How Large Organizations Can Launch a Successful Venture Building Program

Hey everyone, how's it going? My name is Ehan Isaacs. I'm the head of global growth for the Founder Institute. Super excited to bring you today's webinar. We're just about to get started here. I can see, okay, we have about 24 people online right now. We had close to 225 signups, so I'm expecting close to the 80 to maybe 100 mark, and I know a lot of people are going to be listening to the recording. Super excited to have our amazing panel today on how large organizations can actually build a successful venture building program. We have two amazing guests with us today. Let me just pull up their bios, but today we have Tatiana Lemos, who's the partner at 10xGrowth. She brings over close to 30 years experience in marketing and innovation, so super glad that she's here. She's worked with global brands like Nestlé and Unilever to launch new ventures, and she's going to be representing more of the client side today and giving her perspective of being with the large corporate for so many years, and she's obviously advised large organizations on how to build and launch their own startup accelerator. So Tatiana, welcome to, I guess, this panel event, to this global audience who will be listening to you.

Thank you so much, and hi guys.

Awesome. Let me just introduce Misha as well. So Misha, if you were on the panel 2, 3 weeks ago, he was on board giving another presentation on corporate venture building, but Misha is also the founder of 10X Growth, a boutique agency that works with large organizations to simplify their venture building process with its battle-tested methodology. He spent the last 15 years helping international organizations like Nestlé, Unilever, and Philips innovate systematically at scale. So Misha, thank you so much for being here once again.

Super good, man. Very welcome.

Awesome. So we have our audience is still picking up right now. We have people coming in from Cincinnati, Cologne, Antwerp, Toronto, Bali. So Bengaluru, India, Kentucky, Berlin, Palestine. So you have an international audience with you today. You know, let's kind of get things started. I have a bunch of questions prepared, but folks, there's a Q&A button. I'm going to submit my questions there. But if you folks have a different question, please add it. You can upvote my questions, you can upvote other people's questions. I'm just going to take them as we come. We have about 40 minutes and then after that we'll break out for networking. Let's get things started. I guess while I add the questions to the chat, Tatiana or Misha, do you want to explain like a little bit more about yourself and like how the two of you met and then we can go to the good juicy questions of why we're here.

Tatiana, you may start.

Okay, okay. Our story, Michel. No, I've been around in the corporate world for a good while, as I am just shared with you. And my last stretch within the corporate world with Nestlé was actually heading marketing for their innovation accelerator, which is actually a part of R&D. And there, the methodology we used was outsourced to Misha's agency at that time. And I then had the privilege of being in one innovation group end to end to really, really understand how it works and how we do it in 6 months from lab to shop, end to end. It was like an MBA for me coming from traditional marketing strategy. It was really a wonderful new way, leaner, faster, more intelligent, simply to do marketing, to do commercial. So I was super convinced that that was the way to go. And after a while I decided to leave, Misha left too, and we teamed up. To really do what we love to do, but in a way that would be even better than what we had experienced before. So we joined our insights, our experiences, and our ambition to do better, and we created 10X. So that's our story together.

Yeah, I don't— to be honest, I don't have a lot to add to that story because, yeah, I completely agree. That's how it went. And I think there are, and that's probably also part of the panel discussion, right? I mean, it's just, uh, first of all, I think it's necessary to, to face the reality that corporate venture building is a complex thing. And I see a tendency now, which is already one of the questions I know you will start asking a bit later, but there's a tendency that, um, uh, that venture building might be the new solution for certain problems. But still, it's not a quick fix, you know, it's not a recipe, and it requires a lot of things to be in place to ensure a certain return on investment. Because there are studies that actually have proven that a corporate venture building lifecycle, which is not a very new term, this is already started in 1960s with Skunk Works, you know, and all that stuff. So A lot of research has done that the corporate life cycle, venture building cycle, if that is a good term, sort of has 3 years. In, in year 1, people are enthusiastic, you start, you do programs. Year 2, you start perfecting, you learn. If you are good, you start learning, reflect, what can we do? And in year 3, people ask, when are we going to make money? And that is basically— then you also see the closure of We had PepsiCo Labs in the past. Disney opened their lab, then they closed it again. So it's quite a complex topic, and I hope we can dive a bit more deeper today in what are the mechanisms, right, behind, uh, the things that why it makes it complex, and also how we can intervene and how can we, you know, uh, become more effective in this, uh, venture building domain. So yeah.

