Actually, if you look back, advisory boards came from being Technical Advisory Boards where the advisors were primarily professors, researchers, experienced practitioners where the startup had a high degree of technical complexity and needed a brain trust.  Now, most often technical advisors are part of a broader advisory board. I take on these roles periodically, but before any startup engages me or anyone else as a technology advisor there are some other considerations.

In Why assemble an advisory board?, Chase Norlin talks about the normal reasons that Founders / CEOs form advisor boards for early stage companies:

• Recognized industry thought leaders add immediate validation and credibility to the venture at a stage when there is typically none;
• Advisors can open doors, make introductions, and assist with strategy and business planning;
• Advisors add value in making introductions to sources of capital, or serving as a due diligence reference during fundraising;
• Advisors know people and people know advisors, it’s that simple. The more third parties talking about your venture the better.

My experience as and with Technology Advisors is that their networks are very different and may or may not match with the introductions you want.  This relates to the distinction that Alexander Muse raises in Advisory Board Compensation for your Startup between what he calls normal advisors and super advisors.  Before engaging a Technology Advisor for the purpose of accessing their network – make sure it’s the right network.

Dharmesh Shah captures the role of advisors more simply in Startups and Advisory Board Members:

First, lets summarize the two most likely reasons you would put someone on your advisory board (one or both of the following apply):

1. Advisory Value:  The person you are inviting has experience and knowledge and can act as an advisor to your startup.
2. Brand Value:  The person you are inviting has “brand” and credibility.  By placing them on your advisor board, you are hoping that some of that credibility will rub-off on your startup.

For Technology Advisors, I would add that there’s an implied value that they help check off the box that says – this can be done technically.  During investor or third party partner due diligence, it is sometimes really valuable to have someone who has credentials and personal presence who can make technical questions go away.  Of course, that means that the person needs to be engaged deeply enough that they feel comfortable saying it can be done.

Mark Suster - Should Your Startup Have an Advisory Board? who is often the contrarian, talks about some key issues that he and other CEOs often encounter with advisory boards which are good cautions.

1. Not enough time.

2. Not enough wisdom.

3. Too much effort.

4. Expensive.

One of the suggestions Mark makes is to get investment from advisors.  That’s something I’m not going to do.  My investment is my time.

Other good articles to read on setting up Advisory Boards:

• The Importance of Advisory Boards for Startup CEOs
• Critical Considerations for a Startup Advisory Board
• Everything you ever wanted to know about advisors, Part 1
• Everything you ever wanted to know about advisors, Part 2

One of the points that almost all of these posts make is that most advisory board members are not doing this primarily for the compensation or to get rich at the end of the day.  Because of that, you also need to understand what the motivation is for any potential advisory board member.

Again, it’s really important as a founder to be clear with your prospective Technology Advisor (Advisory Board Member) to be clear about what you want/expect from them.  And don’t confuse having a CTO with getting an Technology Advisor.  There are a bunch of specific responsibilities that I described in Technology Roles in Startups that an Advisor will not be able to get into in any depth.

The Learning Solutions Conference & Expo is only a couple of weeks away.  And I can say that I am really excited!  A few weeks ago, I wrote about how you can change the world by volunteering to build an elearning course for one of the LINGOs organizations. 

Thanks to all of the blog readers who volunteered.  From what I understand, they’ve filled all of the requests and have gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in free course development.  That’s what I call changing the world!  I’m anxious to see all of the LINGOs courses.   

David Anderson and I also took on the challenge and volunteered to help.  Just like many of you, we had a short period of time to assemble the content and build an elearning course.  It was interesting to collaborate with a client who was in a different country and we were both working from different locations.  I can say we learned a lot on this project.  You’ll hear more about that after the conference. 

However, during the design process we had an interesting discussion about some course navigation and when to provide access to resources during a decision-making scenario.  It’s a conversation that’s common to course design so I thought I’d share the gist of it. 

Part of the course puts the learners in a situation where they have to make decisions.  At this point they might not know all of the information to make the right choice.  That’s OK because it’s kind of like real life.  We’re always faced with decisions where we don’t have all of the information.

However, we did want to create a way for the learner to get information prior to making a decision.  So we added a “learn more” feature.  We liked the flexibility.  A confident learner could skip the information and go right to making a decision.  But if she wasn’t confident, she had resources available to make an informed choice.

