The amazing achievements of entrepreneurs are fueled by a motivation often unmatched in others, but the deep underlying source for that motivation is highly variable.

Interestingly enough, the prime motivation for entrepreneurs is almost never money. Of all entrepreneurs I talked to – and there have been hundreds – only two of them mentioned the prospect of money as a key motivation. All the others did not think that money was a crucial part of their choice to become an entrepreneur. Most entrepreneurs answer one of two ways: they have become entrepreneurs to make the world a better place, or they have become entrepreneurs to make people’s lives easier. These are very simple but very powerful statements.

Making the world a better place? That sounds like a huge goal. But, that’s exactly it. Entrepreneurship is not about a goal purposed by an individual. It’s about changing the behavior of many. It takes courage to say something like this, but that’s what entrepreneurship is all about. Many people think about this, few of them talk about it, and the entrepreneurial leader does it!

This is most powerful when talking about social entrepreneurship. I attended a presentation recently when somebody was introduced as “a person whose invention saves 1000s of lives”. I was blown away. I have done pretty cool stuff – there are devices flying in space that my team dreamed up and that have made remarkable first measurements in various places of our solar system.

That day, I envied that entrepreneur – thousands of lives! The device he developed, by the way, was some kind of low-cost surgical tool used in heart-surgery all over the word. “Thousands of lives.” – how empowering!

Improve people’s lives? I have been thinking a lot about two speakers of this semester’s distinguished innovator series. Both, Mr. Aaron Dworkin and Mr. John Barfield were very much driven by this motivation. In many cases, such a motivation is fueled by a deep sense of incompleteness or injustice that may characterize the youth of such entrepreneurs. They are very motivated to change their life and in so doing, they change the life of many others. They know about people they touch, they care about them deeply. Clearly, entrepreneurship is an emotional journey!

There is another motivation that can be highly powerful, but is not often talked about: fear of failure. Some of my very best and most successful friends achieve because they were told that they are unable to do so. There are two sides to this.

On the one hand, these are entrepreneurs who have fought their way out of a hole—they have undergone an incredible journey. Ten years ago they were picking fruit in China, today they are powerful innovators; they went to school in one of the most challenging districts in an inner city, and they are now highly successful.

On the other hand, such people are often plagued by the deepest insecurities and angst. Many will never understand. I know that from my personal experience. There are still nights when I wake up in panic, thinking that all the happiness in my family, all my professional success, everything I care about today – everything was just a dream. But, that makes me one of the most driven people around.

I still remember how the teachers of my high-school thought that people in my village, mostly made out of farmers were “… just too dumb!”, and they treated us like that. I remember how one teacher tried to talk me out of a university career: “Thomas, but you have to be very smart!”. Guess what, I was very smart, but he failed to recognize it because of his prejudice.

Today, that also makes me one of the most open-minded people around. I don’t have many pre-conceived ideas and conclusions about people. I see the drive in the eyes of some of our students! They are not going to fail. They are going to prove to the world who they can become! And, just like a running-back, they will keep their legs moving, even though they are bumping into things! They may fall, but they will get back up.

As a side note, that’s in part where the tremendous success of immigrants come from, especially immigrants from Asia. They are taking the chance that is given to them, and they will not stop achieving. That’s also the feeling I get talking to some of our US students who made it out of broken families, out of broken schools. I admire their courage and determination. I know how it feels to be ill-prepared for school – it’s like running after a train that keeps speeding up. It’s great to see how they won’t slow, how they find friends who reach out and help, and how they create success stories for the ages.

There are many reasons to become successful as an entrepreneur. But, some of the most important motivators for entrepreneurial success have very deep roots. We may not like to talk about them, but it is very important to know what they are and how they affect our behaviors. That’s how we can learn how to take the hand of cards we were dealt and do the absolute best with it.

This talk was given as part of a panel on Globalization of Education as part of the PanIIT 2009 conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation in a Global Economy.

I work at the University of Michigan’s College of Engineering. This is an exciting place! We just accepted close to 1300 freshmen and 300 transfer students who start their professional careers there. Of the nearly 8200 students we now have, 2700 are at the graduate level. We are a public University, something that is very dear to my heart. I am the first university graduate from my family, and the only reason I could achieve that is because of an excellent public school and university system. This is one of the key properties we share with IIT, but there are three more which make our programs very much comparable.

