Why VCs Really Need Relevant Operating Experience, Now

A real entrepreneur does not need a VC for operating experience unless that entrepreneur got roped into venture capital’s infamous “capital-efficiency” program, designed to protect investor downside at all times.

I keep getting questions from Limited Partners (LPs) and Journalists all over the world as to why and what relevant operating experience is needed to become a successful early-stage investor or Venture Capitalists (VCs).

The easy answer is: well if you are building a house, you better know something about architecture, design, and construction.

But the reason for the return of those questions is probably because I covered this topic before (see: “Why VCs need relevant operating experience“) and left the door open to less operationally savvy investors in a new world of investing. After all in a new free-market of innovation (see: “How to fix VC once and for all”) the merit of the investor, whatever that merit is composed of, defines the reputation of an active marketplace participant.

If only we had arrived at that great point already.

Since we do not have a free-market of innovation today and Limited Partners are asking me for new fund selection criteria now, I give them the following reason as to why technology Venture Capital’s General Partners need relevant operational experience:


1) Venture investing requires different skills than Private Equity

Investing in early-stage companies requires a solid understanding of how to turn a vision into a thriving business. As Geoffrey Moore pointed out in his book Crossing the Chasm, successful innovation requires from entrepreneurs an understanding of how to cross the chasm, and I demand from VC an understanding of when and how to help entrepreneurs make them do so.

VC should make the appropriate assessments alongside the entrepreneur and support the transitions with proper funding levels in which selling to early adopters and visionaries turns into selling to a much broader demographic on the other side.

That means Venture Capitalists who claim value-add in their Private Placement Memorandum (PPM: the business-plan from VC to LP), better demonstrate that they know how to cross that chasm and better yet, can prove to Limited Partners that they have done so successfully. Not at a time when turkeys could fly, but when the wind was blowing in the wrong direction.

VCs with only impressive corporate backgrounds very often fail to be aware of and understand what it takes to cross the chasm. It is easier to have earned stripes on the right side of the chasm than it is to have earned them from the left-to-right.

Private Equity investors spend their time on the right, successful Venture investing requires an understanding and experience from the left-to-right of the chasm.


2) Ecosystem performance defines company success

In a perfect world, a startup would build a complete product with support from the ideal investor that relies on the enthusiasm from satisfied users and their word-to-mouth to become successful.

The reality is that tip-toe funding combined with downside investment strategies, the success of a company is dependent on many more attributes than merely product development, especially in subprime VC.

Limited funding forces companies to push out product early (many times too soon) and relies on “decibel” marketing, business development, and customer support to compensate for product deficiencies in-market.

A great CEO is the ultimate orchestrator of the unique ecosystem of his company, one that requires continuous tuning to run like a well-oiled moneymaking machine. A Venture investor who drills deep into the performance of a company and makes judgments on ecosystem parameters should have knowledge of and experience in each of those ecosystem parameters and better has been a CEO at an early stage company has made such an ecosystem work against-all-odds.


Separate relevant from irrelevant experience
Thanks to the Internet, anyone can do the following exercise: go to a VC website and look at the relevant experience of the General Partners and hold them against the two criteria described above. The outcome will not surprise their performance.

A product manager at the GAP, a financial analyst in Hong Kong, a VP of Marketing in a large hardware company, a CEO at an IT consulting company, a large-cap consultant at Bain – all combined with impressive ivy league education makes for nice resumes in a PPM, but delivers no relevant credentials to lead the early stage innovation that our country can depend on.


My Advice
Limited Partners should stop doing business with people who have never crossed the chasm and never operated as the CEO of an early-stage company has successfully managed its ecosystem. And entrepreneurs should thoroughly review the relevant operating experience of its prospective board member before they take their money.

If we do not pay attention to these things, the technology sector is poised to become the next auto-industry: a business we invented but lose in the end. The time for change is now if we want the technology sector to be in a better position in five years from now.


The sign of an intelligent nation is its willingness and ability to reinvent itself, upstream. Let’s inspire the world with new rigors of excellence we first and successfully apply to ourselves.

Click to access the login or register cheese