Before deciding on our path, we wrestled with when and where to offer access to additional information.

Suppose you create a similar type of interaction.  You want the learner to make a decision.  The decision will produce feedback that provides more detail.  Here are your design choices:

• Give the learner access to “more information” prior to making the decision.  But don’t provide it afterwards outside of the feedback.
• Don’t provide access to information prior to the choice.  Force the learner to make an educated guess.  Add a “review information” option after the decision.
• Offer access to additional information before and after the learner makes a choice.

In the image below, you are challenging the learner to make a decision.  Some people already know what to do (or think they do) so they’ll just go ahead and make a decision.  Others aren’t sure, so they’ll want to look up the organization’s policies and then make their decision.

What’s good about this approach is that the learner gets to assess her level of understanding first and then determines whether or not she needs additional information.  And a more experienced learner isn’t required to go through a bunch of extra information prior to making a choice.

After the choice is made, you provide feedback with no offer for additional information.  If the learner gets it wrong, you provide the right information in the feedback and encourage her to make “more informed decisions” on future decisions. 

If you have the right type of scenario, you can use this approach to reinforce being certain of decisions prior to making them.  My guess is that the learner would become more aware of her uncertainty and want to research her choices prior to making a decision.  It allows her to assess what she knows and then build the level of understanding she needs to continue. 

This next option is to not provide a “more information” feature prior to the choice.  The learner has to make a decision based on her current level of understanding.  If she’s not sure, she has to make an educated guess.  This ambiguity creates some tension which you can leverage to encourage learning.

It’s not easy to make a choice like this because it puts the learner in a vulnerable position.  No one likes the risk of being wrong.  However, that risk is motivation to learn.  And there’s nothing wrong with a little tension and uncertainty.  You should have the freedom to fail in an elearning course.

Many elearning scenarios and choices are kind of lame; and the learner can quickly spot the correct answers.  But if you created choices that are challenging and not easy to guess, it causes more reflection on the viability of the choices.  This in itself is a great learning vehicle, regardless of whether or not the right choice is made initially. 

This third option is the safest.  You provide a feature to access additional information for the learner who wants to make an informed decision first.  And after a decision is made, you provide access to additional information.  Thus, the learner always has access to the information and resources to help her learn.  And that’s a real benefit.

This approach definitely helps with navigating the course content.  The truth is that many elearning courses can be tedious.  In most cases, the learner’s not asking to take the course and just wants to complete it.  So it makes sense to provide as much freedom to the learner as possible.  And offering access to additional information at all stages in the course is valuable.

Personally, I like the ambiguity angle.  Life isn’t tidy like the third option.  And many of us just tend to make decisions and then learn from the consequences.  Given the right type of scenarios and course content, I prefer a “throw them into the pool” approach, where they make decisions and learn through the consequences.

Which approach do you prefer?  When would one be more valuable than another?  Share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link.

Tidbits

It’s not too late to submit a quick tip.  Check out last week’s post and some of the good tutorials in the comments section. 

And if you happen to be at the Learning Solutions Conference & Expo in Orlando, swing by the Articulate booth.  Or check out one of these sessions:

• Get Rid of the "Next" Button and Create Engaging e-Learning
• Visual Design Essentials: Practical Techniques for Designing Better Online Courses
• Master Session: Turning Click-&-Read Content into Interactive e-Learning

