Clean tech is hot.
Record breaking venture capital dollars, IPOs, investor conferences and even business plan competitions mark the arrival of the clean technology boom in Silicon Valley.
However, an additional ingredient is needed: management talent.
Just like in the early days of the Internet, when we saw executives from Tandem and Oracle join Netscape, we are starting to see traditional technology execs make the leap into clean technology.
“A year ago when I told friends and colleagues that I was joining a solar energy company I got a lot of puzzled looks,” said Brian Stone, a former Siebel Systems executive. “Today, most of the people I meet ask me how they can get into the solar industry.
Stone joined PowerLight, a $100M revenue installer of commercial solar energy systems, as the vice president of marketing. Brian spent the year between Siebel and Power Light as an Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Mohr Davidow Ventures working with several companies in the software and wireless sectors.
It wasn’t easy. His background had been in the wireless and in customer relationship management software. But as he worked with MDV’s traditional companies in these areas, most seemed mature, either consolidating or just not growing that fast. The growth industries were biotech and clean-tech, he told me.
Since he joined PowerLight, that company has already been acquired by solar industry juggernaut, SunPower, the Cypress Semiconductor spin-off. “We are in the midst of a cultural wave,” said Stone.
Another exec, Dan Middleton, the former SVP and GM of the Americas for networking company Riverstone Networks (acquired by Lucent in April of 2006) joined Silver Spring Networks, a clean-tech company based in San Mateo.
That company offers technology that lets utilities more efficiently manage their electrical grids. It is a digitized version of the archaic system of storage, transmission and distribution of energy currently employed by the world’s utilities.
Dan had spent the previous decade with Nortel selling telecom and cable equipment into developing countries and Australia.
The pace of change in the utility sector is more rapid than the once-frenetic communications and cable industry, he told me. The average consumer is caring more, too. Until now, they’ve been in the dark. But with new technology, they can see in an instance how the grid impacts their bill and their carbon footprint.
New clean tech companies continue to get formed. There are so many, in fact, they need more help than ever to manage their growth. Whether you’ve spent your career peddling customer relationship management software, switches, routers or set top boxes — there’s probably room for you in clean tech.
7 Comments
-
David Gong said:
Good point Amy! Clean-tech is a young industry needing more candid efforts from people who have the drive and know-how to effectively align business resources with innovations, and maximize their economic and social impacts. Contrary to conventional thinkings, the learning curve for clean-tech business is not much higher than that of saying retail business, unless one wants to have a PhD. level understanding of how underlying technologies are working, which, of course, is a overkill in many cases. For example, people who have experience in Semi would find solar ventures an easy crossover. Similarly, manufacturing and industry marketing, sales, and operation experience and skills could tango well with clean-tech companies. It’s hard to pinpoint what transferable skills clean-tech companies really need. In my view, it comes down to what visions and skills one can brings to the table that could help clean-tech companies excel in a wild wild west chase. “Fortune favors the bold”!
-
Mark Wendman said:
I’d modify this slightly.
General management expertise is important, but lack of prior depth of exposure in the tasks at hand or at least closely related in technical substance, is materially significant. More specifically, lack of relevant experience in sr. executives can be an impediment in attempts at the more substantive, potentially significant breakthrough efforts.
Truly difficult, substantive innovation needs prior closely or better directly applicable skills, in top executive management.
eg. Buying of the shelf production machinery from any major vendor (some come to mind) and using in a mostly conventional manner to make rather run of the mill modest efficiency solar cells, does not constitute substantive innovation. Even if one has lots of backing capital, one is unlikely to make a real breakthrough. In this case largely irrelevant technical background in sr. executives might suffice for modest commercial success.
Lack of relevant technical skills of management in the firm, esp. at higher levels, can result in lack of critical understanding needed to lead and manage the firm to long term market dominating competitive success, or inability to surmount a stumbling block in critical goals for a desired true breakthrough.
Daystar’s recent retrenchment is an example of this, as CIGs - copper indium gallium selenide - thin film solar cells are profusely published, but someone was likely not properly versed in the actual technical issues at the management level, even if they had credentials, even if relevant technical credentials. Software management background being useful is not a substantive claim, particularly in this notable case.
I suspect that top management at Daystar had the needed obvious background, but insufficient aptitude or skills. The interim challenges they suffer from, reflect on inadequate reading preparation, which if one is not of prior directly related background, is still even more essential to come up to actual management speed. (hermeticity and environmental reliability knowledge is a key skill for commercial photovoltaics)
Remedial type reading of a prolific and deeply substantive nature can compensate for obvious skills deficits at a sr. executive level, but is hardly ever done adequately, especially by executives who might think that related technical background is not key to management success in the new task at hand. Read just a few related articles and reports and one can easily delude oneself as the the complexity of the challenges in one’s endeavor.
