an early stage is not the best idea.  However, in the cleantech sector where there are more total number of investors, they are internationally distributed, the industry is younger and less well-networked, and there is an imbalance in demand-supply (more money chasing fewer good deals), the investment banking solution may be just the right one.  One CEO, Larry Letteney of Second Wind in the cleantech sector, shared just such a recent positive experience in going out for their next round. 

• Seek out funds that have real capital to invest, preferably “fresh.”  Each of the three funds represented on the panel had all raised funds in the last twelve months or so.  But there are a lot of funds that are at the end of their last fund.  Many are unlikely to raise another fund.  Many investors are taking meetings, but setting the bar exceedingly high because they have only an investment or two left, and they don’t want to get caught making a bad one given the challenge in delivering returns to LPs in the most recent investing vintages.  There was also a “beware” comment about funds who are making seed round investments at the end of their funds.  They are more likely to do so, as it is an easier story to message an investment mulligan to LPs if you can just say, “It was just a small seed investment, so no biggie.”  Caution was also expressed that an investor at the end of a fund making a seed investment will be less likely to have additional capital to invest even if the company is doing well.

We hope to post a video snippet of the the VC-CEO dialogue for a flavor of the evening’s conversation in the near future.

Each quarter we survey growth stage CEOs who are running innovation driven companies.  This quarter,  we had more than 60 CEOs responding.  CEOs were running companies in broadly defined technology (software, hardware, semiconductor, telecom), Internet (e-commerce, media, social, entertainment), medical devices, biotech, and cleantech / renewable energy sectors.

A note on methodology.  We send these surveys only to those who fit the category (in this case, sitting CEOs or board member/founders of technology/science-driven growth-stage companies).    All responses were anonymous due to the web-based survey technology employed. The majority of respondents were in the United States, with the highest concentration on the East and West coasts (New York, Boston, and San Francisco/Silicon Valley areas).

For prior survey results from Q2 2010, titled “Impact of Economy and Renewed Growth”, go to http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/ceo-survey-results-q2-2010-%e2%80%93-impact-of-economy-renewed-growth/ .

ECONOMIC CLIMATE

The first set of questions was around the economic conditions in which each CEO felt s/he was operating.    One question we continue to ask and re-ask over the last six quarters or so targets the turbulence in the macro- economic climate.  It is interesting to compare CEO responses to the same question, “Do you anticipate a double dip in the near term future?”

* In Q3 2009, more than half  (54%) of CEOs polled were expecting a double dip, and planning accordingly

* In our Q2 2010 survey,  again 50% felt a second economic correction was likely, the biggest percentage of those CEOs believing it would be in either Q3 2010 or sometime in 2011.  The other half  of CEOs felt the specter of recession was behind them

* Currently in Q4 CEOs were consistent with prior quarters with a bit more than 50% indicating they didn’t feel a double dip was likely, and the other half of the CEOs saying either a 50/50 probability or greater (16% feeling more likely than not)

So less than 1 in 5 CEOs feel another economic dip is likely.  No CEOs selected the ” greater than 75%” probability.

It’s interesting to do a meta graph of the changing CEO sentiment on this question.  Surprisingly, the graph would be sloping downward, but not as much as many would hope.  The high point was certainly back in Q3 2009, but even throughout 2010, as many CEOs were fearful of a negative correction as those who felt it was behind us.  No doubt this “lack of confidence” index doesn’t inspire the CEO with a swashbuckling, damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead attitude toward growing their companies.  Rather, it makes CEOs think in short-term windows, perhaps 3 months at a time, with little appetite to make medium or long-term bets.

Those CEOs who felt another downturn was likey referenced several factors that might tip the scales negative–  gridlock in Congress due to midterm elections and likelihood that Democrats lose congressional majority, a belief that a bad Q4 holiday retail shopping was likely, and the persistent overhang of ongoing commercial and residential loan defaults.

As for when another economic dip might occur if it were to occur, the vast majority of CEOs pointed to Q1, 2011, with Q4 of this year and Q2 2011 tying for second at 18% each.

STRATEGY

Almost 50% of CEOs polled said that they had either made a shift in strategy in 2010, or were planning to in the near future.  Granted, growth-stage companies are prone to shifting strategy until they land upon the best formula for significant and sustainable growth.  However ~50% is a big number, and clearly a chunk of those companies have been driven to rethink their strategies because of the challenging economic climate, the concern over the future, and the possibility that 2010 might represent “the new normal” where with no economic “rising tide” no help generated to float all company boats as in periods of economic expansion in the past (1997-2000, 2005-2008, etc).

CASH FLOW

The majority of CEO survey respondents (49%) indicated that they were still planning on burning cash over the next 2 quarters.  24% indicated they would be profitable.  CEO comments regarding this question indicated an overwhelming drive toward cash flow break even.  That was the big push and focus for their companies in 2010, and if they hadn’t achieved it yet, they were gunning to by end of the first quarter of 2011.  CEOs also commented that they were trying to run their companies at break even, with any extra EBIT being reinvested back into the company for additional growth.

COST REDUCTION PLANS

When asked what were the top 3 areas CEOs were targeting for cost reduction, the following table summarizes their responses, representing a combination of spend reduction and staff reduction in non-core areas.  There was a preference by CEOs to favor non-staff cuts over cutting headcount if at all possible, but many acknowledged that in order to make meaningful cuts, staff had  to be considered in the equation.

CEO responses when asked about increasesin spend were logical.  The top three in order were sales, marketing, and R&D.  Many of the comments about this question noted the fact that outside of directly growing revenues, additional spend was hard to build in when many CEOs are driving toward a minimum cash-neutral mandate and economic uncertainties are driving CEOs to think conservatively rather than expansively.

[Click on "more" below for remaining 8 slides and narrative from Q4 2010 CEO survey]

RAISING CAPITAL

The largest segment of CEO survey respondents (40%) listed themselves as having raised capital in the last 12 months, and also planning on raising additional equity in the coming 12.  For those who indicated “other,” most of these CEOs had raised capital quite a while ago (2 or more years ago), were at cash flow positive, and some who were looking at liquidity event in the next few quarters, subject to market conditions.

OUTSOURCING & OFFSHORING

A quarter of CEOs surveyed responded that they were unlikely to ever use/need outsourcing or offshore resources to grow their businesses.