Yeah, that's awesome. So I guess let's kick things off. So everyone, I've added my questions into the Q&A button. I've seen some people already uploading it, so I'm just gonna go as we come across. One of the reasons I like this platform is because I can do this and bring up the question, uh, so it's easier for everyone to kind of in the audience see. So again, the format for this is Misha is going to represent more of the agency mindset and approaching this as an external vendor, and hopefully Tatiana you can bring in the internal, like how would a corporation bring, uh, think about this. But, uh, as of now, what are some of the biggest challenges you faced in driving innovation within a corporation and how have you overcome them? So maybe Misha, you can talk about the perspective of when you, when you enter maybe on the client side, and then Tatiana on the receiving side, like dealing with all your best friends at work and driving change.

Oh sure, I can, I can kick it off and then Tatiana, you fill in, uh, of course. So, uh, biggest challenges. So, um, now I think a couple. So most challenges from an outside perspective are on a tactical level, meaning, um, very practical stuff sometimes. Like, so we do fast learning, right? So we want to de-risk our assumptions in all different types of innovation ideas that we have. So it's of course Lean Startup and all types of validation tools that you want to apply. But you notice that a corporation is not designed to enable fast learning. It's designed to reduce risk for obvious reasons. So it's designed to protect the core business with a legal perspective, with an HR perspective, etc. So then we are coming in with a small team, a small ninja team, right? And we're gonna do X amount of experiments very fast with all different types of tools. We're gonna gather data from consumers, and then suddenly legal comes, of course, like, hey, um, what are you doing with the data? Then it comes in, hey, is this Instapage tool or whatever you might use, is this compliant, etc., etc. So that's, that's one, but that's more a practical thing which you can solve with the people. And my advice is take these people serious and take them into the journey so they understand what you're actually trying to do. Um, and then another thing is what I think is the biggest thing is mindset. So there's a lot of emphasis in the whole venture building world, including myself. So I wrote a book, 10x Growth Machine, which is really focusing on a couple of hard pillars from processes to metrics, how to fund innovations, how to stop innovations, etc. But I think mindset is one of the biggest things, because how do you deal with the uncertainty? How do you know fully when to invest in a certain venture? And I think that whole mindset is really an important challenge, let's say, to work on and to put more emphasis on, you know. So that's, that's briefly from my side, because there are many more things, or, but I pick a couple of big ones that I see happening a lot.

Perfect. Thanks, Tatiana. Maybe on the client side, if you hire someone like Misha, what are some of the challenges? So Misha mentioned compliance and mindset is essentially what I heard, but would love to get your thoughts.

So imagine that you have a true suborganization within your organization, right? This team is tasked with bringing innovation to the mothership, but it needs to be super well connected to the mothership and alignment must be there from the very beginning. Clarity on the brief, stakeholders on the same page. If that is not guaranteed upfront, then you can be sure nothing is going to happen at the end. And if there was something of a frustration, Misha, that brought Misha and I together, was exactly this, that wonderful things can be devised and developed until the point of investment merit. But then if you don't have all these different pieces of this hugely complex organization aligned, then nothing happens. Your chance of actually seeing the light of the day, of going commercial big time, not only pilot level, is close to zero. Because all these elements will be fighting each other, trying to bring it down because it's not really aligned with the corporate's real, like absolutely real priority, which is to drive its core business. Corporation is made to optimize the way it reduces costs and increase the volumes it can make through its core businesses. So innovation is always a kind of a counter sell within a larger entity, a larger organism, not even organization, an organism. So the fact that you're there, as Misha said, lean, a small team trying to do everything on its own is very counterintuitive to a large organization. We try to move at a certain pace by bringing all these pieces of the puzzle together. And we find ourselves in situations where we are pointing out strategic flaws in alignment between operations and global brands, for instance. And then it needs to be resolved because otherwise we will not, as a small, unpolitical, agnostic team, will not be able to do our thing and to deliver innovation. So there are lots of noise and lacks of adjustment in the bigger organization that become our own bottlenecks. So we need to resolve them to move on. So alignment is a huge thing. I don't know how much I can emphasize that. Clarity on the brief from the very beginning, bringing your stakeholders together from all these parts: operations, brands, country level, the guys who are going to deploy that first off, R&D. Everyone must be on the same page and then be able to learn this new way of doing things and support the team through this period of time, right? So this is to me really, really huge.

So let me— sorry, I just want a quick follow-up, and maybe Misha, you can— like, if we talk about alignment, but you know, you've set up the innovation mandate and innovation agenda, you've hired an external vendor, and you're telling me— like, again, I'm like looking at this from a very like let's say, amateur perspective, if you will, you've done all this and there's still like misalignment after all that?