F+F Filmabend mit Bar

F+F, Flurstrassse 89, E 03

Mittwoch 10. März 2010, 19.00 Uhr

http://www.ffzh.ch/home/dossier_report_show.aspx?content=events&event_id=314

Ein Filmtipp von Werner Burger, medien-lab

Anlässlich einiger Blogbeiträge zur diesjährigen Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hochschuldidaktik (dghd) zum Thema “Fachbezogene und fachübergreifende Hochschuldidaktik – voneinander lernen” an der TU Dortmund (z.B. von Kerstin Mayrberger und Sandra Hofhues) habe ich mich in den letzten Tagen wieder mal gefragt, wie das eigentlich kommt, dass zwei „Gruppen“ von Wissenschaftlern und Praktikern an EINEM Phänomen arbeiten und sich doch beäugen als kämen sie von unterschiedlichen Planeten. Gut, zuweilen gibt es das auch woanders, z.B. wenn sich ein Schulmediziner und ein Heilpraktiker gegenüberstehen und auf denselben Patienten schauen. Auch da ist das Unverständnis groß und jeder beansprucht für sich, die Wahrheit zu besitzen und den Patienten heilen zu können – aber womöglich können die beiden sich zumindest darauf einigen, dass sie sich gerade denselben Patienten anschauen. Das schaffen bisweilen noch nicht mal Hochschuldidaktiker und E-Learning-Vertreter. Und daran sollen allein die falschen oder falsch konnotierten oder überholten oder sonst irgendwie eben nicht treffenden Begriffe schuld sein? Ich weiß nicht … vielleicht ist das ja auch nur eine Ausrede. Vielleicht wollen die beiden „Lager“ auch gar nichts miteinander zu tun haben – so wie Schulmediziner und Heilpraktiker sich einfach aus dem Weg gehen. Allerdings kann der Patient selbst entscheiden, wo er hingeht, der Studierende kann das nur bedingt. Es ist mehr oder weniger Zufall, wo er landet, ob die Lehrangebote, an denen er teilnimmt, durch die Hände von Hochschuldidaktikern oder E-Learning-Experten gegangen oder aber – was noch wahrscheinlicher ist – lehr-lerntheoretisch quasi unbefleckt sind. Also, ein optimaler Zustand ist das nun wirklich nicht. Und so richtig verstehen kann ich diesen Graben auch nicht: E geht uns doch allen darum, das Lernen und Lehren zu verbessern, wir berufen uns alle auf wissenschaftliches Denken und Handeln, wir agieren in denselben Kontexten: Wo ist eigentlich das Problem?

Die Studierenden des Moduls “Kreative Audioarbeit und Podcasting” waren am 18.2.2010 zu Gast im Radio Lora (Nährwert Kultur) und gestalteten eine Sendung mit eigenen Audioproduktionen, Musik und Diskussionen:

http://phzh.educanet2.ch/audio/.ws_gen/27/lora_sendung_2010_teil1.mp3

http://phzh.educanet2.ch/audio/.ws_gen/27/lora_sendung_2010_teil2.mp3

Endlich ist es nun erschienen – das Buch „Konkrete Psychologie. Die Gestaltungsanalyse der Handlungswelt“, herausgegeben von Gerd Jüttemann und Wolfgang Mack (beim Pabst Verlag). Der Band nimmt seinen Ausgang da, wo auch die meisten Lehrbücher der Psychologie beginnen, nämlich bei Wilhelm Wundt (1823-1920), der als Begründer der naturwissenschaftlich orientierten Psychologie gilt. So jedenfalls wird es meist vermittelt – eine Vermittlungsrichtung, die Gerd Jüttemann in mehreren Publikationen seit längerem versucht, wieder gerade zu biegen. Für ihn ist Wundt eher der Begründer einer konkreten Psychologie, die auf die psychologische Analyse unseres alltäglichen Handelns und aller Phänomene abzielt, die man vergleichend erforschen kann. Dem steht eine heute weitgehend dekontextualisierte, abstrakte Psychologie gegenüber, die im Laborexperiment und in einer Forschung, die sich auf statistische Auswertungen beschränkt, den Königsweg der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis sieht – verbunden „mit der Gefahr des Abgleitens in eine auch in verbaler Hinsicht verarmte ´Psychologie ohne Seele ´“ (Jüttemann, 2010, S. 34).

Der Band umfasst insgesamt 23 recht heterogene Artikel, in denen die Schwierigkeit psychologischer Forschung sowie die Probleme einseitiger naturwissenschaftlicher Herangehensweisen auf verschiedene Art und Weise und anhand unterschiedlicher psychologischer Teildisziplinen diskutiert wird. Hier kann man sich das Inhaltsverzeichnis ansehen. Ich freue mich, dass mein Beitrag zu möglichen Wege der Erkenntnis in den Bildungswissenschaften (hier der Preprint) Eingang in diesen Band gefunden hat und ich auf diesem Wege noch ein paar ganz andere Argumentationsgänge kennenlerne.

I’ve worked with 30+ early-stage companies in all sorts of capacities (and spoken to many, many more), so I thought it might be worthwhile trying to classify the various ways that I’ve engaged in different technology roles in startups.