However, almost 70% of CEOs were using some combination of outsourced resources, whether domestic or offshore, full-time or project-based.  Those CEOs using domestic resources were the largest segment at 22%, while those with full-time offshore resources tallied at about 14%.  Nearly one in four CEOs had used contract (non-full-time) outsourced resources in the last 12 months.  A number of CEOs highlighted the fact that although they were users of offshore staff in some capacity, it was difficult to “get right,” and often the experience was less than positive early on in the relationship and took a great deal of work before CEOs could declare it truly accretive.

In answer to where global outsourced/offshore resources were being most utilized, manufacturing, product development, and customer service were the three biggest areas.  One in 5 CEOS (20%)  had already established an international sales presence located abroad.

GROWTH-COMPANY CLIMATE

Do CEOs feel it will be harder to grow companies in the future than in the recent past?  This is a question that many entrepreneurs who look to undertake a new venture (and venture capitalists looking to invest in them) are often quick to ask.

CEO responses were much more evenly distributed than one might think– slightly greater than a third of CEOs indicate “about the same” difficulty, a bit less than a third feel “somewhat more difficult,” and 27% indicating that they thought it would likely be “easier in the next 5 vs. the last 5 years.”  Many of the comments of CEOs responding “easier” pointed to the fact that advances in technology have allowed entrepreneurs to stand up companies for less cash and a lot faster than in years past.   Those CEOs who said it would be harder all pointed to the capital markets, and the medium-term challenges in both raising capital, and achieving liquidity.

DEBT LENDER APPETITE

CEOs were closely split on the question of whether debt has been harder, easier, or about the same to procure in the last few quarters.  37% indicated about the same,  33% responded that it feels worse, and 27% conceded that it appeared easier to get debt now than in the trailing 6 months or so.  However, CEOs commented that even if debt lending had stayed the same or improved slightly in the last six months, over the last year or two lenders have tightened up a great deal, and the lending climate today compared to 2008 is substantially worse.

FEDERAL POLICY IMPACTS

More than three-quarters of CEOs surveyed indicated that there was no impact on their companies due to  changes in federal policy, be it pending capital gains changes, mandatory healthcare, or potential tax increases.  Of those CEOs who did register an impact, the majority (10%) indicated that they would be offsetting any negative impact via headcount reduction.

CEO comments focused on the negative impact of rising healthcare costs as the biggest contributor to any decisions they were considering that were directly attributable to federal policy changes.

EQUITY INVESTOR APPETITE

CEO respondents reported that they saw equity investors as having become more bearish in their investing, with almost 37% holding that opinion.  In contrast, more than 25% of CEOs felt investors appear more willing to put money to work in the next two quarters than in recent past.  CEOs commented that investors don’t want to put money into B rounds, and the investing profile “is a barbell– 259,000 angels poured $17.6 billion into more than 57,000 startups last year, and there are a number of very well funded late-stage private equity firms looking to put $20-$40 million to work per opportunity. But almost nothing in between.”  Other comments indicated that even though investors may be more interested in putting their money to work, those same investors are squeezing valuations harder than ever and their expectations for return are increasingly difficult to meet as an operating CEO.

PRIMARY SURVEY INDUSTRY SECTORS

Of the 50+ CEOs who responded, 25% were running software companies, 16% cleantech, 15$ biotech, 10% interactive media/Internet, and 4% medical devices.  Much of the other 32% of CEO respondents were in the services sector across various industry sectors.

Location of the Companies Surveyed

The majority of responding CEOs were from the New England region (66%), 10% of CEOs’ companies were located in the Rocky Mountain region, with smaller numbers in Northern California (2%), Canada (4%) and the UK( 2%).

September in New England is all about Fall, football, and at least for the last 4 years, philanthropy.  On September 23rd, 2010, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and professional services providers celebrated the 4th consecutive year putting this tournament on.

The goals?

1) Sweat doing one of my favorite sports on one of its most challenging surfaces–

chasing a white ball around a grass lawn where the verb “to bounce” is used only in a relative sense.  Imagine a super-high gravity environment where what goes down, stays down.  A bit more like dropping a plate, versus bouncing a ball.

2) Compete in teams, with venture capitalists comprising one team, pitted against entrepreneurs, the other team.   This brings together the two key stakeholders in the business ecosystem in which our firm operates.   OK, so the entrepreneurs always get a bit feisty because they often feel the perceived chafe of the unspoken universal order, “those who have the gold make the rules.”  But in this format, spicy works.  Feisty is good. For further flavor,  see video mash-up of the tournament highlights below.

3) Give to charity, and create a collaborative giving engine that may at some point outstrip at least this author’s individual efforts.

The supplemental benefits of combining these three above?

1) Sweating couldn’t be in a lovelier setting.  The Longwood Cricket Club is just a spectacular venue, and again this year we were graced with perfect early Fall weather–blue sky highlighted by  brilliant reds of the autumn maple trees ringing the club house and the courts.  Sweating somehow is also a whole lot more fun on a tennis court if you play barefoot.  Don’t try this on hard courts or clay folks.  But at Longwood, all 40+ players doffed their togs and got back to nature (photos and video for up close and personals).

2)  Competing with VC and entrepreneur teams brings out…  well…  a prime opportunity for trash talking in the safety of numbers let us say.  It’s great to get both sides out in a friendly face off, united at the end for a good cause.

3) Giving to charity is something that seems easier the more perceived value is generated (for the altruist), or we receive (for those solipsists).  This year’s charity was again the Tenacity program, founded by Ned Eames.  We heard from some of the at-risk urban middle school children who have found Tenacity a backbone for discipline and achievement in an often keelless school environment.  Hearing some of their stories made us all reflect on our paths to relative success, and how those challenges compared to what these children face.  The goal was to raise $5,000 or more, and although the P&L is still being cyphered, we either met or came close to the target.

Who won this year? Technically, the Entrepreneurs won when toting up the total games score.  However, the VCs took it in a hotly contested 10-game pro set finals match   [see score card below]

The VC team was represented by Michael Balmuth of Edison Ventures and Michael Quinn of sponsor Silicon Valley Bank.  This fearsome duo faced off against entrepreneurs Bill Stone, co-founder of OutsideGC and Dean  Bogdanovic of CounterPath .

No doubt however that all players won in the larger sense what with the weather, the setting, and the collegiality.

Attributions:

To Sung Park who– as the poster-child for entrepreneurial ideation– decided years ago to innovate the fundraising process for his son’s school.  To do this, he cooked up the first VC vs. Entrepreneurs golf tournament we took part in some 6 or more years ago.  I asked him if he had the IP locked up on the idea or could I port the concept to the tennis court, and being the philanthropist that he is, he said heck no, it was “open source.”   Thanks Sung.