First, like many of the Indian schools, the University of Michigan, and especially its Engineering College, accepts an important role that reaches well beyond a traditional research and teaching mission of a great US University. We are located in the State of Michigan, the epicenter of some of the most dramatic and fundamental transitions since the industrial revolution. Michigan is part of a global transformation, and these changes are extremely difficult to fathom. The unemployment rate in Michigan is around 15%, and the unemployment rate in Detroit is nearly 30%, probably even being underreported. Detroit is seeing a flight of people heading out and looking for work, leading to an overall decay. For example, the median house price in Detroit this May was $7500. The result is a much stronger focus onto our University. In fact, I have not seen a single state-wide recovery plan in which the University of Michigan is not a crucial piece. Thus, at the University of Michigan, we understand the pressure and the opportunities that come from being a part of a transformation of the overall environment.

Secondly, this transformation has important effects in the thinking of our students- nearly 60% of our students are from Michigan. The most important effect this realization of importance has had in our students is the awakening of a tremendous passion for entrepreneurship. In our Engineering school we are very careful to not equate entrepreneurship with business creation. We think of entrepreneurship as a mindset of creating, finding new opportunities, taking and managing risks and taking personal responsibility for change. We have been the home of the largest entrepreneurial idea competitions in the US. We are in contact with nearly 3000 students who are pursuing such ideas or are thinking about them actively. Last year alone, we were supporting and following nearly 100 student startup companies, and we are still finding new ones. Our programs are not just driven by business generation focused on regular businesses. We have at least as much activity going on in social entrepreneurship. Our students and faculty are trying to invent ventures that add value and change people’s lives, especially the lives of the disadvantaged and poor.

Third, our students recognize that there is a strong connectivity between the local and global environments and changes. Any engineer in the future needs to be comfortable with having colleagues in all kinds of time-zones. This is also a University-wide priority and we expect that within two years more than 50% of our graduating students will have studies abroad. Our international programs are therefore rapidly increasing, and they are becoming a critical part of every student’s education in Michigan Engineering. We have rapidly grown our range of opportunities and inventory of programs and offerings. We also have attracted more foreign students to Michigan. Within the last ten years, the percentage of our graduate students from India has increased from nearly 7% to over 12%. But, we think we are nowhere near our expectations, especially when it comes to partnerships in India.  We currently have almost 500 Indian students in our Engineering College. Needless to say, entrepreneurship and international programs have a deep intrinsic connection.  Our students want to be part of real change, domestically and world-wide.

But, the reason we are actively participating in this activity today is that we want to propose and explore a partnership that is of crucial importance to both parties. We are not looking for ways to simply spread our name – we are looking for win-win solutions and partnerships. What are the key criteria we use to build such a partnership?

At the center of any such partnerships will be the students. We want these partnerships to offer learning opportunities not available on our home campus. We seek to challenge our students by taking them out of their comfort zone with respect to their culture, in their technical approaches and many other ways. We seek to build several layers of connectivity which are leading to win-win solutions. We are interested in sustainable, long-term relationships, not “touch-and-go’s”. But, most importantly, we are thinking of our international engagements as partnerships, not as programs.

I will provide an example, which is considered to be one of the best partnership programs between the US and China – the University of Michigan-Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute (SJTU). This collaboration transcends much of what people have tried over the years. The curricula were jointly developed to meet the needs of UM and SJTU students. SJTU has become the most important landing point for UM students and faculty. We had 144 Michigan students and well over 40 faculty members at SJTU, and we have about 165 SJTU students at UM today. Thus, we create student interactions in both directions, faculty interactions in both directions. But, equally importantly, we work with the same companies in Shanghai and the US, building bridges and research programs of unprecedented scope and organization. We are a better campus because of our SJTU collaboration, and our friends in China feel the same way about our collaboration.

So, how do we translate these lessons to an India partnership? I would like to propose that we do so by recognizing how similar the challenges relative to our entrepreneurial ecosystems really are. We seek to build a partnership focused on social entrepreneurship.  For both of us, the need for transformation, for change requires people with a broad view and an entrepreneurial mindset. We are actually running a class right now, together with our business school, in which we directly involve Indian students and also investors. Ultimately, the purpose of an engineering education is to build a better world. We can do that in our respective environments, and through a partnership we have to set up to create the type of win-win solution that makes all partners excited to create and ready for success because they are doing something real. Our students will get to know each other, collaborate, and dream up solutions which are far beyond what we can today imagine.

