Fill the hackerspace
Mix genius and hi-tech tools
Watch the makers work
Mix genius and hi-tech tools
Watch the makers work
Showing posts with label hackerspaces. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hackerspaces. Show all posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013
New Venture Thinking and Old VC Equations at Hacker Dojo
Hacker Dojo is way more than a wide open space for Meetups on real-time marketing with Big Data. I walked around the space long enough to see that its past as a glass factory is long gone. Hackerspaces should be full of random building blocks and tools for original thinkers. You know you're in one when the sarcastic instructions in the restroom are written in computer code and the wall calendar is from 2600.
The meeting rooms looked underutilized late in the day but maybe the important action happens earlier. The library is full of appropriate titles on coding, business development, and DIY things that today we call "life hacking." Thankfully there is no fiction or pop psychology to distract serious thinkers from the hard work of new venture creation.
Hacker Dojo has its incongruous moments in the spirit of random assembly. Consider this photo of an aerialist in mid-climb.
Eager students can learn aerial acrobatics in some gyms and health clubs. Come to Hacker Dojo and you'll learn among dinosaur murals and a mock-up of Doctor Who's TARDIS. BTW, the blonde in the foreground was cute.
Consider this photo of an ordinary vending machine. Don't expect the same old snacks at Hacker Dojo.
The contents include Arduino boards and USB connectors. The guy at the soldering desk told me it's the most-photographed item in Hacker Dojo. I have a newfound respect for nerd culture.
I came across one book randomly positioned in a plug-and-play tech room, A. David Silver's Venture Capital: The Complete Guide for Investors. There's an old saying . . . when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Books have always been my best teachers so this must have been my Zen moment. The publishing date in 1985 is not a liability. Some principles don't change even if the industries they track disappear.
I flipped to the chapter on metrics, in the spirit of the analytics revolution that has gripped new venture enthusiasts and their funders. Silver proposes the "Three Laws of VC:"
1. No more than two risks per investment.
2. V = P x S x E, where . . .
V = Valuation
P = Size of problem (the one painful thing the startup proposes to solve)
S = Elegance
E = Quality of entrepreneurial team
3. Invest in big-P companies because the market will give them high valuations irrespective of S and E
Silver believes the most efficient rating system for P, S, and E is 0-3, so the max value of V in this model will be 27. He later proposes that S = B x T, where B = the business plan or solution delivery mechanism and T = the existence of low-priced tech (presumably a resource input that makes the startup's task easier with fewer innovation hurdles to cross). The existence of two more variables means the max value of either B or T cannot be greater than the square root of 3, because when multiplied together they must allow S to be no greater than 3 itself. Otherwise the larger equation's V would be greater than 27 and the whole premise of controlling risk with a formula goes out the window.
The ratings in this model would have to be subjective. VCs in the mid-80s and before would not have had access to large sets of market data outside of proprietary sources. Big Data solves that problem today. High-quality granular data on anything is available for free on the Web or at a nominal cost from market research portals. HBR did a 20003 case study on the VC formula but I've seen these types of valuation metrics in my MBA coursework (also of early 2000s vintage).
I don't know the specific risk criteria that the Valley's most prominent VC firms use to score startups. The Drapers judged startups at beGLOBAL 2013 according to a scale of either "like" or "dislike" with no middle ground allowed. Scales that force VCs to make clear decisions early on help preserve investor capital by shutting out startups that are a poor fit for the VC's model.
Sooner or later, someone is going to pull one of those Arduino boards out of that vending machine and solder it to something that will make a VC swoon. They'd better have their equations ready.
The meeting rooms looked underutilized late in the day but maybe the important action happens earlier. The library is full of appropriate titles on coding, business development, and DIY things that today we call "life hacking." Thankfully there is no fiction or pop psychology to distract serious thinkers from the hard work of new venture creation.
Hacker Dojo has its incongruous moments in the spirit of random assembly. Consider this photo of an aerialist in mid-climb.
Eager students can learn aerial acrobatics in some gyms and health clubs. Come to Hacker Dojo and you'll learn among dinosaur murals and a mock-up of Doctor Who's TARDIS. BTW, the blonde in the foreground was cute.
Consider this photo of an ordinary vending machine. Don't expect the same old snacks at Hacker Dojo.
The contents include Arduino boards and USB connectors. The guy at the soldering desk told me it's the most-photographed item in Hacker Dojo. I have a newfound respect for nerd culture.
I came across one book randomly positioned in a plug-and-play tech room, A. David Silver's Venture Capital: The Complete Guide for Investors. There's an old saying . . . when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Books have always been my best teachers so this must have been my Zen moment. The publishing date in 1985 is not a liability. Some principles don't change even if the industries they track disappear.