To Longwood Cricket Club, who has been a supporter of the event from the beginning, and Larry, the head tennis pro, who makes it a pleasure to orchestrate.

Tenacity’s Ned Eames, who’s vision and personal tenacity has grown a philanthropic organization that touches thousands of inner-city youth with a caring and purpose driven mission. See www.tenacity.org for more.

To our corporate underwriters without whom the event would not achieve its goals–  Silicon Valley Bank, XConomy, Version 2.0 Communications, the Boston Lobsters, and Microsoft.

To the captains of each team, who were elected in a rigorous vetting process operating under the game principle of “tag, your it!”

And of course, our guests/the players.  Getting ~40 or so players to set prioritize their time and money during a weekday afternoon is definitely worthy of acknowledge and appreciation.

And Cristina, no doubt all of us thank you for all you did in helping to pull the event together yet another year!

Photo Gallery

Pre-tournament chalk talk

For the last pro set of the tourney, barefooting experiment for all

Boston Lobsters mascot, offering support for which team?

Grass court form can be quickly compromised by a bad bounce

Dynamic Xconomy sponsored team with ringer Lyn Calkins

Perfect serve form demonstrated by none other than Tenacity's Ned Eames himself

Doug Denny-Brown in serve-return combat pose

VC vs. Entrepreneurs 2010 Longwood Team

Entrepreneur Doug Denny-Brown, tennis gladiator at the ready

OK, admit it.  As CEO of a growth stage technology company, when it comes to your sales team, they all have “happy ears.”  Joyce Durst, former CEO of Infraworks, an enterprise security software company in Austin, TX, used the phrase in describing the eternal sales optimism she and her VP Sales have to counterbalance every week during their Monday morning sales pipeline meetings with their sales team.  You know, this is the optimism that insists that the prospect call that just took place the week before is not only a “sure thing,” but is also a particularly big sized deal, and will surely close before the end of the quarter, with room to spare.   Unfortunately, “happy ears” are the occupational hazard of a good sales person.  These are the ones that as often as not has to take a partially completed beta product, dress it up, sell it into a market where no other solution like it has ever existed, persuade someone that the solution is a “must have,” and then also persuade the other buying influencers within the customer that doing business with an underfunded start-up with perhaps less than 12 months of cash in the bank is a capital idea.

Working with growth-stage CEOs as executive recruiters, we’re often helping to hire sales VPs that will be able to build and manage a company’s sales pipeline.  Certainly hiring the right VP Sales is an important first step in sales pipeline management.  However, once you’ve gotten the right person in the seat, we asked a dozen or so early-stage technology CEOs what other tools, processes, and mistakes they’ve used or made that have led to their “best practices” for effective sales pipeline management.

TOOLS (technology)

Regardless of which tools were the favorites of each CEO, there was agreement that data hygiene was critical

Chuck Dornbush, CEO of Athenium Software, put it succinctly, saying, “Make sure the data is well organized, and frequently reviewed.”  Another location-based services CEO added, “no matter what CRM tool you use, as CEO you need to make sure every sales person is using it, and using it the same way.” Vinit Nijhawan, former CEO of Taral Networks, emphasized that sales people hate to use a system at all; you’re lucky to get them to enter the data once, and you’ll never get them to double enter for forecasting purposes.  So you need to use the same system for lead tracking and reporting/forecasting.”

PROCESS BEST PRACTICES

Meetings 1x-week—sales people defend their new pipeline additions

One of the above CEOs stated simply– “Know the basics, and do the basics.”  In more detail, he and several others sketched the basics out.   Have a weekly sales meeting.  For sales people to have a prospect “make the pipeline report,” they need to defend their putting the prospect into the pipeline, akin to a team interrogation.

7 categories involved in qualifying additions to the pipeline

Many of the CEOs talked about the minimum information requirements for a prospect to be added to the pipeline report.  Although some CEOs had four steps, and others had up to 40, the core must-haves most often included the following 7:

1. Budget—– Is there an earmarked budget set-aside for this category of expenditure?

2. Need –Is there a compelling need driving the prospect to make this purchase?

3. Time urgency—–Is there something that creates a sense of time-bound decisioning, or is this an important-but-non-urgent agenda item?

4. Internal champion—–Is there an individual inside the prospect who’s willing to go the extra mile and spend the political capital required to “fight the good fight” internally within their own organization?

5. Decision making power–—Who holds the real “power” to make the decision?  Can a clear decision-making organization path be mapped?

6. Clear ROI—–How is the prospective customer going to measure “success” for this product or solution?

7. Trust– Both in the relationship between the individual sales person and the individual representing the prospective customer company, and the prospect’s relationship with you as a company with whom to do business… do they trust your products, your company, and your sales people?

Tim Butler, former CEO at SiteScape and now CEO of growing RFID company Tego, said that as a reminder for his sales force, they have adopted a pneumonic, BUTANE–—budget, urgency, timing, authority, need & event.

Stages of the sales pipeline

Joyce Durst has her sales team and VP Sales apply a ranking/scoring system for each sales prospect.  If the customer is 50 points or less, they remain on the prospects list only, and don’t move onto pipeline report; if more than that, 50-70, they’re pipelined for NEXT quarter; if 70-90, they’re qualified as “committed;” If 90-100, the prospect is considered “ready to close.”

Athenium CEO Chuck Dornbush finds that it’s critical to “set entry/exit rules litmus tests for each stage.”  One CEO established the rule that “you couldn’t allow a prospect into the pipeline until at least their forth stage–qualified, demonstrated, formal price quote, and funds allocated. “

Other critical ingredients

Categorize every lead as “hot, warm, cold”

In addition to assigning probabilities as a percentage, try using some sort of ranking system.  Tim Butler uses another version– possible, likely, & probable

Add non-sales peers to pipeline meetings…

One of the CEOs stated  that it was very valuable to bring non-sales functions into sales pipeline meetings.  He added that personal accountability generated by sales people committing to forecasts in front of non-sales peers in a weekly/monthly meeting environment can do a lot to reduce the “fudge factor.”

Get the customer prospect to serve as proxy VP Sales for you…

Former Pantero CEO Pano Anthos who now is CEO of Hangout added a trick of the pipeline trade he’s found very useful– —“The customer needs to sign OFF on moving from one step to another.  Have the CUSTOMER via email play a proxy VP Sales role for you.”  Do this by having your sales person ask for a confirmation by email that the prospect has indeed passed from one stage of the sales pipeline to the next, whether confirming the ROI value proposition, or the budget allocation, or any of the other stages listed earlier.