There is a lot of support for “bottoms-up” approaches to University Research. In its best execution, this research creates a fertile ground on which new ideas, new technologies and new solutions grow. Wonderful theses are written, new papers are published and talks are delivered. And, there are also uses to the research – sometimes anticipated, sometimes totally surprising– this research affects our everyday lives. Fundamental research creates some of the most amazing outcomes: the exploration of stimulated emission in atoms leads to the Laser; the solution of communication needs in an international experiment on elementary particles leads to internet protocols; and the exploration of semi-conductors leads to transistors.

There are many people, especially around universities, that are so focused on fundamental research and its benefits, that they do not see the necessity to focus on another very crucial and fruitful historic fact: application-focused research, if done correctly, leads not only to progress towards the application at its focus, but also to breakthroughs in fundamental science.

There are many historic precedents of large-scale, but application-focused research. The two most cited examples are the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program. Both of them pulled in the best of the best, physicists and chemists working hand-in-hand with engineers. And, both programs were transformative. Not only did they substantially affect history, but they also provided major advances in our fundamental understanding of science and engineering. The Manhattan project led to a revolution of our understanding of the smallest building blocks of nature, and on energy release from such small scales. This knowledge has changed astrophysics, our understanding of the interior of stars, and the processes that relate to some of the most violent energy releases in the universe at the heart of our understanding of size and working of our cosmos.

The Apollo program has opened the door to novel methods and approaches in aerospace engineering too numerous to summarize, and has provided the starting point of planetary exploration and space travel thereby transforming our understanding of the solar system, its origin and workings.

Although there is no doubt about the importance of fundamental research, a great University, such as the University of Michigan, should be able to have a second, and highly complementary mode of doing research–large-scale, focused, applied research with outcomes of unquestionable importance. In these efforts, possibly limited to 5-10 years, interdisciplinary teams should be assembled and pushed with high intensity, to try to solve a truly hard problem.

There are three compelling reasons for this approach
1)    A targeted approach focused on a big opportunity allows attraction of big dollars in a way small PI-driven research just does not provide. This can be done with industrial partners, with investors, or with philanthropists or foundations.

2)    The entrepreneurial benefits such targeted and big projects can have. The outcomes from the Center for Wireless Integrated MicroSystems or the Center for Ultra-fast Optics on our campus are a great testimony of the benefit for this approach. Great companies and great inventions have come, and are coming out of this.

3)    The fundamental science that comes out of such a focused approach. When pushing the envelope, we always learn more about science and engineering. There are ample examples from that.

Small Universities have to focus their resources and define their culture extremely well. It is, for example, hard to imagine that a school the size of Caltech could run in both of these modes at the same time. But, I believe, this is the true strength of a school like the University of Michigan. We can support the fertile ground of fundamental research, while building focused, time-limited efforts to push certain new technologies or new science forward in a courageous effort focused on new spaces we want to conquer.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest opportunities we have at the University of Michigan. We have the tools to become one of the best research locations in the US, and by many accounts we already are.  By courageously pushing forward, we will go beyond that. We can become a leader in how to solve big problems, or take advantage of big opportunities! We will be able to do that if we learn how to fruitfully combine bottoms-up grassroots research, as well as top-down, application focused research.

There are two approaches to research. For this discussion, we will call them “Bell Labs” or “Manhattan Project” approaches, according to some of the best research ever performed in the US, but with two approaches that could not be more different.

The Manhattan project was motivated by a threat of National and International proportion: The world was at the threat to be taken over by a regime that did not stand for freedom and liberty. The Manhattan project, led my renowned physicist Oppenheimer, was arguably one of the most successful leaders of science, pulling together the best of the best, to achieve something almost impossible, and historic.

Much has been written about this time, and many accounts are very memorable. Working at Los Alamos was not easy. The combined pressures of the political world, and the uncertainty caused by the fact that much in the Manhattan project was both breakthrough engineering, and even novel science, led to a highly challenging work environment on both the professional and personal levels. But, it also led to one of the most relevant technological victories in the 20th century.

Contrast this research approach with Bell Labs in the twentieth century. Despite its name, which implies “applied research to help Bell”; Bell Labs was a hot-bed for innovation and discoveries, possibly unmatched with respect to its transformative nature for our lives today. Inventions, such as the Laser, the transistor, programming languages, and many more bubbled up, by using two key principles: 1) Hire the best of the best; 2) Let them work. One of the best descriptions of these principles is by Nobel-prize winning scientist Charles Townes in his book on the Laser. The productivity of Bell Labs was not managed top-down, but very much related to the intelligence of the individuals working there, and the tremendous atmosphere offered by the Labs.