I flipped to the chapter on metrics, in the spirit of the analytics revolution that has gripped new venture enthusiasts and their funders. Silver proposes the "Three Laws of VC:"
1. No more than two risks per investment.
2. V = P x S x E, where . . .
V = Valuation
P = Size of problem (the one painful thing the startup proposes to solve)
S = Elegance
E = Quality of entrepreneurial team
3. Invest in big-P companies because the market will give them high valuations irrespective of S and E
Silver believes the most efficient rating system for P, S, and E is 0-3, so the max value of V in this model will be 27. He later proposes that S = B x T, where B = the business plan or solution delivery mechanism and T = the existence of low-priced tech (presumably a resource input that makes the startup's task easier with fewer innovation hurdles to cross). The existence of two more variables means the max value of either B or T cannot be greater than the square root of 3, because when multiplied together they must allow S to be no greater than 3 itself. Otherwise the larger equation's V would be greater than 27 and the whole premise of controlling risk with a formula goes out the window.
The ratings in this model would have to be subjective. VCs in the mid-80s and before would not have had access to large sets of market data outside of proprietary sources. Big Data solves that problem today. High-quality granular data on anything is available for free on the Web or at a nominal cost from market research portals. HBR did a 20003 case study on the VC formula but I've seen these types of valuation metrics in my MBA coursework (also of early 2000s vintage).
I don't know the specific risk criteria that the Valley's most prominent VC firms use to score startups. The Drapers judged startups at beGLOBAL 2013 according to a scale of either "like" or "dislike" with no middle ground allowed. Scales that force VCs to make clear decisions early on help preserve investor capital by shutting out startups that are a poor fit for the VC's model.
Sooner or later, someone is going to pull one of those Arduino boards out of that vending machine and solder it to something that will make a VC swoon. They'd better have their equations ready.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Temporary Autonomous Zones of Freespace and Meetup
San Francisco's SoMa yields unexpected life lessons for those of us who pay attention. I had time before a meeting tonight to wander around Mission Street and I walked into the front door of Freespace. It's a Hack for Change experiment to see what creative types will do with a few months' worth of unstructured communal effort. Civic hacking is the kind of vibe that could only thrive in a big city, and could only be born in a place like San Francisco. Come to think of it, there is no place like San Francisco.
The tour guide for my brief sojourn into civic hacking was as unstructured as his work space. The dude showed me around various free-form art and recreation spaces where not much was getting done except by one lonesome painter with his oils. The space outside was more productive, with a functioning garden and some shipping containers redesigned into classrooms.
Civic hacking has the potential to birth brand new ways of living and working, but IMHO the Freespace version looks too unstructured to be an effective laboratory. Contrast this with hackathons where highly competent programmers and engineers design functioning software prototypes that fill market needs. Hacking a system works best when qualified pros focus effort on a working product. Maybe I caught Freespace on a night when the leadership team was out to dinner. Let's see what projects they can complete before their lease runs out.
Freespace filled the white space in my calendar before my formal commitment of the evening. I went across the street to Soma Grand for a Meetup on fixed-income investing. The contrast in settings could not have been more stark. Where Freespace was disorderly, Soma Grand was regimented. Freespace mixed work and leisure areas freely; Soma Grand clearly delineated its boundaries.
The Meetup ran much like a Freespace arrangement. The old hands ironed out rules and briefed the newcomers like me. The resident expert regaled us with facts and principles for fixed-income investing. Attendees were free to choose the tools they needed to solve problems. The whole point was to find more effective ways of organizing capital for investment. The similarities between civic hacking and financial hacking are there for anyone who chooses to see them.
Meetups and Freespace occupy temporary autonomous zones (TAZs) where normal social hierarchies are suspended just long enough for experiments to test hypotheses. Anarchism may have inspired the TAZ philosophy but that doesn't invalidate its application to solving real problems. Even the White House and Forbes recognize the value of civic hacking that makes social institutions more effective in addressing people's needs. In the spirit of a true TAZ, hackathons always end, Meetup groups evolve or disband, and hackerspaces like Freespace relocate to other digs. If the innovations they spawn work in the larger super-connected world outside then the TAZs fulfilled their missions.
It may not have occurred to anyone but me that Soma Grand probably could not exist without something like Freespace occurring in the distant past. Dissatisfaction with the status quo spurs innovation. Complex HVAC systems, steel-reinforced concrete, and LEED certification all sprang from the minds of human innovators who looked at shabby living arrangements and vowed to do better. Some stoners at Freespace may be dreaming up the next big thing right now over a bag of nacho chips. Hopefully they'll finish their prototype before they have to vacate the premises.
The tour guide for my brief sojourn into civic hacking was as unstructured as his work space. The dude showed me around various free-form art and recreation spaces where not much was getting done except by one lonesome painter with his oils. The space outside was more productive, with a functioning garden and some shipping containers redesigned into classrooms.
Civic hacking has the potential to birth brand new ways of living and working, but IMHO the Freespace version looks too unstructured to be an effective laboratory. Contrast this with hackathons where highly competent programmers and engineers design functioning software prototypes that fill market needs. Hacking a system works best when qualified pros focus effort on a working product. Maybe I caught Freespace on a night when the leadership team was out to dinner. Let's see what projects they can complete before their lease runs out.