If no date for next prospect action step, off it goes…

“Every prospect has to have an action item by date, or qualify it as ‘dead,’” another CEO offered up.

Kill the bad deals early…

Many CEOs listed this as critical to effective sales pipeline management.  Slow prospects should be turned over to the inside sales team.  Prospects that are particularly non-committal should get put in direct mail “tickler” mode.   “Stop spending the time on them, trying to actively manage them to close,” Marc Tremblay states, and adds that, “if feasible, you want to focus your sales team more on hunting than farming if you can.  You can get tied into prospects who may take two years to close… “  They may close, but “I always get my man” isn’t the most efficient proverb for sales.

Expect the unexpected…

When ending the quarter and/or the year there will be sales people who will say, “we’ll absolutely close these deals….” Even when all indications say they’re done, assume that some percentage will fall out, no matter HOW good they look.  Jim Lawton,  a veteran VP Marketing at a number of venture-backed growth-stage software companies who has seen a lot of sales pipeline management approaches states the reasons can include someone at the prospect company “getting sick, leaving the position, dog ate my homework… expect just about anything.”

“3x coverage” to mitigate the unexpected …

Continuing, Jim Lawton added, “If I’m trying to hit 3 million in quarterly sales, I want to have 9 million in the pipe.  Living on luck is tough, and you might hit a quarter or two with a thin pipe where you muscle the prospects and get a blue bird or two, but you’ll never make this repeatable.”

Consider having TWO sales pipelines

No, this isn’t two separate sets of books, nor is this a tool meant to be used deceitfully.  However, one of the CEOs offered up the fact that—–early on at least–there was a pipeline they kept internal, and one the executive team shared with investors that better illustrated the potential traction of their products.  The internal pipeline was more conservative.  As they grew the business, there was a natural convergence of the two into one.  Controversial, yes.  However, in order to manage burn-rates, and make sure you live to fight another day, it’s a survival tactic that no doubt many CEOs use, whether they admit to it or not.

Other Considerations

When to begin trying to do sales forecasting

Once you’re at what’s often referred to by venture capitalists as the “scaling stage,” most CEOs list their pipeline out and begin assigning probabilities.  However, Vinit Nijhawan cautioned that, “You rarely ever hit the forecast you set up.  After you get your 3 or 4 customers, you feel there is a market for your product, but actually what you’ve done is gotten the really early adopters.  And CEOs then start to scale too early, hiring resources, and making decisions that are difficult to undo.  Instead, you need to be in that strategic marketing role in sales longer than most start-ups might think.  Don’t even OFFER sales pipeline reports.  It’s not an issue with the start-up’s products, it’s the market.  Quarter-over-quarter projections are almost impossible.”  So where is the line, and where do you know that you have a product that the market is ready for?  “THAT is the art in sales pipeline management,” says Anthos.  “It’s definitely not a science.”

Strategic consideration in building the sales pipeline–—proper reference customer sequencing

Another wrinkle in building an early-stage sales pipeline CEOs mentioned was the proper ordering of reference customers.  There is a step before managing the pipeline process or implementing some tool to help in pipeline forecasting.  This is determining what is the optimal sequencing of customers you go to in order to create proof points and references to scale customer acquisition most efficiently and effectively. Do you sell big customers first, then the small customers, or smaller customers and build up to bigger ones?  CEOs concurred, —“It depends on capital resources available.”

MISTAKES & LEARNINGS

Three major reasons deals don’t get done–

1) Budgets are frozen

2) Technology shifts

3) Competition– you get beaten

However, there are a number of other reasons in addition to these three that were honorable mentions when talking shop with these CEOs on mistakes they’ve made and subsequent lessons learned.

Delegating too much pipeline management to the VP Sales…

The CEO usually gets slammed because s/he trusted a VP of Sales that hasn’t sufficiently vetted the prospect added Anthos.  Make sure you ask the tough questions of your VP Sales as well if you have one.

The pig stuck at the back end of the python…

Chuck Dornbush emphasized that he learned early from making the mistake of having prospects move only in a single direction, saying,   “There needs to be two-way triggers at either end.  Something can go from a higher stage to a lower stage, not just upward.  You need to be disciplined in reclassifying each prospect.”

Forecasting off new sales people…

Joyce Durst learned that with new sales reps, it’s very difficult to “learn them” in terms of their different realism/optimism quotients.  Until you have a good read, go conservative.

Trusting the “happy ears”–making a process exception…

One of the CEOs paraphrased what he’s heard so many times from his sales team—–“Although our average sales cycle time is 6 months, I’m REALLY confident this one won’t be the ‘average’… let’s fast track it; am sure it’s going to close… “  This is equivalent to the pig not entering the python through the mouth, but surgically implanted close to the tail.  And is just about as unrealistic to happen with a python as with your prospect.

Targeting the wrong people…

Other CEOs recounted a common sales problem where a sales team was targeting the tech person with a sexy demo-able product, getting great interest, and then recognizing too late that this function had no budget authority.

Relying on sales channel partners’ own pipeline discipline…

Another CEO commented that to qualify leads from a sales channel partner, it’s like the game of telephone.  What is spoken to the first person in a line of people is never what ends up being the message received at the other end… optimism breeds like rabbits.  CEO Durst maintains that if a prospect has been brought in through an indirect channel partner, “and they’ve gotten us involved, the sales channel rep is put through the same pipeline “challenge” as those sales executives who are selling direct.

Be more aggressive about accurately qualifying the leads early…

Tim Butler recounted a circumstance where the prospect was qualified by the sales executive as a potentially very large order.   Because of this, extra resources, time, and effort were leveraged against the opportunity.  It “starts out as a big huge deal, and ends up as a small deal with ‘potential down the road,’ which creates a real mismatch between deal potential to sales effort.  Cost of sales ends up way too high.”

The “close” as drug for the sales team…

Butler added that not only can you spend too much on resources out of balance with the size of the order, but often the sales team has a natural tendency to want to close a transaction just for the high that comes along with it, regardless of the deal’s size.  “You end up expending too many resources on the smaller deals just to close them, and therefore starving the larger deals of resources.   There is a natural tendency to lose discipline in prioritizing prospects.  The ‘close’ is a drug.”  Tim suggests developing incentive structures to get the sales team to do a better job of pipeline prioritization.

