The latest from TechCrunch
- There's Always A Bu.tt
- Our Government Can't Prevent A Digital 9-11: Entrepreneurs Need To Step In
- Smith Electric's CEO On Delivering Zero Emission Trucks, Avoiding The G-Word
| There's Always A Bu.tt | Top |
| This just landed in our inbox: a pitch for a new URL shortener with the slightly amusing name Bu.tt , which is of course described by its creator – John McKinnon – as a shortening service that “kicks it”. If you think bit.ly or TinyURL or whichever service you fancy just seems too serious for certain linking occasions, Bu.tt is one way to get the job done. And because it’s so cheeky (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), it’s bound to get you some attention, too. Say, isn’t that the reason why we share links in the first place? Case in point: http://bu.tt/erface . | |
| Our Government Can't Prevent A Digital 9-11: Entrepreneurs Need To Step In | Top |
| At the Security Innovation Network (SINET) Showcase at The National Press Club in Washington, D.C., this week, Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, presented a dire assessment of the cyber-security threat facing our nation. He discussed how rogue governments and hackers are quietly infiltrating our computer systems and the disasters that can be perpetuated—like those you see on the TV show "24". Chertoff worries that these risks haven't yet gripped the public imagination; that it may take a "digital 9-11" to get businesses, consumers, and governments to fortify their defenses. The most troublesome thing I learned by talking with a who's who of our nation's security community was that our government doesn't believe it has the ability to defend us from the rapidly evolving threats. Yes, the National Security Agency and some branches of government have brilliant computer scientists working for them and can defend their own systems; but the rest of us are our own. The Government simply can't innovate fast enough to keep pace with the pervasive threats and dynamics of the internet or Silicon Valley's rapidly changing technologies. Indeed, as George Hoyem, a partner at the CIA-backed venture fund In-Q-Tel, noted, there has been a 571 percent growth in malware since 2006; today, 60 percent of all websites are infected. The experts agreed that we need private industry to step in and help solve the world's cyber-security problems. But we can't count on the big companies —they can't innovate as fast as startups can. So our entrepreneurs need to lead the charge . And many are doing just that. Robert Ackerman, managing director at Allegiance Capital, said that in 1981 more than 70 percent of research and development in security technology was done by companies with 25,000 employees or more, and less than 5 percent was done by companies with fewer than 1000 employees. Today, the large companies perform 38% of the R&D, and companies with fewer than 1000 employees do about 25%. But here's the big obstacle: when it comes to Government—which is one of the biggest markets for security technologies, the deck is stacked against the entrepreneur. Nearly all big government contracts go to large contractors. These contracts run not in the millions of dollars, but in billions. And we don't get billions of dollars of value—if we're lucky, we get some clunky old systems that entrepreneurs could have delivered much better versions of in a fraction of the time and a tiny fraction of the cost . Because these contracts are so big, they require many levels of approval—usually by Congress. It typically takes 3-4 years for government to award these. Companies have to go through a grueling "certification" process to get approved to bid, and it costs millions of dollars to prepare proposals and to lobby government officials and political leaders. Startups can't wait this long or afford the cost of bidding. The chasm between government and entrepreneur couldn't be wider. All of the government officials I talked to were open to change and seemed eager to embrace new technologies; yet they had no idea where to start or how to get around their own bureaucracy. Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C., are located three thousand miles apart in space and light years apart in concept. Technology managers in government don't know where to find the entrepreneurs who are ready and able to build innovative solutions. And when they do come across them, they don't have mechanisms to fund, support, or purchase technology from startups. So government managers are forced to deal only with the big contractors—who have a greater incentive to add staff (and so increase billing) than to cut costs through innovation. Not only are we wasting billions of dollars, but our nation's defense industrial base is neglecting the vast majority of innovation from early stage and emerging growth companies. What should the government do to remove the obstacles? There were some great ideas discussed, by people like Curtis Carlson, CEO of SRI International; Dean DeBiase, of Reboot Partners; Asheem Chandna of Greylock Partners; and SINET's founder Robert Rodriguez: 1. Overhaul the