|
|
Like this article? PLEASE +1 it! |
|
Dialogue Regarding CATA Post Demonstrates the Productive Power of Social Media
|
| Guest post by: Jon Hansen |
Article Overview: Dialogue Regarding CATA Post Demonstrates the Productive Power of Social Media "116 Campaign" in which I referred to the effort as being self-serving despite a just cause inspired an interesting discussion that demonstrates the power of social media to engage and expand upon a train of thought. In fact I enjoyed the exchange with Sue so much that I felt it warranted sharing with you. So here here the unabridged version:
![]() |
Free Download - Is supplier incumbency a major problem with government contracting? By Jon Hansen |
Dialogue Regarding CATA Post Demonstrates the Productive Power of Social Media
Sue Hardman Product Manager and Product Strategy Advantage
Jon, a couple of comments....
Firstly, while I'm no expert - the venture capital industry is in
trouble because many of the funding machines are now so fractured they
seriously have no real direction. Witness MaRS (one of many programs, I
don't wish to knock the MaRs group)... Toronto-centric... mostly life
sciences, some clean-tech... mostly University spin-outs. Our funding
machines have become so fractured in my opinion, that serious high-tech
companies with revenue streams and ambition - have almost no hope of
any investment.
Secondly, the performance of Canadian Venture Capital has been
nothing short of horrendous over the last 15 years. Why would these
guys continue to invest when their rate of return is abysmal? Heck!
That's my RRSP money we're talking about! We have to get better at
producing start-up tech companies that know and drive towards real
goal-posts and appreciate the value of revenue traction and good
management. We have very few of those.
Thirdly, with most of Ottawa's high-tech veterans struggling to find
paying work, its highly unlikely we will see any real wins in the near
future.
Finally, I'm not sure why you are knocking CATA. Part of their
mandate is to advocate on behalf of the industry and it seems to me
that they are doing that. It is extremely difficult to bring "foreign"
money in... and CATA provides as good a platform as any other in
lobbying Government to begin to look at making it simpler. That's what
the paying members expect them to do - and that's what they appear to
be doing. I don't believe that is "perceived self interest", I believe
that is real self interest serving the members who pay them to do just
that. We have relatively successful, plain vanilla startups who are
struggling for funding with little or no hope of finding it because
they are not life-sciences or clean-tech.
I don't mean to make it sound like I'm dumping on you - but your
post hit a few nerves with me. Seriously, we have to find better ways
to make money work - make startups work and, despite successive Govt's
who clearly don't understand, continue to build through innovation. I
believe there are funds there... but they follow fads and, if you're
not in the latest fad, then your chance of getting money is less than
zero. If it means bringing in foreign investment then, like CATA, I
advocate for making it simpler.
Jon W. Hansen Host at PI Window on Business Show
Thank you for your thoughtful response Sue.
The point of the post is simply this, you have to expand the scope
of impact to gain real traction. This is not a CATA problem, or just a
high tech issue.
There is an impact and related implications that extend to the
economy as a whole that affects all Canadians. This of course is the
expanded lens through which associations such as CATA must view the
issue and present their cases.
The December 2009 press release talks about moving "from a 13th place ranking to first place in
innovation rankings," and "imperiling our Innovation future and risk
squandering investments in R&D and intellectual capital," without
quantifying its impact in any real and tangible manner. Thus it
presumes that the reader will already know the impact, which in itself
confines or limits interest to the membership. In short, is this a CATA
issue or a Canada issue?
To truly be effective, one must put the CATA brand behind the scenes and allow the breadth of the impact to take center stage.
In this regard, highlighting the Clark and Fourastie general pattern
of economic development makes it a national matter of economic
development.
Emphasizing the fact that because of a creating favorable policy,
India is seeing billions of dollars in foreign investment flowing in
resulting in "double-digit wage growth for much of the 2000s" carries a
more compelling message and therefore creates an equally compelling
urgency for response versus the somewhat vague"13th place ranking" or
"imperiling our innovation future."
Specifically, if you talk about double digit wage growth the average
Canadian will more readily understand what this means and will likely
take a greater interest, especially if they are employed by a high tech
firm. This in turn can create critical "public" mass which has a
greater opportunity for influencing government policy.
I mean realistically speaking, how many people know what Section 116
is, and why it should be important? This is where the reference to a
self-serving "116 Campaign" comes into play.
If CATA purports to being a champion of change regarding "116," then
the organization needs to do its homework relative to making what I had
referred to as a "just cause" one that can inform, engage and empower
all stakeholders to take the appropriate action. Otherwise, they are
just taking a siloed approach believing that they can facilitate the
needed change within the limited framework of their own mandate and
interests.