University research in leading universities, such as the University of Michigan, is generally organized according to the Bell Labs model. We try to hire the best of the best, and let them work and evolve into leaders in their fields.

Each Professor has tremendous freedom in her pursuit of academic excellence. In fact, she can come in one morning, and start an entirely new lab focused on something so different; it does not even fit into her specific department.

But, there is one key difference. Basically, all funding has to be brought into her research group through proposals to the government, the non-profit sector, or private industry. Even though that has tremendous advantages, because it forces the professor to explain and compete, raising research funds often turns into a nearly full-time job. Depending on the size of the group, Professors write 5-10 proposals each year. Some of these proposals are for big-bucks—a half a million to five million dollars for some of them, especially the ones with private industry, are sometimes for much less than fifty thousand, or hundred thousand.

This is a major difference between Bell Labs and University research which is important in more ways than one. Most importantly, it is extremely difficult to find research funding with broad objectives, the specialty of Bell. There have been attempts by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense and most recently, by the Department of Energy, to create such creative environments with a long time-line.

But, research culture in a given group is often determined by the need to raise funds, work tactical as opposed to strategic, and play it safe, rather than risky. I have almost never been successful proposing breakthrough research, but have been very successful winning money in the field I know very, very well and for which I can outline and very well understand the next steps forward.

University researchers deal with this in different ways. Are they staying in their field, often turning into big leaders in a rather narrow field? Are they pushing the envelope?  Are they managing to use their experience in a given field to break into a new field, or to dramatically enhance the impact of their research beyond the realms of their specialty? Are they leaving the University to serve the US, to enter industry?

Research strategy in a given field is very difficult to assess from the outside. It is often challenging to figure out whether there is breakthrough research no matter what the approach, as pointed out by Charles Townes. Townes worked in a field which was considered old-fashioned – optics – before he invented the Maser, leading to tremendously rich applications of lasers in many parts of our lives. But, there is a danger to plowing the same field over and over again as it may become harder and harder to find breakthroughs. The trick is to “turn over the rocks by the wayside”, as Townes suggests, and that’s where new things come from, not by doing the very same thing better and better.

Thus, the University environment offers many opportunities to do research according to the Bell Labs style – self-motivated researchers doing fantastic and new work. But, there is a risk to react to the current funding environment and internal and external pressures and become tactical, rather than strategic; turn narrow rather than broad; and to miss opportunities that initially appear peripheral to the research thrust.

The next post will propose that a small number of Manhattan-style, targeted projects might provide tremendous opportunities for the current research environment, and at the same time provide tremendous entrepreneurial potential for the University and its research enterprise.

It is very instructive to listen to people and especially to the questions they ask when they are trying to understand a new challenge or solve a problem. Different people ask very different questions, leading to vastly different, and sometimes very biased, answers to the very same question. In some cases, the mistake of asking the wrong question, even leads to road-blocks which severely undercut the ability of finding any sensible solution.

In fact, the importance of these questions and the definition of the problem cannot be overstated. Albert Einstein once remarked that “The more formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.” The same is true, of course, in engineering.

In fact, we hear a lot about challenges and problems.  How are we getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil? How are we going to power our houses in twenty years? How are we addressing the health-challenges of the future? How do we stop the cancer epidemic? Or, how can we make traffic safer?

It very much matters that we ask all the important questions before we propose a solution, or start investing in those solutions. Even though it is easily said, this may be one of the most challenging parts of the work of an innovator. Problems are often not what they seem to be upon first investigation. And, we are better off if we ask ourselves a broad series of questions before we start building a solution?
In my observations, engineers and especially University researchers have a tendency to gravitate to the “how” and the “what”. How does this technology really work? What are the problems with autonomous driving today? In other words, many of the questions traditional engineers tend to ask are focused very much on the technology, the gadget and its function. These questions have a tendency to re-“search under the streetlight” – it solves problems with a series of very limited tools and scope. It perfects solutions without a serious attempt to ask whether this pursuit is actually important.

In fact, it is a lot easier to publish a paper focused on a slight improvement of a technology, rather than the first paper on a new approach and new innovation. Researchers are concerned about their ability to publish and they worry about this. But, it’s just not much fun – at least, not to me. Many papers in our literature can be described by an approach summarized by – “nobody asks – we answer”. Libraries would be a lot smaller if we got rid of marginal articles. In fact, I have to admit that such a step would also shorten my own publication list.