Freespace filled the white space in my calendar before my formal commitment of the evening. I went across the street to Soma Grand for a Meetup on fixed-income investing. The contrast in settings could not have been more stark. Where Freespace was disorderly, Soma Grand was regimented. Freespace mixed work and leisure areas freely; Soma Grand clearly delineated its boundaries.
The Meetup ran much like a Freespace arrangement. The old hands ironed out rules and briefed the newcomers like me. The resident expert regaled us with facts and principles for fixed-income investing. Attendees were free to choose the tools they needed to solve problems. The whole point was to find more effective ways of organizing capital for investment. The similarities between civic hacking and financial hacking are there for anyone who chooses to see them.
Meetups and Freespace occupy temporary autonomous zones (TAZs) where normal social hierarchies are suspended just long enough for experiments to test hypotheses. Anarchism may have inspired the TAZ philosophy but that doesn't invalidate its application to solving real problems. Even the White House and Forbes recognize the value of civic hacking that makes social institutions more effective in addressing people's needs. In the spirit of a true TAZ, hackathons always end, Meetup groups evolve or disband, and hackerspaces like Freespace relocate to other digs. If the innovations they spawn work in the larger super-connected world outside then the TAZs fulfilled their missions.
It may not have occurred to anyone but me that Soma Grand probably could not exist without something like Freespace occurring in the distant past. Dissatisfaction with the status quo spurs innovation. Complex HVAC systems, steel-reinforced concrete, and LEED certification all sprang from the minds of human innovators who looked at shabby living arrangements and vowed to do better. Some stoners at Freespace may be dreaming up the next big thing right now over a bag of nacho chips. Hopefully they'll finish their prototype before they have to vacate the premises.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Desktop Manufacturing: The Long Poles In The Tent
There's revolution going on and it's headed straight for your desktop. It's the desktop manufacturing revolution and it promises to bring just as much upheaval as the Industrial Revolution and Information Age have wrought.
I'm very interested in this development. There's a lot of excitement in the blogosphere about the 3D printers that will enable every wanna-be backyard tinkerer and reality hacker to make their own machine tools. I'm much more interested in what military planners might call the "long poles in the tent," those resources and building blocks without which this maker revolution would be impossible. I'll use my imagination.
The 3D printers themselves. It's impossible to get this party started without these all-purpose design and fabrication devices. Where do you get them? Who's going to make them? Will established industries try to outlaw them or pay their captive lawmakers to tax and regulate them out of reach of your local hackerspace or resilient community? If they break, is someone in your neo-tribe qualified to repair them? The RepRap Project seems to have the inside track on solving this problem.
The raw materials. Where do we find the toner for these printers? Right now even the most advanced 3D printers can only handle plastic polymers and some metal. Making your own complex, precision-controlled devices will require feedstock that's a lot more diverse.
The minor components. This flows from the raw materials problem. If your printer relies on a high-temperature laser to solder elements together, can those minor components be manufactured in the same way as a bulkier item that requires only simple polymers? This is relevant for those tiny components that have very special structures or require rare earth elements.
Alloys and metallurgy. How will a 3D printer combine two or more materials in a way that's more efficient than modern smelting? This is relevant for manufacturing products that must perform in extreme conditions of temperature and atmospheric pressure to exacting tolerances (like aircraft engine parts).
We're just at the beginning of this adventure and I don't have the answers. Looking for those answers is what makes this so much fun.
I'm very interested in this development. There's a lot of excitement in the blogosphere about the 3D printers that will enable every wanna-be backyard tinkerer and reality hacker to make their own machine tools. I'm much more interested in what military planners might call the "long poles in the tent," those resources and building blocks without which this maker revolution would be impossible. I'll use my imagination.
The 3D printers themselves. It's impossible to get this party started without these all-purpose design and fabrication devices. Where do you get them? Who's going to make them? Will established industries try to outlaw them or pay their captive lawmakers to tax and regulate them out of reach of your local hackerspace or resilient community? If they break, is someone in your neo-tribe qualified to repair them? The RepRap Project seems to have the inside track on solving this problem.
The raw materials. Where do we find the toner for these printers? Right now even the most advanced 3D printers can only handle plastic polymers and some metal. Making your own complex, precision-controlled devices will require feedstock that's a lot more diverse.
The minor components. This flows from the raw materials problem. If your printer relies on a high-temperature laser to solder elements together, can those minor components be manufactured in the same way as a bulkier item that requires only simple polymers? This is relevant for those tiny components that have very special structures or require rare earth elements.
Alloys and metallurgy. How will a 3D printer combine two or more materials in a way that's more efficient than modern smelting? This is relevant for manufacturing products that must perform in extreme conditions of temperature and atmospheric pressure to exacting tolerances (like aircraft engine parts).
We're just at the beginning of this adventure and I don't have the answers. Looking for those answers is what makes this so much fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)