Tell me, how does a "one man (or association) against the world serve the greater good?
Sue Hardman Product Manager and Product Strategy Advantage
okay Jon... lmao. That is way too much and we should probably
adjourn to the Royal Oak and go over it in detail - however... (darn,
I'm a bit nonplussed to think I'm defending CATA here) CATA's mandate
and lens (as you put it) is exclusively Advanced Tech and there is only
so much they can do. While I agree with your point in principle, CATA
has to be one of the crowd who, quite rightly, should be screaming
their heads off. Your point I think is; where is the crowd?
Someone correct me here - didn't we used to be number 4 or 5 in the
Innovation rankings and, as I recall, we were pretty appalled at the
time? Anyone from the Conference Board on-line? The fact that you relay
that we are now 13th is probably in direct proportion to the amount of
Govt investment and the fact that our most achieved Govt department in
this regard (NRC) is having to lay people off!!!
We (we, high tech types) spent 30 years building leading edge in the
Ottawa Valley only to see it either sold off to the highest bidder (the
communications edge we used to "own" and are now giving away in a
degrading auction to the highest bidder) or shut down for lack of
understanding (we're not going to be in the isotope business which we
pioneered) or lack of maintenance budgets (the 30 year old Maple
reactors and our nuclear technology which seeded the world's nuclear
energy infrastructures). Nonetheless, Innovation - as you rightly point
out - is the way to better economics. Without money - not going to
happen. No one is quantifying that impact (unless its clean-tech and/or
life sciences).
India... spent 30 years revamping its Education system and has done
a fabulous job by visionary politicians who, most having an engineering
or architecture background, foresaw a tremendous opportunity. They now
harvest with billions of dollars coming in and are amongst the best in
the world as toolsmiths (development environments). We are still
educating engineers through the grist-mill knowing that most of the
senior ranks are struggling - same old, same old. I think you get what
you ask for ... which plays to your second point. Visionary politicians
can move the world, professional politicians merely maintain the status
quo, grease the skids for a faster auction and, when in personal
difficulty, appear to cross the floor.
Realistically, I suspect few knew about Section 116 - but hopefully,
after the CATA press release (hopefully, to your point, there will be
others) will go and do their homework. Or... as is more likely, open a
dual headquarters arrangement in the US. How sad is it that we have to
do that?
All that to say.. yes, I agree with you. We do have to expand the
scope. We also need to help Govt be responsible in guiding and managing
innovation especially when, as in our case, it is instrumental in our
economic infrastructure and our future. Not quite sure how we do
either...
Good discussion though...
Jon W. Hansen Host at PI Window on Business Show
You've hit it dead on Sue.
My show the PI Window on Business which is featured across the
entire Blog Talk Radio Network (which has more than 5 million listeners
each month alone) did a segment titled "Diminishing Prospects: How U.S.
Policy is Undermining Entrepreneurial Vision," in which I interviewed
one of the US' leading high tech entrepreneurs and investment experts.
His concern was the fact that due to US immigration policy and the
lack of a viable alternative to the H1-B and EB-5 Visas foreign
graduates from some of the best educational institutions in the US are
forced to develop their businesses in other countries costing the US
much needed jobs. His suggestion was the creation of a Founders Visa.
What was interesting is that I have had the privilege to interview
bestselling authors on the show such as a former media exec and the
branding brains behind the Dr. Phil Show to CFOs from major ERP vendors
talking about the emerging SaaS model to political leaders on both
sides of the border discussing procurement and trade policy. However,
this segment on the need for the creation of a Founders Visas, and the
significant negative impact of the current immigration policy had the
largest single segment audience for any show.
This tells me that if you create realistic points of context that
can be readily recognized by a larger audience, people will listen, and
they will get involved.
I will be doing a segment on this topic probably before the end of
the year in which I will be talking with high tech VCs from the US, as
well as government policymakers to get a better handle on the logic
behind 116 as well as estimating the impact in tangible dollars and job
loss.
Related Forum Posts
Share this article with your friends. Fund someone's dream.
Leave a comment below or share on the left and you'll help support entrepreneurs in Africa through our partnership with Kiva. Over $50,000 raised and counting - Please keep sharing! Learn more.
Get advice & tips from famous business
owners, new articles by entrepreneur
experts, my latest website updates, &
special sneak peaks at what's to come!
Living on The Edge of Chaos...
How to Ask for a Flexible Work Arrangement
What is an Adaptive Organization
Email us your ideas on how to make our
website more valuable! Thank you Sharon
from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for
your suggestions to make the newsletter
look like the website and profile younger
entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez.