Most important breakthroughs are much less concerned with the “how”, but much more concerned with the “why”. Why are we actually using this inefficient process in our cars? Why can’t we apply this new technology to this challenge? “Why”-type of questions tend to undermine the status quo. They are dangerous for the people who want to hold on to the past. But, “why” questions lead to breakthrough’s!

There is another type of question entrepreneurial researchers ask a lot, and which almost never appears in traditional work – “Who”?  Who is the customer for this solution – companies, individuals? Who cares if I am successful? This is one of the most important questions to ask when writing a proposal or when raising funding for an entirely new project. And, I am amazed how few times I actually hear it. In fact, “who”-type questions can be probed by calling some people. “Say – what would you say if I gave you a device that could do X and Y. Would that solve the problem you talk about?”

“Who”-type questions are both humbling and empowering. By asking this question, we acknowledge that we are not the ones calling the shots. We are not in control. There are others whose opinions we absolutely need to care about. We don’t ask enough questions about “who”.

An engineer with an entrepreneurial mindset will be able to ask all these questions – and many more – and understand the answers and implications for technology development. A gadget is not just important because of how it works, but also why it is being used, and whose life it will affect. Asking questions is important – and it is especially important when we are in a hurry: “If we run out of time we need to take time to think!” This is perhaps the most important lesson I ever learned during my time in the military.

The next time you think about a new problem, ask more questions! Innovators don’t just focus on the “what” and the “how”, but equally on the “why” and the “who”!

Note: Professor Scott Fogler in the College of Engineering has developed a class on “Strategies for Creative Problem Solving”, and has even written a book about it. His class-notes to this topic are posted and I have found them to be very inspiring!

Research institutions, such as the University of Michigan, generally underestimate the necessity to communicate their progress and their challenges they are encountering.

I remember discussions with colleagues as a graduate student. “Why do we have to communicate? We are doing important things even if people don’t see that yet.” There is some truth to this. Science does not follow the rules of democracy – the majority is not always right! And, progress takes unexpected turns. Who would have guessed that fundamental research in stimulated emission would lead to entirely new industries based on the Laser – DVD players, and medical devices? Who would have guessed that communication protocols needed for a huge international elementary particle physics experiment will lead to protocols at the heart of the internet today? In many ways, the most exciting part of research is that it cannot be predicted. I love that!

But, I believe that this argument is fundamentally flawed – we need to communicate about research. In fact, communication is absolutely critical. We are currently suffering from the lack of communication. There is insufficient understanding of research, and we struggle to attract talent into science and engineering. In fact, we cannot at the same time complain about the lack of understanding of science and engineering research and refuse to make it our responsibility to communicate both progress and also the challenges we face as researchers. In the absence of our communication, the only people who are talking to the public are quasi-scientists and pseudo-researchers who sound rather intelligent, but, upon scrutiny, fail to exhibit knowledge or insight.

It is easy to talk about progress and victories – how cool: the first measurement of Mercury’s atmosphere; the first DNA analysis on a chip; a novel remote-controlled bumble-bee… An organization like the University of Michigan should have 10 stories like that each week! And, many stories are indeed written. I believe we have even more stories and we should tell them, sometimes informally, perhaps just with a cool picture and a caption, perhaps on YouTube, and perhaps on TV.

But, I think there are two types of stories we do not tell often enough. 1) the story of the person behind the research, and 2) the story that focuses on the challenges, the issues before they have a resolution.

I have given many talks about science all around the US and beyond, and I noticed that people relate to science much more if they relate to the person who performs the science. I have therefore done research learning about the scientists and their personal challenges – about Einstein’s free spirit, Euler’s strong beliefs or Parker’s resilience in the face of resistance to his theories. Many of the scientists and engineers working today have great stories. Some of them grew up in the most challenging environments, and they are wonderful individuals. (Most) researchers are not the weird, badly dressed, pocket-protector-wielding individuals who are removed from anything so-called normal people care about.  They are caring mothers, energetic aerobics instructors, volunteers to charities, avid mountain-climbers, base-jumpers, singers, runners and jazz-musicians. They are cool and smart people!

But, you would never know that if you grow up in Detroit or upstate Michigan. Why become an engineer? Why become a scientist? “They don’t think like me – I am cool!” Well, so are they!