acquisition and procurement process to level the playing field for small companies: it must be made easier for startups to bid for government contracts and the selection criteria balanced to weigh equally the risk of technology obsolescence with the risk of a startup's failing. Procurement times should be reduced to months rather than years; some projects should be done in smaller steps so that the big guys aren't the only ones qualified to complete them. 2. Increase awareness between technology buyers, builders, investors, and researchers. The SINET event was billed as the first of its kind. In Silicon Valley, such networking events—between entrepreneurs, investors, buyers, and academics—take place at least every week. Why not bring government technologists to Silicon Valley and other tech centers on a frequent basis? They will understand what is happening in the tech world, and entrepreneurs will get the chance to learn what problems need to be solved and to meet the people they can sell their solutions to. 3. Provide tax incentives for security innovations—R&D tax breaks, similar to the high-efficiency-energy tax breaks for consumers. 4. Provide seed funding for startups. One of the reasons for which Silicon Valley has so many Web 2.0-type startups, is that successful entrepreneurs, who have made their fortunes, are playing the role of Angel and VC. They provide funding and mentorship. Why not provide government technology managers with the ability to fund and mentor the startups that they believe can solve critical problems? One more great idea (not from SINET, but reported by Rob Pegoraro, of The Washington Post ) is from Internet pioneer Vint Cerf. Vint advocates the creation of a “cyber fire department”—a recognized, trusted, public entity that companies can call upon when they need help. This would function as Sandia National Laboratories did in battling the Conficker worm. Bottom line: until changes begin to occur on a national scale, U.S. cyber-security will remain a global backwater in the continually innovating domain that is cyberspace. Editor's note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. You can follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa and find his research at www.wadhwa.com . | |
| Smith Electric's CEO On Delivering Zero Emission Trucks, Avoiding The G-Word | Top |
| Bryan Hansel, chief executive of Smith Electric Vehicles U.S. , headquartered in Kansas City, Mo., almost disdains the word “green.” His company makes all-electric trucks for medium-duty commercial and industrial use. They compete against brands like Ford, Peterbilt and Hino . Smith’s EV technology is also constantly compared to traditional diesel, gas and alternative fuel combustion engines. Hansel believes his trucks have to dominate based on performance and cost savings in light of this. Even the company’s logo is orange not green. The CEO emphasizes the relative price predictability of electricity over liquid fuels instead of strictly environmental benefits. In 2008— the year Hansel joined Smith Electric— the transportation sector used 13.88 million barrels of liquid fuels per day, and the industrial sector used 4.75 million in the United States according to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy . Liquid fuel demand is expected to increase, with those sectors using 14.27 million and 4.82 million barrels of liquid fuel per day by 2015. The cost of liquid fuels (primarily petroleum-based) fluctuates more dramatically than electricity’s. The prices are impacted by crude oil production, world oil pricing, taxes, and advances in fuel technology. Meanwhile, electricity can be generated from renewable sources, on or off the grid (like a rooftop solar array) and purchased from a utility at a price that’s locked in over the long-term. For every gallon of gasoline used, according to the U.S. EPA 2,421 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) are emitted into the atmosphere, and 2,778 grams per gallon of diesel. The greenhouse gas emissions could also be taxed in the future. Hansel’s cost savings message resonated with some major corporations, including Staples, Frito-Lay and Coca Cola. Currently, The Smith Newton is the only all electric, medium-to-heavy truck offering on the GSA schedule , which means soon Smith Electric may count the U.S. military a large customer. Hansel spoke with TechCrunch this week about how Smith is convincing American fleet managers to try electric trucks, and some of the challenges the company faces as it scales to meet the demand. (Interview after the photo.) Smith Electric Vehicles was founded in 1920 in the UK. How and why did you join the company? I never thought about designing vehicles, or woke up and said ‘I’ll be the electric truck guy,’ but I had been around mechanical engineering and manufacturing my entire life. I ran a product development company for more than 15 years where we helped bring products to market for Fortune 500 companies— that was Virdev. This particular opportunity came about for me when a friend of mine acquired Smith [in the UK] and had brought its technology and business to the strong state that it is in today. He said, ‘hey, you need this technology that I've got [in the United States].’ He knew that I understood what it takes to scale product, drive costs out, and that this was in my fiber. It really happened this quickly. On a Friday, I sold a business making medical devices in October 2008. By Monday, I was thinking about bringing electric trucks to North America. I had closed a deal to license the technology by January of 2009. How do you deal with “haters,” people who don’t believe electric vehicles will ever be on par with combustion engine vehicles, or worth the investment? Personally, I don’t run into these people. That’s because I’m not in a consumer environment. I’m not telling anyone ‘Here’s an electric vehicle that’s going to replace the sports car or family sedan you’re so emotionally attached to already.’ In the business to business environment that we focus on, people make logical financial and operational decisions. We talk to customers about the ten-year total life cost of their fleets and individual vehicles. We ask them, ‘Can you predict diesel fuel costs for ten years? How would you like to do that versus buying electricity at a more predictable level?’ If they buy a new diesel truck today— Smith Electric vehicles end up being 80% cheaper on a per mile basis from fuel savings. Over ten years, for total life cost, if you’re driving about a 50-mile route every day, and coming back to the place to recharge overnight, at a central depot, then they’re at least 50% cheaper. What about your business keeps you up at night? I’ve been overwhelmed by corporations saying ‘We're ready to go, we'll take thousands of vehicles! Can you build em?’ There's nobody ready to supply those parts. People are telling them the battery supplies and motors are just around the corner. It’s not quite that easy. We have to sell our suppliers on the fact that we have orders. We work with one company that was a supplier to the EV-1! They have hung around and maintained in the industry this long, and they've heard every story. One company in the industry said it would build 200,000 hybrid-electric vehicles. They only made 25,000. So suppliers have reason to be cautious, I understand. We have to do everything we say we'll do to win them over. And we have to trust them. What has kept me up is trying to give them disclosures. Should we put them in touch with our customers, directly? We’ve done so with Frito-Lay, Coca Cola and Staples. We’ve had our clients and suppliers— and some of them regard each other as competitors— in the same room, talking about their various challenges of adoption. How many Smith Electric Vehicles are operating in the U.S. already? There are more than a hundred out there already. Hundreds more will be on the road domestically by early next year. We also have a Department of Energy grant to deliver 510 vehicles that will ship before the middle of next year. We’re certainly ramping up production. The vehicles each have on-board data collection. We're real time downloading data to understand how they're being deployed, how they’re working and what’s optimal for our customers. Who have been your most important customers to date and why? They’ve all been pioneering and important strategic launch partners. We actually said no to potential clients, at times. When you are a company that’s new to the U.S., it’s hard to say ‘We're not selling to you yet. At this time, we’re only selling to launch partners.’ A focused strategy has worked for us, and created a level of demand that's unprecedented in the sector here. It was a magic bullet. Prospective clients wanted us to electrify other things, or sell quantities we wouldn't sell. A more focused strategy helped us maintain a higher quality overall. Our largest order came from Frito-Lay. I have to give them credit for being visionaries. They have dedicated staff, engineering and fleet managers to bring their electric vehicles program online, and make electrification work in their business. Your trucks can’t plug into the wall, or recharge at EV stations that are becoming more pervasive in the U.S.— would you ever go into building EV charging stations for trucks? We have a three-phase, 60 amp service requirement, and all the charging technology is built into our trucks. Today, it’s true that there is no commercially available charger for our trucks. EV charging station companies [like Coulomb or ClipperCreek ] don't have a product available for us yet. If they do bring something to market, that would help push our customers in that direction. Right now, customers have a central depot or warehouse setup. The trucks go back and charge at the same place when they’re not in use. While commercial availability of EV charging stations is part of the evolution of our business, we'll never build charge points. It’s not part of our service offering. CrunchBase Information Smith Electric Vehicles Information provided by CrunchBase CrunchBase Information Coulomb Technologies Information provided by CrunchBase | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment