Emerging tech Toolkit

Funding future tech at Motorola

Tags:
Invest,
Lab,
Funding,
Stage

Marguerite Reardon CNET News

Published: 26 Jul 2007 19:16 BST

…turn any technology into a commercial product. This is an internal fund that looks across the portfolio of Motorola's research. The reality is that not all the research will ever get into products. The funnel wouldn't allow it. It wouldn't be sustainable.

So what is the process for selecting technologies or projects that the fund will invest in?
We have an internal intranet that we've developed so that anyone in the company can submit ideas. This means anyone from an inventor or engineer to a marketing person to a finance person can submit an idea. We have a template that asks some questions, such as: "What is the problem you're trying to solve?" and "What is the target market for this technology?" Then one of my 30 team members looks at the idea to see if it's something we should develop.

And what do you do from there?
Then we start whittling down the ideas to about 1,000 potential projects. And we continue cutting the number back to about 100, and we take ideas to different leadership innovation teams around the world. These teams are made up of our top technology leaders and operational people. In these meetings, they ask a lot of questions about the business model, competitors, et cetera. And then we get down to the top three ideas and finally just one idea.

The whole process can take between one month and three months. And, by the time it becomes a commercial product, it's anywhere from 12 months to three years. The average is that we get a commercial product out in about 18 months.

So how many projects actually get funded?
I'd say about 20 to 30 a year get funding. And about 65 percent of those actually make it into commercial deployment.

Would you say that you have a higher success rate than some privately funded start-ups?
If you look at an outside start-up, about one in 10 actually makes it. For inside start-ups the success rate is a bit higher. We already have established customer relationships and the manufacturing and development infrastructure. But one of the big lessons we've learned is that we can't go too big too early. It's best to keep the team to five to seven people in the early stage.

What other lessons have you learned?
There are three big lessons. One is that you need the highest level of approval from top executives, like the chief executive and chief technology officer. Ed Zander, our chief executive, has become more and more involved in terms of reviewing projects. He is very aggressive about pushing new technology into products. If another company comes out with a new technology, the executives often question why we didn't have it first.

A problem we and many other companies faced back in the 2000 and 2001 time frame is that we de-emphasised innovation. And now we are ramping that up.

Jim O'Connor, Motorola

The second lesson is that you need money. You can't innovate through persuasion and PowerPoint. We have about $20m (£9.6m) to $50m (£24m) available to invest every year on early-stage development out of a total R&D budget of $4.1bn (£1.9bn).

The third lesson is that you really need a disciplined process for submitting and evaluating ideas. When Motorola had attempted this kind of investment in early-stage technologies before, there was one person doing it. But we realised you need a team and a system in place to filter through thousands of ideas. You also need some mechanism for input that allows people to submit ideas and have them quickly vetted. It's impossible to do innovation through informal networking like emails.

Part of the allure of a start-up for people is that there is potential for huge payouts. How do you compete against that mentality when trying to foster this internal start-up system? Do people on these teams have the potential to make a lot of money?
There is no way for a large company like Motorola to compete with the financial payout of a successful start-up. A small start-up will always have a higher capacity for returns. But the risk is greater. Google was one of a thousand search engine start-ups that made it, but there were 999 that didn't.

And I'd say that, if you look at people working at outside start-ups in Silicon Valley, they are willing to take more risks. But our group also attracts the best and brightest, and it attracts people who are also risk takers.

The people on these teams see the involvement of the chief executive and chief technology officer and they want to be a part of these projects. There is also much greater exposure for people on these teams. I wouldn't say there is a difference in how they get paid, but they have more opportunities for advancement, which leads to higher salaries. They might move up the ladder more quickly if they are on one of these internal start-up teams.

But I'd be remiss to say that there is a big differential between those working on an internal start-up and those who aren't. The idea is that everyone at Motorola should be innovating.

Motorola has been criticised for not innovating in the handset market recently. Apple came out with the iPhone and RIM has introduced several new BlackBerry devices. And then you have Motorola, which is just now introducing 3G phones when competitors like Nokia have had them for a while. Do you want to comment on this?
The key thing is, in the ESA, we focus on early-phase ideation. A lot of things we invest in make it into products months or years down the road. A problem we and many other companies faced back in the 2000 and 2001 time frame is that we de-emphasised innovation. And now we are ramping that up.

The things you are talking about are handled more through product development teams. We work closely with them to get ideas for future features or products. And we'll probably see more ideas with the iPhone coming out, since it is creating a sense of urgency. So I think you'll be seeing some interesting stuff from us in the product portfolio soon. As far as ESA goes, though, we are just one element in all of this.