Read deeply and widely, and one can begin to overcome otherwise obvious skills deficits in the immediate tasks at hand. And yes for example a software executive can do this, but is this likely at a sufficient level to truly lead pathfinding efforts?
It is far near as easy as you describe in the more challenging efforts desired in near or actual breakthroughs. In repeating older technologies, with small less risky variations. unrelated background might be ok, but the signature of the valley is all about substantive innovation, not less substantive purported claims thereof.
Silicon Valley is truly a unique place - in accomplishments and community, and in a worldwide leadership context. Brilliant and unparalleled bar none. Amazing dominant region for technologies of present and recent times. And a worldwide powerful magnet for brilliant talent.
A notable example of Daystar’s (CIGS) recent challenges forcing a retrenchment of sorts, indicates both limited PV efficiency (~10% which is modest) and lack of success in achieving reliability (environmental hermeticity likely failed) after large expenditures.
Yet they have a decent technical team without the needed management and technical aptitude to expediently solve their critical problems. Would executives with mostly software expertise help?
This is particularly relevant to your thesis.
The counterpoint to this in your favor partially, is Nanosolar’s cusp of likely probable success. Albeit their team seems to be more effective, but their leader Martin Roscheisen is a software entrepreneur. So there is evidence with a seemingly superb technical team with few other unrelated technologists, and many with directly relevant technical expertise, that success in a challenging innovative technical photovoltaic endeavor might yet occur with a sr. software executive at the helm. (note Nanosolar is not assured of success in volume manufacturing yet )
There are many otherwise well credentialed and talented folks who will not come up the learning curve in breakthrough technologies, even if they might otherwise lead a firm with more modest goals.
If the bench strength of the founding technical team compensates for the lack of prior relevant technical experience of particular sr. executives, fine there will be exceptions in some profound challenges. But if as in many cases, technology is not managed skillfully, even at the sr. executive level, with a deep understanding of both competitive perspective and detailed knowledge of specifics of the internal R&D effort - at times the more ambitious efforts attempting breakthroughs will flounder.
Silicon Valley is defined by notable successes in more technically challenging endeavors, and not by commercializing the more mundane, even if popular.
True breakthroughs define what the Valley is all about.
I have seen up close an otherwise well credentialed executive team from unrelated industry, refuse to read specific prior art research publications, despite the specific relevance to the endeavor at hand since it was too technical to their liking. (this was not in cleantech and I will not elaborate), The team kept misfiring in key goals, and lack of critical understanding by sr. management, technical and otherwise in formal responsibilities, repeatedly delayed key technical decisions by management.
The firm made numerous wrong assessments that were otherwise obvious from profuse prior art in the tasks at hand, granted which was complicated and almost arcane. In particular a vp of engineering refused to read otherwise prolific prior publications in what he was otherwise proposing, ie he did not comprehend the actual and critical aspects essential to the effort he was supposed to be managing.
Prior software management experience as an example, would not have made it any better in chances for surmounting the substantive relevant technical challenges.
Novel potentially breakthrough solar cell technologies can flounder due to inadequate depth of understanding and comprehension of the rather arcane specifics in technical challenges. Real and highly valued advances and successful commercialization of same are difficult and complicated by their very nature. Success in substantive challenges requires excellent relevant skills throughout the firm, in the team and its leadership - even executive leadership, so that effective strategic decisions are not tardy due to insufficient preparation or comprehension by key decision makers.
Often it is not enough to have managed nor to be technically credentialed. To understand in depth the actual development issues at hand, at a world class level, is an imperative to navigate successfully the technical challenges at a sr. executive management level.
I take the superbly positive example of Applied Materials hiring Dr. Charles Gay as a brilliant move to lead AMATs Solar Equipment division. Dr. Gay is a superbly talented and long time experienced photovoltaic technologist. Kudos to AMAT and Mike Splinter. And a hearty well deserved congratulations to Dr. Gay.
I could never manage nor lead a software effort, despite my excellent exposure at CMU to R&D in the CS department(I read CMU research reports in computer science profusely as a hobby). My training is as a physicist, and my 23yr career is in semiconductors - manufacturing and development. And yet to remain competent in the related state of the art photovoltaic issues I must read profusely, despite my relevant background. I am always a student in my career.
Yours Truly,
Mark Wendman
WENDMANs VIEWs on NANOTECH
http://mark-nano.blogspot.com/ -
Michael Kreizenbeck said:
“Clean tech” was around for a long time prior to capturing the interest of silicon valley investors. It had been a category without a catchy name. This latest shiny object to hypnotize high-tech VC’s would still be a scattered popoulation of campus-bound scientists and genius activists like Amory Lovins mostly all with marginalized hippie sensibilities and a very specific plan to save at least part the world. Now that the money is rolling in, quality business managers have followed. For at least 25 years, Lovins has been demonstrating in very simple terms that money can be made here. Business management has been the chief missing component of “clean tech” since forever.
If anything, the case for the importance of business talent to “clean tech” is understated here. Business talent has created “clean tech.”
The final missing component for the total success of “clean tech” is an effective government advocacy operation. Hardly anything that is not dug up and burned will ever make it across this President’s desk. In the near future, however, US leaders are unlikely to be so addicted to oil and coal that the many empirical experiences around the rest of the industrialized world where upfront public investment has spurred environmental industry growth and lead to public benefits like clean air, clean water and decreased dependence on foreign resources may actually see the light of day in the US. Imagine. Now, would be a good time to get started on that project.
-
OilGasFutures.Com said:
On Clean Tech, i found this excellent exert on the boone pickens website:
Clean Energy is a great company founded by T. Boone Pickens it is the largest provider of vehicular natural gas (CNG and LNG) in North America with a broad customer base in the refuse, transit, shuttle, taxi, intrastate and interstate trucking, airport and municipal fleet markets. Tens of thousands of vehicles fuel at strategic locations in the United States and Canada. Customers include Los Angeles International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, SuperShuttle, Foothill Transit, Waste Management, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, SYSCO Foods, Ft. Worth Transportation Agency, Denver International Airport, Denver RTD, MTDB of San Diego and the US Navy.Natural gas is the best alternative vehicular fuel because it’s a domestic resource that reduces our foreign oil consumption, and enhances America’s energy security; clean (NGV vehicles emit up to 95 percent less pollution than gasoline or diesel vehicles); less expensive than petroleum and hydrogen; and safe (lighter-than-air compressed natural gas is nontoxic and disperses quickly, and has a higher ignition temperature than gasoline and diesel fuel, which reduces the chances of accidental ignition). —Patrick Kerr
-
OilGasFutures.Com said:
On Clean Tech, i found this excellent excerpt on the Boone Pickens website:
Clean Energy is a great company founded by T. Boone Pickens it is the largest provider of vehicular natural gas (CNG and LNG) in North America with a broad customer base in the refuse, transit, shuttle, taxi, intrastate and interstate trucking, airport and municipal fleet markets. Tens of thousands of vehicles fuel at strategic locations in the United States and Canada. Customers include Los Angeles International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, SuperShuttle, Foothill Transit, Waste Management, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, SYSCO Foods, Ft. Worth Transportation Agency, Denver International Airport, Denver RTD, MTDB of San Diego and the US Navy.Natural gas is the best alternative vehicular fuel because it’s a domestic resource that reduces our foreign oil consumption, and enhances America’s energy security; clean (NGV vehicles emit up to 95 percent less pollution than gasoline or diesel vehicles); less expensive than petroleum and hydrogen; and safe (lighter-than-air compressed natural gas is nontoxic and disperses quickly, and has a higher ignition temperature than gasoline and diesel fuel, which reduces the chances of accidental ignition). —Patrick Kerr of OilGasFutures.Com
-
Rich Hilt said:
Amy, I think you right on the money. You don’t find many CleanTech startups with any real domain experience. Some of this is because the supply of good ideas coming from people who are outside the area, but more importantly, there aren’t many who’vehad the time to earn their spurs in the field — not many of us in Silicon Valley have ever seen a coal stoker boiler let alone run one.
My personal opinion is that this round of CleanTech is going to give a whole bunch of people the experience in the field. Unlike most of the products that High Tech, Bio, Med Devices — which create new markets — the CleanTech products have to force competitors from the markets. This means more knowledge of the incumbants. When the current crop of young people working in CleanTech find the next set of technologies to develop and deploy — I like to call it CleanTech 2.0 — we should see an even larger impact in our energy and environmental needs. All they need are some of the time understanding the business and getting some of the scar tissue we oldtimers have.
RIch Hilt
brightline@sbcglobal.net -
Blog Comment Poster said:
To be honest, all this stuff about Clean tech may be hot, but needs management talent sounds confusing for me…