This post partly really came about as a result of a great conversation yesterday with David Croslin a former CTO at HP who recently conducted an interesting experiment.  He posted on several social networking sites the following message:

If you know of a startup company that could benefit from the knowledge, experience, professional network and reputation of a globally recognized technology and innovation leader.

I am looking for one or two startups that I can work with on their road to success as a virtual C-level officer, board member, advisor or other relationship.

Later he posted about his experience in Challenges of Startups.  The short story is that he received 400+ responses and goes through how he categorized/vetted the responses:

• 300 Didn’t Fit – Outside expertise/interest, pushing for immediate funding assistance, too many ideas (not focused), looking for sales agents.
• 20 Required NDA to continue – a nonstarter
• 50 Couldn’t sell him
• 15 Couldn’t explain why they wanted him involved

In our conversation together, David and I spent a fair bit of time discussing the fact that a lot of people really didn’t know what he could do for them.  This is actually fairly common and I think it’s a bit challenging in that the technology roles (from technology advisor to CTO) in a startup vary widely.  Actually, David’s taking even broader roles than I generally do as he’s CEO for at least one startup. 

As I went through my 30+ different startup experiences and tried to classify them a bit more, I realized this is very messy stuff.  Each situation is just a bit different.  It depends on the business, people, technologies, etc.  So while I’m trying to make sense of this, it’s somewhat hopeless.

That said, I think it starts with what a laundry list of different kinds of needed technology activities and what the current team can reasonably accomplish.  And a big factor is how big is the Founder Developer Gap.  Unfortunately for a lot of founders, it’s hard to know the gap.  There’s a funny phenomenon where often the best sounding technical people are often the worst developers.  So, you can easily get sold that there’s little to no Gap.

Some of the activities that are likely part of the mix where there might be need:

• Review and provide input on business plans
• Costs and time estimation
• Product prioritization
• Options analysis
• Systems analysis and design
• Technical risk analysis
• Technical research and evaluation
• Systems for accounting and reporting
• Metrics (see startup metrics)
• Security
• Integration
• Scalability
• Social media integration plans (ex. see When to Use Facebook Connect – Twitter Oauth – Google Friend Connect for Authentication?)
• Development plans and resourcing, in-house, outsource, off-shore
• Other development and operational plans and resourcing
• Interviewing resources
• Coaching or managing developers or others
• Discussions with key partners or customers
• Technical innovations, protection, patents
• Networking and Introductions

It’s worthwhile to think through some of the specifics of what gaps exist among the current team and hence where you might want to augment the team.

Augmenting the team can take various forms:

• Consulting – defining how to attack particular issues, possibly directly planning
• Coaching – advising on how to approach particular issues
• Manage – lead members
• Execute – take on specific activities

Again, this is fairly fuzzy, but it comes down to having mutual expectations.

One of the more interesting questions is what this ends up being called and how it gets structured.

• CTO Founder – Direct responsibility for technical direction and development, sometimes operations, implies greater authority on product and company direction and higher equity position.
• CTO or Part-Time CTO – Direct responsibility for technical direction and bridging the gap to development
• Acting CTO – Direct responsibility but expected limited duration, often bridging to a full-time CTO

All of the above CTO titled roles imply direct responsibility to execute and manage aspects of the startup.  However, I’m always doing this part-time.  That means that it will be structured as some number of hours per week, month, etc.   It’s up to collective team to manage how this gets allocated.  That’s the same thing that everyone does, but they are playing with a larger bucket of hours.  Some weeks might end up being pretty much full-time on a single startup (e.g., important planning meetings or partner meetings).  But it generally works out well in the end.

Other labels:

• Consultant – Take bits and pieces, possibly coach
• Advisor / Advisory Board Member – Often a periodic responsibility and some ad hoc activities.  I’m going to talk to this in a future post in more detail.

The consultant role can either be a specific set of tasks for a limited duration or a set of hours over a given timeframe.  It generally is done to pick off specific needed activities.

I would suggest if you are thinking about what you really need for your startup in terms of technology, you also take a look at: Startup CTO or Lead Developer.

I would love to hear questions on this – and I’m expecting to come back and modify this as I have experiences that fit outside of this or as I figure out better ways to classify / clarify technology roles.