Giving away the store to make the deal happen…

Often a hidden gotcha in trying to close the deal in technology sales is the development and customization resources committed to the prospect. This can quickly turn a good deal into red-ink resources sinkhole.

Taking high level executive enthusiasm as surrogate for following the process…

One CEO talked about a bad experience where they had been trapped several times selling to the pharma industry by taking their high-level executives making global commitments to move something ahead.   They allowed themselves to believe that –because they liked and trusted the people—they didn’t ask the standard questions like where is the clear path to success, budget allocation, or who’s going to pay for it.  Don’t take in good faith that senior level staff executives have access to whatever budget they want.

Beware of “false summits”…

One CEO recounted a story where it took more than a year to close a prospect, and the process reminded him of a mountaineering term where you think you’ve reached the top, only to learn it’s just a “false summit.”   On three separate occasions, he thought they’d identified the decision-maker only to learn that it was just the next layer up in a longer process.  He emphasized that you have to ask the questions flat out, “Is the money coming from YOUR account… ?  Are YOU the one who’s going to sign the PO.”  It simply isn’t enough to ask, “Are you going to be the one making the decision?”

Beware of “technology shifts”…

Another CEO offered a particularly gruesome tale of what happens when you get blindsided by a tectonic shift in the technology landscape.  It was a billion dollar technology corporation and a million-plus dollar deal.    The CFO who needed to sign off on the purchase order had a heart attack and the deal got shelved for six months.  Sure enough a technology shift occurred.  He stated that he felt that CEOs don’t smell technology shifts early enough.  And he got caught developing his software solution on the wrong platform.   His learnings were multiple—Tech shifts happen all the time, so you have to have contingency plans.  There has to be a realization that you “eat your old,” not “eat your young.”  What technology companies do more often is eat their young by canceling development projects before they make it out of the womb.  They’re not willing to suffer short-term pain for long-term gain.

Beware of acquisitions…

Jim Lawton recounted a story that–—although having a silver lining—–made him very aware of the unpredictability of closing a customer.  Jim’s company had done a pilot, the ROI was there, they were “cruising through the sales process, and dotting i’s and crossing t’s all the way along.  Even the CFO says it’s doable.”  Then Lawton learns that the prospect has been acquired  possibly scuttling any chance of a deal.  In this case, however, the CFO recognized the potentially significant benefits for the acquiring company as well as for his own – and working closely with Lawton’s team, developed a pitch that extrapolated the results and opportunities in a broader context.   The CFO was became the internal champion, and pitched the solution to the CEO of the acquiring company, which ultimately gave its approval for the investment to be made in Lawton’s technology.  Lawton’s lessons for managing the sales pipeline at risk? 1) Short term ROI levels the playing field of change.  2) Understand a prospect’s own agenda – in this case, the powerful ROI provided on plank in a platform for lobbying for job security and new opportunities  3) Never give up on a prospect, even when the odds seem insurmountable.

Your sales force needs to be able to sell both outside AND in…

Another CEO recounted hiring a sales executive who had been an engineering support person and wanted to transition into sales.  He was the antithesis of the sales guy; wasn’t well groomed, didn’t look good, was a bit clumsy in social skills.  The CEO’s instinct was that this person could do the solutions selling required, and the candidate could really understand the customer, because he’d BEEN one at one time.  The first deal this sales person brought in required some custom work from engineering.  It turned out that he was really good on the customer side, but HORRIBLE inside the company, building the support  & coalition required to deliver the ultimate product promised to the customer.  The CEO’s take-away from this experience is  that a good sales person doesn’t just have to be good selling on the outside, but also on the inside.  And this is particularly true in start-ups because inside resources are ALWAYS over committed, so skills required to lobby for mind share within your own company are essential.

Have more than one touch point within the prospect…

As a punctuation to all the feedback CEOs offered on the topic of sales pipeline mangement, yet another CEO gave their worst mistake, and how it’s changed their sales pipeline management process forever.  Her sales team had identified a prospect’s CIO as the power and the champion within his company.  There were continued promises that the purchase order was forthcoming.  After several exasperated attempts to determine the hiccup, they learned that the CIO had “fallen out of favor” with senior management because he hadn’t delivered on another technology implementation, so wasn’t going to be given any authority to take on more responsibility.

[Originally authored for publication in Mass HighTech]

Registration is Now Open

4th Annual Benefit

VCs vs. Entrepreneurs – Davis Cup Challenge

Thursday, September 23, 2010
Longwood Grass Courts  /  2:00 – 7:30pm

Welcome Back!  BSG Team Ventures is proud to once again host the 4th Annual  Benefit: VC vs.  Entrepreneur Tennis Tournament – Davis Cup Challenge, and we are thrilled to have you join us.

The VC/Entrepreneur tennis community has been growing every year so please register now so we can build the teams early.

Entry is by donation of $175.00.  Please click here to register!

For questions, please email Cristina Vieira Abramson at cvieira@bsgtv.com or call 617.784.4987

Agenda Overview

VCs vs. Entrepreneurs - Thursday, September 23, 2010

Format - Round Robin, Doubles

Time - 2:00 – 7:30pm (includes tournament, finals, cocktails, dinner and networking)

Location – Longwood Cricket Club, Chestnut Hill, MA

REGISTER

The UK’s sustainable energy program is a public-private partnership at work.  And thus far, working well.

I recently had the opportunity to participate in what has become an annual “Cleantech Trade Mission” of Boston and New York cleantechers to the United Kingdom.    Our hosts?  The UK Trade & Investment team based here in the Northeast, part of the large mandate of the British Consulate  here in the U.S. to continue to put planks in the bridge between our two countries, especially when it comes to cleantech and sustainable energy solutions.

Although I joined midweek as was over there for a European-based executive search we were interviewing on, the group moved from North to South, starting on Monday up in Edinburgh, Scotland, then down through Newcastle, Cambridge, and ending with two days in London.

It was a comprehensive gathering of the UK cleantech ecosystem for an exchange of ideas and “show-and-tell” around the UK of their commitment to sustainability and cleantech thought leadership.   Our US band of cleantech brethren among others included investors from Rockport Capital and Kleiner Perkins.

There were  three notable differences between the UK and US surrounding renewable energy & cleantech:

1) Government superstructure like the Carbon Trust (keep in mind, the UK has cap-and-trade and the U.S. doesn’t) Cap & trade drives a true dynamic market in the UK while the US version is still mired in politics on Capitol Hill.  The UK succeeded in passing sweeping energy-related legislation in 2008 (http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/about-carbon-trust/pages/default.aspx ), and the result has been a fueling of the entrepreneurial engine in Britain to come up with new technologies, sciences, and Internet-driven efficiency and monitoring solutions to help drive adoption and integration of the new laws.