100%. Let me tell you where, for instance, very, very simply, and we're talking real innovation here, we're talking about starting with jobs to be done, right? So we're talking basically about one common goal to which everyone in the organization can agree. We want to grow and we think So we're going to do it through innovation. These guys can do it. Now, when we start scoping it with consumer centrism, real consumer centrism, jobs to be done, we find different solutions that can span product to product and service to new business models. We might find, for instance, something that falls right in between two different established categories. It is not solid, it is not liquid, it is something in between, it's a combination, or to which category does it belong? And therefore, from a governance point of view internally, who's going to be the sponsor suddenly? If the one who briefed was the solid— I'm giving ridiculous names to it, it's not solid or liquid— but the one who birthed the brief was solids, but suddenly the consumer is saying, I want it to be liquid. Now what do we do? Is this an invalid project because of that, or do we have to be subtle enough and fast enough to say, hey, this is the growth opportunity, doesn't matter if solid or liquid, or let's just get this game back on track fast because this is a real consumer-led opportunity?

Yeah, okay.

Let's say I think people are waking up with when it's happening. So, uh, and I think that's perspective.

I can imagine, like, yeah, so it's like, who are you? I'm the guy. I'm the guy to fix it. It's like, I don't know.

No, but I mean, I mean, if you read most of the strategy plans, and I've been in quite some management sessions in my life now, you read not very different things. You want to be more consumer-centric, faster decision-making process, empower your people, uh, that they make decisions themselves, etc., etc. So they're not very big differences between these corporations on this side of the strategy, right? Um, but when we start actually making decisions without them, that's when people are getting awake. It's like, okay, so you want to empower the team on the ground to follow the consumer data and we help them to start making decisions around the data, the consumer data. And then suddenly the management team is presented with these facts that the team has made a lot of decisions themselves. Some people take it very well, but other people, then only at that moment, the consequence of a different way of working is becoming real. Before that is theory, because these people, with all respect, have also so many things on their agenda, which I can understand, right? So, and therefore, really let it sink in. What does it mean to work consumer-centric? What does it mean to work agile? What does it mean to empower a team to make decisions? Because the consequence will open up a shadow side in the organization that has not been dealt with. And that's why most transformation and change programs and venture building initiatives just don't work. Because they never reflected on the side of innovation that then suddenly starts to enter. Because, I mean, I have seen this a lot of times, is that people join venture building programs, they were completely enthusiastic because we, of course, we open up their mind in the way that you can learn super fast. It's a new mind skill and toolset, right? I don't have to explain that to you, Ayan. But then they come back to the corporation and they're a bit stuck in the machinery again. And that tends sometimes that people leave the company. So I think it's very important for the management to reflect on this. So what does it mean for me as a leader if I truly want to push this forward? What does this mean for my own behavior, right? What does it mean, etc., etc.? I think this is a fundamental thing. And the last build is that what Tatjana said, and Steve Blank uses these words, and it's like search versus execute. So large companies have a great tool set, uh, with MBAs and smart people to run their business efficient, right, at scale. But there's a lack of a mind skill and tool set on how to search for new business, how to deal with the uncertainty, um, how to navigate through the fog, how to make investment decisions based on on data by a young team, right? So I mean, this is the search versus execute paradigm. That's where you see the tensions basically.

And I think just to complement that part of internal alignment, it is not, it's not easy for these guys who have not done it before to really embrace such like a knife on your neck. We run sprints, weekly sprints, things really happen fast and decisions have to be fast too. They're not used to be a bit more risk takers with this level of information and speed at the same time. At the same time, it's our belief, having seen it working in different ways through external processes that are completely third-party M&As, we believe that in the long term, doing it like we do, meaning working with hybrid teams where you have the client dedicated to that for a certain number of days, we are dedicated to that, and there is management supporting and involved at a certain frequency. This is the way to make it actually have greater chances of happening and of changing the culture of the organization over time, because you're actually recycling their people's mindset. It would be erroneously easier to believe that, no, push it aside and then they can do it and they can bring it back. But trust us, this is actually harder and there's no benefits to the culture of the organization.

No.

Yeah.

Awesome. Okay, I want to do a quick time check. We're 20 minutes in and we've only done one question. We have like 7 that's popped in, so I think we'll be able with you, uh, and we have some audience questions, so I'm going to bring them up as well as we come across. So, um, yeah, I think we'll go to the end of the hour just to make sure that we can get through as much of these as we can. So, uh, I like this question from Deborah. Hi Deborah, nice to— uh, Deborah and I spoke a couple days ago because she enrolled in one of our boot camps, but Deborah from Chicago is asking, uh, you know, let's talk about the entrepreneur executive in residence role within an innovation lab. What are top 3 corporations are looking for in their EIRs? I guess let's take a step back. Do you think that this is a successful model, the EIR model?