2) Landfills and methane is another interesting difference again brought about by the UK’s progressive legislation.  Britain is an island, and a small one at that compared to the U.S. (60+ million citizens, one fifth the size of the U.S.)   There is limited real estate for landfills, and one of the big offenders from landfill is methane gas.  A host of science-driven entrepreneurs have tackled what is referred to as anaerobic digesters (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/anaerobic_digestion.pdf )

3) Massive investment in offshore wind generation capacity is the third area. It was truly remarkable the detail behind Britain’s likely ascendance to global leadership in offshore wind generation.   Historically, Scandinavia has held that claim.  However, with Britain’s aggressive 2020 goals, they’re going to no doubt lead in offshore wind expertise and GW installed base.

Some quick numbers related to the 2020 initiative:

* Capital expenditures:  £14 billion already spent in the last 5  years.

* £5.6 billion more in cap-ex planned for the next 5 years (keep in mind, this is a country with a population of ~ 62 million, about one fifth the size of the United States)

* Closure of 25% of traditional power stations (coal or other non-renewable sources)

* 25% of natural gas generated from UK sources

* Addition of 44GW of offshore wind power at distances up to 200km from shore, and in water depths down to 80m

Something like 40% of energy capacity is going to be wind, with a vast majority of that coming from offshore wind.  However, UK power generators like NationalGrid recognize that there needs to be a large redundancy due to the intermittent nature of wind as a resource.  NationalGrid is planning primary failover in the form of LNG and CCS capacity to power conventional generation, replacing virtually 100% of existing coal-fired plants with carbon-capture versions.  The best hope to reduce this reliance on traditional energy sources is to innovate a wind power storage solution that can be commercialized between now and the completion of the 2020 UK offshore wind initiative.

Britain is pioneering a number of other innovations, including a CO2 transportation network that transports CO2 for storage (think CO2 “pipeline”), taking a chunk of  the industrial complex’s CO2 emissions and capturing, storing and or repurposing it.

After all that cleantech knowledge transfer, what did the UK serve for dessert?  A cocktail party with London-based cleantech entrepreneurs and investors at Taylor Wessing’s offices on the top floor wrap-around patio on a gorgeous London summer evening (below was the mis en scene).

In addition, we had an opportunity to take a sneak peek from “The View, ”  an official viewing site of the 2012 Summer Olympic Park, at the top of an adjacent apartment building in East London that has impressively grown from a former area challenged by urban decay.   And the London Olympics stand to be the greenest one yet from what we were told, with prolific and cool sustainable innovation even built right into the very steps of the stadiums that use spectator energy expended in climbing up and down the stadium to power an LED lighting system.  One of their sustainability goals is to try to construct the Olympic venue with a net-zero carbon footprint.

Footnote:  Rob Dietel, Vice Consul, who heads the cleantech vertical for the British Consulate’s UK Trade & Investment New England office, is a terrific resource along with his colleague, Kevin McCarthy, also out of the Boston office.  Rebecca Lewis is  Rob’s New York-region counterpart. All three are bringing a select group of UK cleantech entrepreneurs to Boston and New York this Fall.  In addition, they’re planning on putting on a one-day “master class” of sorts showcasing UK offshore wind expertise here in the U.S.  Invitation-only, and for those who are lucky enough to get the invite, it should prove to be great content.  For more detail, Rob is at rob.dietel@fco.gov.uk.

[originally written for Mass High Tech]

In our role as executive search consultants for growth-stage companies, one of the questions that seems to continually vex the CEO is how best to build out their team.   This question often narrows to a discussion around whether it would be better to hire a senior level person first in each of the key functional roles in the organization chart, or rather to hire a more junior level person and hire at a higher level once the company has built up some “traction.” For our purposes, traction can be defined as any or all of a number of indicators, including revenue, funding, or product development milestones.

Short answer, “It depends…”

When asked this question, the CEOs and venture capitalists we talked to universally responded, “It depends….” So then the question became, “On what?”  The answers came back and included the following key variables to balance when trying to decide on whether to hire high or low when you first fill a key position in your early-stage venture—

• • Funding—Money is certainly a gaiting factor for most early-stage companies, and often the largest line item on the P&L is salaries & wages.  Putting in a leadership team too early all at cash compensation that runs north of $150,000 can certainly create a net-cash-burn that would rival the bubble days.   However, “talented people hire talented people,” says Lou Volpe, Managing General Partner of Kodiak Venture Partners.   And talent doesn’t necessarily mean ‘experienced.’ Talent alone is usually less expensive.”
• • Composition of the Incumbent Team— You need to have a balanced team.  Companies are often referred to as “engineering culture,” or sales, or finance-driven.  This speaks to an inherent imbalance in the leadership team.  Kodiak’s Volpe emphasized that, “you need to think of the entire picture, the entire team.  You need to have it balanced.  If you have too much strength in one function, you’ll be out-of balance and the company will suffer accordingly.”
• • Stage of Company— If too early-stage a company, it may be difficult to attract the world-class talent you need.   This conflicts to some extent with the current thinking today popularized by Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great.  In one of the areas Collins explored with the “great” companies he studied, he and his team learned that these companies focused on “getting the right people on the bus,” then deciding where they were going to drive it.  David Power, a Partner at Fidelity Ventures, qualified Collins’ observations, saying, “If you’re a charismatic enough leader, you might be able to get everyone on the bus BEFORE you start to drive, but every company doesn’t have that privilege, especially when young, and often capital-constrained/higher-risk.  You need to be able to give talented executives that you are seeking to attract some general direction, to be able to explain to a ‘hire-high’ A-player why the company and role should have great appeal to the candidate.”
• • Which Function It Is — There are certain functions in an early-stage company where hiring the best is critical early on.  One such critical area is hiring into the leadership roles responsible for the product development in the company—engineering in the case of technology product, or science in the case of biotechnology/life sciences.  CEO Tuan Ha-Ngoc  said that it was critical for Genpath’s success to get the best Chief Science Officer they could find, and they did.   One of the VC’s commented however that the finance function is a perfect example of where hiring low is often the right thing to do—the company only needs a part time finance person at its earliest stages, then a controller later on, and then if the company is looking to go public, a world class CFO.
• • Speed of Anticipated Growth— If the company is anticipated to grow slowly, it is possible that a person can grow in parallel with the company.  However, given the often-cannibalistic nature of technology and sciences companies, “slow” is often not an option due to fears of product obsolescence, time limits on patents, or pure competitive pressures.    Globespan’s David Fachetti put it clearly, saying, “Hire higher for fast growth companies.  The opportunity will grow into the people, rather than the people grow into the opportunity.  Talented and experienced executives will bring up the level of the opportunity to meet their needs, and in so doing will accelerate the company’s growth.”
• • Price point of Product /Service— Enterprise software or very expensive hardware sold into the C-levels within the Global 2000 may put pressure on the upside of the high/low spectrum.  Kodiak’s Lou Volpe feels that if price-points are high, it is likely the company will need more senior/experienced talent to get it to market.

Universal Truths

All those interviewed agreed on a number of best practices.  The one that stood out most is the need to hire what was referred to as “quality.” There are two primary axes on candidate qualifications briefly mentioned earlier—the first is quality or “talent,” and the second is experience.  If you hire someone with both, this defines the “hire high” approach.  If you hire someone with only quality, but less experience, it points to the “hire low” approach.

Hire quality

Those we spoke with also included several other must-have characteristics further define “quality.”  Fidelity Ventures’ David Power ticked off the first four:

• • Motivation
• • Intelligence
• • Integrity
• • Ability to produce results

Joel Rosen, veteran CEO and former venture capitalist  at Charles River Ventures added two more:

• • Passion about the business
• • Cultural fit with the rest of the team

One other CEO punctuated the list:

• • Work ethic

Though no doubt there are many more, these rose to the top of the list when trying to describe what “quality” in a hire looks like.

Hire experience

The other half of our working definition of “hiring high” we’ve termed earlier as “experience.”  David Fachetti at Globespan Capital articulated four key areas he probes to determine whether candidates he interviews have what he defines as experience:

1. 1. Lifecycle experience: prior experience at a similar stage of company development
2. 2. Domain experience:  prior experience in the same industry sector as the current company
3. 3. Functional experience: prior experience playing a similar functional role (marketing, sales, technology, finance, etc.)
4. 4. Relationships experience:  has the individual worked with others on the team before?

Don’t skimp when it comes to Leadership experience

One more key experience criterion, especially when “hiring high,” is leadership experience.  One CEO emphasized that, “experience and skills aren’t a surrogate for leadership.  If you’re going to be growing a team, you’ll fail without it.”

Determine where you need your best gene pool

Another common refrain was that–in an early stage company–there are at least three key roles where you want to hire high, rather than low.  Dave Fachetti, Principal at Globespan Capital Partners, summed it up, saying, “For a company to have a solid foundation for growth, bench strength needs to exist at the highest functional levels in technology (VP Engineering/CTO), sales, and the senior P&L role of CEO.  Scott Griffith, Zipcar CEO emphasized that each company can differ, so “get the strategy right, and THEN hire high into the key stress points of that strategy.”

One qualifier made by Genpath CEO Tuan Ha-Ngoc was the impact of the differences between technology companies and life sciences companies.  In pure technology companies, there is an additional emphasis on the importance of hiring a high level of experience into the position where the technology meets the customer, someone who has the pulse and understanding of the market into which the technology will be selling.    In life sciences, the pain of disease is more often self-evident, where technology can sometimes mistakenly be developed for technology’s sake, a “build it and they will come” approach.

Make sure executives can “zoom out and zoom in”

The individual has to be able to both lead a function and do the function.  In other words, if the decision is made to hire a VP Sales, that VP Sales has to be able to “carry the bag” and actually do the selling, as well as hire, train, motivate, and manage a sales force when the time comes.    Similarly, an early-stage VP Engineering should be able to code as well as architect early on, until more hands can be hired.  Early on at Yahoo!, the company determined that one of the key hiring criteria for any employee was that they could “zoom in and zoom out.”   Every new hire had to be able to think strategically at the 50,000 foot level, but also be able to go back to ground-zero and execute the strategy.   Zipcar’s Griffith—a licensed airplane pilot—added, “You have to be a pilot, willing to get under the plane and check all the equipment yourself, take off, navigate, AND safely land in order to get successfully from point of origin to destination.”

Biases & Cautions

Not surprisingly there were biases that had formed from the individual operating experiences of each CEO or VC with whom we talked.   And interestingly, despite these biases, many gave examples of a hiring circumstance that ran counter to their bias that worked out particularly well, or a hire that fit their bias that failed.   Following are some of the biases and cautions that stood out.

If you’re the CEO, don’t hire low in an area just because it’s your functional strength

There was a great deal of alignment on this issue, and it’s a chronic mistake the venture capitalists we talked to saw in their portfolio companies.   David Power at Fidelity Ventures elaborated saying that “If a CEO hires a weaker player into a function where that CEO has expertise, say the marketing function, the CEO ends up still managing marketing instead of doing what the CEO should be doing—running the company.  You want to hire at equal levels across the functional spectrum.”  Joel Rosen at Charles River Ventures added, “younger companies don’t have a lot of training infrastructure.  The company is running too fast to have the leeway to train much.  Although this isn’t a law of nature, the biggest gaiting factor to growth is often bandwidth, particularly that of the CEO.”

Don’t hire talent too late

Genpath CEO Tuan Ha-Ngoc put it simply and elegantly—“It is rare that the company fails because you hired high-caliber talent too early.  It’s usually that the company hired too late.”

If you hire high, think about assigning multiple roles

One of the ways you can often get top talent in early-stage companies is to offer multiple roles that will allow the higher-level executive an opportunity to stretch their wings.  Lou Volpe at Kodiak added, “If hiring a senior engineering executive early-on, think about giving them QA, support, and/or manufacturing, even product management.”

The probability of a successful high/low hire is predicated on the clarity of the task

Put another way, the murkier the goals, strategies, and tactics of a particular functional area, the more you will bias your hiring toward the high side of the spectrum of experience.  Conversely, if the responsibilities of the position are well defined and clear, a lower-hire might be just the right fit.  As EquipNet CEO Roger Gallo put it, “Is the hire going to be focused on fulfilling known initiatives,

or rather creating and forging entirely new ones?”

Think about making a “high-low sandwich”

To this point, no mention has been made of the obvious question when talking about whether to hire high or hire low—what about “hiring in the middle”?  Kodiak’s Lou Volpe admits a bias to a combination approach of hiring a low with a high—“Hire high, and then do a step function, and hire low.  In sales for example, hire the VP, and then hire one or two lower-level individual contributors, one or more of which can be step-up candidates into the middle role of manager or director further down the company development cycle.”