Um, yeah, it depends a bit. So there's so many models, right, and, and different ways to execute. What I think is, is, is, is of key essence is it can work, but then it depends on the quality of the entrepreneur residence, its personality and track record, right? So, um, but how I see the entrepreneur-in-residence model How I have seen it, let's say, is that you get somebody from the outside, like an entrepreneur, that really drives a venture to a certain point. Um, and I think that depending on the type of innovation, when it's like— because also there, venture building is a broad term, innovation is a broad term, so we need to be specific in what do we mean with what do we say? Because there's, well, misalignment on the lore continuously. But if it's Horizon 3 type of venture building, so can we spin out new ventures that are separate, that are farther away from the core business, then an entrepreneur-in-residence model might be the most logical reason. Because you're gonna separate it, um, from your existing mothership. You have a seasoned person to drive the team I think you need to be very clear about till what point, uh, does that person need to bring it. Because you have entrepreneurs in residence that are very experienced in 0 to 1, you have very experienced people moving from 10 to 100, and each phase in your venture cycle or company cycle, moving from idea to something big, has different challenges. And Nobody is a Superman or a Superwoman, so we need to be alert on what does it require exactly in each phase, what we need. And there I see in reality that, um, yeah, also very experienced and smart people, of course, do not have all the capacities to go from zero to thousand. Yes, I think that is one of the key things to look at.

Can I ask, and maybe Tatiana, you can add to that, if an EIR comes on board Is the resources up to the EIR, like they're the individual contributor, or should the organization be giving them like, hey, here's a designer, here's a developer, or should they just like go and figure out? I think that's probably where I see some of the model sometimes breaking. It's like some people just want an EIR because to say that they have an EIR, okay, we have an EIR, we're good. But like they have no resources and maybe that person's just doing office hours like once a quarter.

No, no, I think I was thinking about that. I think the way it can really work in my experience is when you get an entrepreneur that is relatively young, that is on its first business and therefore not very formatted to this is the way I do things. I've learned it myself. This is, you know, a very, somehow not only executives are very stiff, in their manners, but if you're born and raised an entrepreneur, you have your own ways and you're very inflexible about, about some of them. So the easiest fit is a very young entrepreneur that leaves college with a great idea, has become an accolade or something like that, and then meets a corporation that has some infrastructure to offer them so that they can significantly develop that seed idea, yeah, at that level. So to Misha's point about which kind of personality at which point of the development of the business, I think younger entrepreneurs, seed level, and a corporation that really means what it says by offering infrastructure, more than money, more than a seat, a desk, real functions, real, real conditions.

A vested sponsor that helps the person coach it internally, etc.

Otherwise it can be quite awkward. It can be like, like an alien, you know, you wouldn't like, if you can barely find the fit, if there is no reason, it will be expelled like an invasive organism.

Yeah, no, it's a valid point. Okay, let's just move on. I think just to build on that, Alice is asking, you know, what's the best way to do corporate innovation through existing or internal teams versus an open platform slash set a new team? And how would you compare some of these different models? And I think maybe Tatiana, let's start with you because you would be on the client side and hopefully you're the one who says, okay, we need to do innovation, here's our innovation agenda, but like what's the thinking you would go about deciding whether it's an open or closed model or should I do a venture building one or whichever, right?

Oh yeah, as I, as I queued, I really believe in the dedicated internal but open acceleration model. So it belongs to the company, the company invests in it, it has real open doors to the outside world. It keeps a very close connection to the mothership. Allowing it to have a very good degree of freedom and independence too. And it walks the talk by giving this kind of entity a full platform to operate from, pilot plans, like whatever, you name it, dedicated people from functions, money. So it's the best way because it tries to live on this border between independence and commitment. So if management is committed, finally, if we can do that alignment we discussed in the beginning, then there is promise in the continuation of that, which is what we all want, right? No one is into this, agencies, clients, or entrepreneurs. No one is into this just to have a nice ride in 6 months or whatever, prove that there is merit for investment. And then yeah, I take my notes, my grades, and I go on to, to something else. No, like you want to— you're really invested, you want to see it happening. And I think therefore this is the best model, the hybrid model, the committed and independent model.

Yeah, I think that was a great response. Misha, anything to add to that?

Or, uh, there are two ways to look at this question. So first is how to organize. That's, that's what Tatjana elaborated on. And then you also have the buy-build-partner decision in your program. So you have internal hybrid teams. We have people from the client together with us and a couple of specialists and we figure out consumer problems. And then the question becomes, do we need to build this ourselves or are we going to partner? So basically you need to integrate your buy-build-partner decision in your innovation process. So that's another way to read the question, but I hope we gave now two answers to that question.

Yeah, I think that very, very— you're getting me to think a lot as well. All right, I want to ask this question and then we'll go back to an audience question because I think this is very relevant based on where we're at today with AI and everything. But like, there's so many new technology and tools emerging all the time. Like, how do you determine which ones are actually worth investing in, and what criteria would you use to evaluate it? Like, I can imagine there's so many people right now in a boardroom saying, hey guys, what's our AI strategy? Hey guys, what are we doing about this? And like, I guess the question is, because these are new technologies, like Is it even worth doing anything around them? Or is it worth them just putting it on a shelf and seeing how it goes, then go about it? I'd be curious on both your side, do you even bring up any of these relevant and new technologies upfront? Or like, yeah, I'll let you.

I would like to start this one because I always have a strong idea about this type of So technologies and tools are— so also this one you can tackle from different angles, right? So, um, of course I think you need to experiment, you need to understand ChatGPT, all different types of tools, what's happening, how can we use it, etc. I think the starting point, what is our AI strategy, is not the right starting point. It should be about customer and problem, right? So what is actually the problem that we're gonna solve? And then can AI or blockchain or metaverse or whatever technology is relevant How can that fulfill that customer job in a fantastic differentiating way? The problem is if you start with the technology, which we also have seen, is that there in a subtle way it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy to prove that the technology is relevant. But I think that's the wrong way to tackle the problem. It's you start with customer and problem and then you need to understand, well, what can these tools or technologies deliver in clear consumer benefits, no vague and long fluffy statements, but what can it now really solve for that customer? And that should be, in my opinion, the chronological order how you would tackle it.

Yeah, just briefly, we look at it as optimization. So if we can delegate more and more of our campaigns and our variations in campaigns, to AI technologies, then we're going to do it because it shortens the time. And as I said, we work in sprints. Every week is a sprint. It's tremendously high pressure. So any time we can get back is very much used more strategically to help us drive the right questions. And then the execution, we are ready to delegate as much as we can to how AI can help us.

Yeah, absolutely. And I think so, it's to, to become more efficient, no-brainer. Um, but, um, what I also see when you look at venture building, man, there are so many— get the basics right. Yeah, so get your consumer insights right. Yeah, go deep. Don't have fluffy, superficial insights that we cannot build a new business around. But I mean, it's for me, it's first around the basic— have talented people, get your consumer insight right, make sure your R&D capability is up to speed so that it can actually produce something. And then, of course, we can look at technologies and different things. But the technology in itself will not bring the miracle. And I think that's important to realize.

Yeah, I think another way to look at it is like, don't— like, it's a kind of founder syndrome as well. People kind of see a product and they're like, they're always thinking more product-centric rather than customer problem-centric. So they're kind of putting the product before the problem, right? They're like, hey, we have this product, let's go find a market for it.

Let's find a problem to re-engineer it. Sometimes that can work, and sometimes that can work, but, uh, most of the times it is a bit of a tunnel that moves towards to prove a narrative for the relevance of the technology.

Yeah, okay, very, very relevant, very good response. All right, I'm gonna— there's a— was a really good one, um, I hope we can answer it. Yeah, uh, it was on how do you measure— oh, here it is. Uh, so Pavlin is asking, I guess, you know, how do you measure all of the stuff that you guys are doing? Like, how do you make sure that you set the right metrics and it's moving in the right direction? And like, I'll add to this, if it's not moving in the right direction, do you just pull the plug and say, okay, here's your last paycheck and go? Or like, is there that opportunity for learning? So maybe Tatiana, we can start with you because you're the one who built these programs. And to get your perspective.

I'll go about the one metric I'm very passionate about and Misha will understand that. He knows that pretty well already. I'm almost obsessed about it. And it's at the beginning, right? Shit in, shit out. If you're not pristine about what you're you're doing and doing it right, right at the beginning, if you're not super consumer-centric, you're not getting your insights right, you don't develop your hypothesis right with interviews, and then you go online to go for more quantitative justification of that, then nothing else happens because believe me, through the hurdles that come after that stage, everything will be diminished, crushed, and then there is a drop at the very end of the funnel. So I am passionate about engagement metrics when it comes to the discovery phase, the 5, 6 initial weeks, or even more, if you have a problem, a project that is very complex, but you've got to get to the bottom of it. And the proof is in the pudding. Your engagement measures will tell you if you're onto something or not. And here I say, be ruthless. About your, your KPIs, click-through rates, conversion rates. Take the upper measure, not— don't be modest in the beginning because again it's going to be crushed. So engagement metrics.

And I think what is, um, what I think is important, it's actually the tool that we shared with you, Ayaan, it's the investment maturity level. So you have an end-to-end innovation process with— and the team needs to show progress on certain milestones. So in your Consumer discovery phase, we need to understand customer problem, size of the pain, uh, you have a clear identified customer profile, and behind that you have click-through rates, conversion rates, and all different types of metrics, right, that you can, can, uh, can measure. Then you move forward, then you need to start testing lo-fi MVPs. Can we find early adopters? How fast can we recruit them? Uh, did we test the price point? So you need to have on, let's say, if you want to manage the stakeholders and the interface between team and stakeholder, you want to have an investment maturity level into an end-to-end process so that you can align on, well, in this phase, the first 3, 4 months, the team needs to prove XYZ. And we know that if successful in this industry, if we hit certain benchmarks, a size of the market, etc., If not, we stop. And that is even the hardest part because what we want to avoid is zombie projects. So projects that continuously go on, they suck resources and time, and there's not really traction because it's too difficult after 2 years to pull the plug. But it's easy to pull the plug after 3 months and a small investment. It's difficult after 2 years and €20 million of investment, right? I think the beauty of the process is that you stop things early because I've done quite some portfolio analysis during my years. And what is very interesting is that one moment in time I saw a pipeline of a company and a lot of projects continued to the MVP phase. So launching an MVP, going into a pilot phase, and then nothing was scaled, maybe one, which was an acquisition. Right, so we need to be very, I think, very clear that if the team can't prove significant traction in the first 4 months on a couple of key drivers, then, or we give the team 2-3 weeks to go a bit into a direction, find more relevant data, or it stops. It's that simple, or it stops. And then the team did not fail, which is very tough, Sometimes, no, the team figured out that there is no opportunity. Now let's replace the team on something else in our portfolio where we might think that there's an opportunity, right? So it's a very different way of, at least I think it's a very different way of operating.

Yeah, it's a very different way of thinking. It's more about, okay, you have this team as a resource. Okay, let's allocate them 4 months on Project A. If they've deemed in a structured way that there is no opportunity, let's move them to Project B. Rather than saying, okay, this team failed, let's can them and get another set of people for project B. I think to me, it's always like, when we discuss this internally, it's like, okay, what's the learnings we've had from project A? If it failed, it failed, let's move on. There's no more. And for a lot of people, that's like a challenge because it's like, hey, I spent 4 months on this, I spent so many hours building this thing, and like, it's like, hey, like, there's no opportunity. Like, let's salvage what we can and let's like iterate, right? For a lot of people, I think for you, you said it's the mindset of like, yeah, I can actually give up on it. Sorry, I interrupted, uh, Tatiana.

No, no, actually, I think it's a good add. And, and what I want to say is that, um, um, yeah, the goal is not to fail. So there's always this fall, fail fast, etc. And I'm not, not so much a fan of all these mantras, um, because we want to succeed. But in order to succeed, probably we fail a lot, right? Because it's super difficult. It's super difficult for a large company to prove a big enough size of the venture that it can be not dilutive to the P&L, which is another problem. So it needs to be separated, right? So, um, so I mean, it's just a complex thing, and most things fail, but do it fast Yeah, do it rigorous and then allocate your team to things because there are— and then we are also talking from that experience— things can also succeed, right? So, um, but it's just, um, yeah, it's just a different way of operating it. And yeah, you navigate through high uncertainty. So, and then even for a corporation, you need to produce big numbers to, to make management vested, right?

So I think that's an interesting— I haven't heard someone think like It's an interesting way of looking at it. It's like, hey, this could be a success, and it could be a success, but it could not be, uh, big enough for a large corporation. They need this to be a $10 million initiative. If it generates a million, it's just not enough. Like, it could be a good small business, but I didn't really think about that. There could be a whole graveyard of opportunities.

You want to show the value, um, uh, and you have a €50 billion company, well, you can calculate what type of numbers you need to produce. And that is something you want to understand upfront. So how far can we dilute from that? How far can we move away from that or not? Because otherwise you have teams that only focus on desirability, then they create MVPs that the consumer wants, but it can never, never become viable in the way a corporation expects. And that's what you want to have in your first 3 months to, to really understand your key risky viability assumptions, which is for corporation, yeah, and also for startup, uh, very important. But indeed, if you and I would build a €2 million business, nah, not bad, right? Uh, but yeah, in a corporation, who, who cares really? €2 million, I don't even come out of my bed for €2 million, you know what I mean? Yeah, but it is like that.

It is, it is. And it is also from a business model perspective, it's dilutive. So they cannot, as responsible business, they cannot allow that to happen. So it's always going to be challenged from a size or a profit point of view, but you got to show them some real juicy numbers that take into account the current today, like the initial point and the future so that they can make sense of it minimum. Sense.

And therefore, I think that's my last add to this thing, is that you really need to understand with your stakeholders and team what is the goal of our venture building. How far can— is it to improve the core business? Great. Can we need to do an adjacent innovation? If it's like Horizon 3, new business models, transformation, well, you better align 14 times, uh, you know, to not to be sure that we are all on the same page, and that in the case of real venture building and transformation type of innovations, you need to have patience for growth. Because you don't— if you're not ready to invest on a 5 to 7 years time horizon, forget about it. You don't have to do it, which I don't judge, but yeah, then, then put your money somewhere else, right? So I just think it's—

that's my biggest takeaway from this, is like, you need to think like it's a little bit counterintuitive, but you need to think like that unicorn type of founder where it's like, you need to go in and like, you're essentially launching a very large venture, whether you like it or not, you can't just go and launch a million or $2 million venture. You have to think like somebody who can go and be like, hey, this needs to generate an X amount of millions and stuff. So something I just never thought about.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And probably it makes you passionate for the right thing. Which is delighting consumers, really breaking through to them and not simply be attached to your piece of technology or your conception of what a good idea would be. Just like if it's really good, it's going to be big. And it's difficult to combine desirability with feasibility and viability at scale. It's damn hard. It's a much narrower space. But that's the space of success. Anyone can do a successful 1 to 2 million company, but working with large corporations require a bit more than that.

Just a bit. Just a bit. Don't forget.

Don't forget.

200 million. That's it.

Yeah, just that's it. It's a no-brainer. All right. Let me get this question by Paulo up because I think it's in line with what we were just talking about. But like, You know, what are some of the strategies you would use to recruit like a vision-aligned team at an early stage? I guess this is at the corporate level. Like if you're, if I'm looking at, well, even on the agency level, if I'm looking to build a team out in this space of corporate innovation and venture building, like how do you ensure alignment at least on the delivery team, not necessarily just on the client side, if that makes sense?

I'll give the client perspective and Misha will give his perspective from someone who saw a lot of teams being put together for good and for bad internally.

Um, I think we should, uh, the good and the bad. I'm curious to know what you mean by that, the good and the bad.

So, um, you need entrepreneurs, that's what you need, which is by definition not a classic executive profile, classic corporate profile. Corporate profiles are risk avoidant. They are very good at repeating themselves and improving at each round. So they are maximizers, optimizers. They are on maintenance and they actually are the ones who make the world go round. Things exist and get maintained and supported because of these people. So there is nothing wrong about that, but it's a different profile clearly from an entrepreneur or an innovator. These guys are more naturally, um, um, inclined to risk-taking. They are a bit restless. They don't take simple nos as answers. They want to know why and why and why. They are a pain in the ass. They are, they bug you. They are resilient. They find different ways. It's not your traditional profile for corporations. So the way to be successful there with recruitment for these initiatives is to find these guys, They exist. They are not the majority again, but they exist. And if you offer them a chance to learn a whole different way to operate with more freedom, with faster cycles, they're going to be delighted. And the likelihood of them really, really embracing it and delivering very fast is great. The problem starts, and this is the ugly, when the profile is not really taken into consideration, when it's more a matching of people who are kind of available at that point, people that wouldn't be a big miss to the everyday journey of the business, then put this person there to really make sure we are building some volume to the new culture. This is the wrong thing to do because If you put a risk-averse, super controlling, highly analytical, individualistic profile in working like this, you're probably going to break the person. It's going to burn out. It's not going to feel comfortable at all. And as Misha said, in the end of the cycle, might have difficulties finding a place to go back to the mothership. So I've seen both happening and I seriously advise for the first. It's like, do your thing. Select the people with the mindset, with the appetite to join, and you're not going to regret it.

Yeah. And I think there are two more things adding from my side. One is there— so I know a lot of founders, right? And I've been in that role also many times, and I always had a strong vision on what should happen, right? So I had the slides, this is how it should be, etc. And I was trying to persuade other people that that is the best thing. And sometimes you succeed in that, right, if you're a good influencer, etc. Um, but I think the most important thing is that leave the vision, your vision, for a moment in the fridge and start— because you want the other side of the table become invested in your plans. So how can you— so they need to come up that your idea is actually a good idea, right? And you don't do that by sort of presenting slides and, and then ask, oh, do you get it? Do you understand it? Yes, we're on the same page. Fantastic, we go. So that's not how it works. So can we hold the moment, our own vision in the fridge, and we talk about the topic and let they come with a vision? I think that's one. And two, the best thing where you want to also recruit for is, can— do you still like each other when shit happens, right? Because we all like each other, uh, when things are going well, but if you don't have the routines in place or the open personality or the or the trust in your team. So you also need to be able to manage distrust, right, which always happens in every team. Distrust, that's it. That is something which is under the table, which is not always talked about. And then you go to the mediator, it's too late, then you have lawyers, and then there's no venture, right? So, um, recruit also, um, for people, um, that have that have been in that situation before and sort of learn from that, because that's your best indicator, you know, that you can stick that team together. I hope that helps.

No, I think, yeah, this has been great. Like, we just have about 10 minutes left. I want to make sure we have some time to do some networking as well, but like, honestly, I could probably go for like 2 days just asking you all a lot of questions. Folks, if you've enjoyed Misha and Tatiana, there's like an emoji button, and please show us some love. Yeah, okay, we got a couple claps in there. Okay, good. So yeah, this is awesome. I think a lot of interesting insights here from the two of you. We didn't get through any of the, like, all the questions I wanted, but, you know, we had a chance to engage the audience and get to listen more about them. You know, one thing I do wanna mention before we go into, like, our final remarks and networking is that, you know, Misha's gonna be running a bootcamp I think it's in August or so, uh, sorry, in July. I'm going to throw the link up there. It's on corporate venture building. It's all this type of stuff. He's going to dive deeper into it. So if you're interested, go check it out. He does a pretty good job of laying out everything you need. Uh, we'll send out the link also in the email for everyone that's recording, that's watching this later. Um, just to wrap up here, I think what I usually like to do, uh, is that, you know, I'll switch the view so everyone can kind of see you next to each other. But like any final parting wisdom for like, you, you know, we had 200 people, I think about 80, 90 people were live at once. We still have about 50 people live, uh, you know, this recording will go out. But like, what are some parting wisdom for, uh, the audience? Like, corporate innovation is such a new space, um, like a lot of people are going to make mistakes, a lot of people are going to have some success, but You know, you folks have been in this space for quite some time. What is like looking— if you want to say like looking back, what would your advice be to either somebody who's starting out in their corporate innovation role or looking to or just getting started? Like, how should they prepare themselves for that?

A lot of things mentioned, right? But what stood out for me is that The magic is not in the process, but it's in the people. So invest in your people, recruit the right people, give time for them to get the drill. And I think that's one of the most important things because the process will kill creativity, right? So that is, I think, an important one to stay conscious about. And if you do it, go all in. Yeah, don't do it half. But then do it well. Like Tatiana said, align, you know, what is it that we need to achieve, when is it successful, etc. But that's from my side.

Perfect.

From my side—

yeah, Tatiana, go ahead. Sorry.

My side, thinking about, um, if you have a choice of what to work with, if you believe you can do many other things or a couple of other things, do the other things, because there is probably nothing harder than doing corporate innovation from for large organizations. So if it's not something that comes from your heart for which you're fully, fully passionate to the point of not seeing yourself doing anything else, then don't do it. You just go for it if it's almost a curse, you cannot let go of it. That's who you are, that defines you. And finally, building a bit on what Misha said, it's gonna push your limits. So go for some self-development, Do some self-search, do therapy. It's like, know your shadows, know your ghosts, your dragons, because they're going to come after you and you should rather know them.

Yeah. Oh my God, there's so much. I wish we could just like have a podcast that is just going to go on for hours, but definitely need to get the two of you back on to chat more. We have like a library of questions here. Misha, Tatiana, thank you so much. I think this has been super enjoyable, one of my favorite panelists I've hosted to date. But everyone else from joining in, thank you so much for taking the time off your busy day. We're gonna end now, we'll break out to networking, feel free to talk to each other. We still have about 50+ people here. So, all right, we'll wrap up here. Thank you everyone. Thanks, Tatiana. Thanks, Misha.

Thanks, man.

Thank you.

Take care.