What about hiring high/low when it comes to hiring the CEO?

This question is complex enough to support itself as a single topic of discussion with the venture capitalists and CEOs we consulted.  However, Fidelity Ventures’ David Power listed three circumstances where hiring a step-up/“low” candidate into the CEO position can work—

1. 1. When a particular functional area is important to the stage of company growth (hiring a VP Sales or VP Marketing into the CEO position when the company is just entering its revenue stage)
2. 2. When continual technological innovation/engineering is inherent to an industry sector (hiring a VP Engineering or CTO into the CEO position because of the pressures for recurring and sustainable technology innovation)
3. 3. When you can get someone who is traditionally “out of reach” (hiring a superstar VP level candidate into the CEO position because a step-up is the only way you can attract that particular talent)

With all of the above thoughts on best practices regarding hiring for early-stage companies, an image formed to sum up some of the wisdom of the CEOs and VCs we consulted.   Perhaps it’s not too different from how many parents buy clothes for their fast growing child—you pick the color and the style, and then have them walk up the rack trying on increasingly larger sizes until the piece of clothing actually falls right off.  You then step it back one size, and buy that one.   It’s just small enough that it can be worn now, but it leaves plenty of room for future growth.

The Leading Provider of Wealth Marketing Solutions

Based in New York City, our client provides strategic and interactive marketing solutions for wealth management firms and luxury brands. The company offers strategy planning and research services; online marketing and advertising programs; and e-marketing tools, which comprise a suite of software offering an e-marketing platform that allows communication with clients and prospects. It also provides marketing services, including print and online content publishing, brand and identity creative, creative strategy and planning, logo and mark creation, graphic design and layout, editorial design, copywriting, multimedia design, video and audio production, prepress and print, and collateral development services. In addition, the company offers interactive solutions, such as Web design, Web building and analytics, Internet and intranet/micro site development, information architecture, SEM/SEO, systematic design, content management, E-commerce, and Internet application development services,  and multichannel integrated marketing, rich and emerging media, media strategy, media planning and buying, and strategy and creative development services.

The company has become the pre-eminent provider of interactive agency expertise, accompanied by specific CRM oriented software tools to help their marquis clients, including Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Charles Schwab and Barclays.

The Position

Reporting to the CEO, the SVP Technology’s role is to oversee day to day activities of the software product development and enterprise architecture integration teams for the company’s Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings. The SVP will directly supervise a team of software developers, quality assurance, and business analysts; identify risk and opportunity areas; and coordinate all software development activities.

The head of technology will also work closely with Product Strategy on the business side and manage the Lead Technical Architect to envision and define features in the product roadmap and be accountable for the features development, deployment and support.  In addition to the technical leadership of the team, this role has full management responsibility and oversight for a cross-functional group of engineering personnel.

The SVP Technology shall:

• • Manage software architecture, design, development, procurement, and integration. Also manage tier-2 and higher support once software has been placed into operations.
• • Achieve cost, schedule, technical and quality performance for delivered software. Compile, maintain, schedule, resource, execute prioritized lists of development projects, including planning and managing the budget and scheduling personnel and vendor contracts to meet project needs. Collect metrics on development performance and report on them.
• • Collaborate with other functional managers (customer facing business units, systems engineering, QA, and operations) to ensure architectural integrity, effective integration and test, and ongoing system stability.
• • Direct technical subcontractor management including contract negotiation, technical support, budgetary management and program management of various contracts and associated budgets.   Coordinate vendor contracts, deliveries and schedule with affected company parties.  Contract with vendors for services to support engineering while addressing Intellectual Property, Non-Disclosures and Statements of Work.
• • Manage short- and long-term staff planning, recruitment, performance management, work assignments, training, mentoring, career development, and recognition or disciplinary action.
• • Be responsible for business planning and proposals, operating budgets and financial terms / conditions of contracts for both internal and external customers.

The successful candidate must also have the ability and experience to lead a multi-disciplined organization in a multi-location environment.

Qualifications

• • Minimum of 10 years overall software development experience, with no less than 5 years in a SaaS environment as well as at least 5 years of management experience.
• • 2-3 years of senior-level or leadership experience in a software environment with 10 or more direct reports.
• • Experience working with product managers and other business stakeholders to set timeliness, budget resources, and manage expectations and quality of the development process
• • Advanced understanding of SaaS web application programming architectures, including standards for security, scalability and configurability
• • Expertise and experience in implementing and overseeing measures for data security, business continuity, disaster recovery
• • Deep understanding of load balancing and performance optimization  principals for high volume/transaction web applications
• • Strong skills in Java software development.
• • Experience with refactoring and eliminating legacy dependencies
• • Demonstrated substantial leadership in both technical and management areas
• • Experience leading development efforts using a variety of different SDLC approaches (waterfall, agile, etc.)
• • Knowledge of multi-threaded programming
• • Outstanding collaboration skills, excellent communication skills, an ability to look at the big picture

Essential Job Functions/Responsibilities

• • Lead software and front-end engineers in the specification, design and development and support of all our applications, including websites/products, our core services and our internal and external tools
• • Provide hands-on technical management leadership and support to software development team of 12 – 15 engineers
• • Identify skill and performance gaps in current organization and provide improvement plans
• • Improve existing processes and establish new processes for efficient development and high quality output
• • Evaluate and enhance overall development environment, release practices and Quality Assurance methodology
• • Instate and maintain development standards, code reviews, unit testing and integration testing frameworks
• • Maintain overall ownership / accountability for data security, business continuity, disaster recovery
• • Work in tandem with Technical architect and development team to identify and implement new measures for system performance optimization under high load
• • Lead, recruit, develop and supervise the development team members
• • Evaluate and take accountability for decisions on key technologies adopted
• • Ensure proper development of technical specifications and documentation.
• • Estimate resource usage and timeliness for development team
• • Review team members’ detailed design of components/modules/code
• • Provide a good balance of experience and skills in several front-end and/or back-end technologies
• • Strong relational database skills, preferably MY SQL Serve
• • Knowledge of latest web technologies with understanding of AJAX and RIA
• • Ability to translate technology choices into business implications

The diagram below illustrates the intersection of competencies critical in the SVP Technology position:

Compensation

Compensation is competitive with the position’s requirements.  In a performance-based environment, this will include base salary, incentive bonus structure based on both individual, department, and corporate qualitative and quantitative MBOs, and a potential stakeholder position in the company.