It is also important to talk about the process of science – the challenges, the lessons we learn, and also the opportunity to improve. To my surprise, many of our PhD students don’t understand that most of the science has not been researched yet and most discoveries have not been made yet. That is because we focus so much of our discussions and classes on every detailed result of things that have been found, to the exclusion of things we don’t know and things we don’t understand. Not every researcher is built the same way, but I would rather work in a field with opportunities, rather than being stuck with dotting I’s and crossing T’s. And, I suspect that many of the future leaders feel the same way. By the way, I very much recommend “How the Laser Happened” by Nobel-prize winning physicist Charles Townes, which focuses on new science in an old field of research!

The future of science progress depends on a broad acknowledgment of the importance of research and the availability of the next generation of top-talent to push research to a higher level. Stories of victories, challenges and also stories about the people behind research will help both objectives, at least in the long run.

Communication about science is a lot simpler now than it used to be. We can put up a website, we can start a blog, a Facebook group. But, these tools are only as good as the quality, quantity and originality of the updates that are being provided.  Let’s make this a priority at the University of Michigan – we cannot ignore the importance of communication!

I have recently finished a time of searching and thinking focused on that very question. This will not be the last time I will be going through a time of re-orientation and refocusing. I go through these kinds of questions every few years. Usually, these times of questioning get initiated by a major transition in my life, but more often, they have to do with something I suddenly learn about myself.

I still remember the time where I stood next to the bike-stand near the lake in Thun when I realized that I should be pursuing a career that was very different than the ones pursued by my friends and family. I had done one of these job-search tests and the test was doubly inconclusive. First, the test came back evenly between “Researcher” and “Engineer”. Second, and more importantly, the test came back with a result far removed from anything I knew – even far removed from anybody’s profession that I know. What was I going to do? How would I even start with this?

I spent a few restless weeks, and then, next to that bike-stand, I made my decision: I was going to try to get into Gymnasium, to set me up for a University career. The path in front of me was rocky. In fact, my math education was so bad that I only made it into Gymnasium because of my English and my French. I barely made it in. In fact, my teacher called my parents to tell them that they should not be too hard on me if I have to repeat a year or if I even flunked out.

The crucial part of this decision, and the thing that carried me through sometimes tough times was not my decision of what there is to do, but the recognition that I am a scientist and I had always been. These nights on the roof in the mountains with a star-map were not just a fluke – that’s who I was. The fact that I read all science books in our library was not just an anomaly – that’s who I am.

This is one of approximately ten major decisions in my life and career, and they keep happening. Who am I – really? I know what I am doing now? I know what is easier for me than for others. But, is that important? Does that reveal some part of who I am?

I met many students starting their college education at the University of Michigan and elsewhere. I talked to many of them and sensed their anticipation, sometimes even a little bit of fear. Would they be able to handle the academic programs of one of the top schools in the US? Would they find friends? Would this ever feel like home?

I am sure that most of these students I met will look back at this time in their lives and recognize how important this time of beginning and uncertainty really was. And, I bet, that they will focus less on what exactly they did, but much more about what they learned about themselves. Am I a leader? How do I handle a situation where I cannot be the best in the room? How do I handle uncertainty?

Above all good wishes I have for our students, I wish from the bottom of my heart that they find a way to learn about who they are. They see their own tremendous potential and their capacity of changing things that are not good, and their courage to leap where others have not. There is divine in every one of us, but we have to find it, and that takes time and effort! It’s what gives us courage in tears, the passion that drives us beyond where we are.

As for me, I recently learned about myself that I love to be enabled and build bridge-heads. I learned that I love to build teams of believers in a better outcome, when others still focus on the challenges of the now. I recognized that I am better in changing environments than others, and that I am perfectly happy to share the credit for success. And, that’s why I decided to take an Associate Dean’s job. It’s because I believe in the tremendous and unmet potential we have at the University of Michigan, especially because of all the huge potential of our students, the returning ones, and also the new ones!

Some of the least intuitive aspects of universities are the way they allocate space to their people and their activities.

There are three basic models for space allocation: the dog, the gas, and the use-model.

The simplest model for space allocation is that of a dog who thinks of space as his territory. He will walk in, do a couple quick turns, and then find the pole or the wall he wants to mark. He lifts his hind-leg – done! Now, the only thing he needs to do is to defend that territory. He will do that with vigor and in a loud voice. If needed, he will not move back from using power to enforce what he now claims to be his. There is no over-arching reason or purpose, except that of increasing the territory.

A second model for space allocation can be learned in thermodynamics – the expansion of gas. This is much more silent than the dog methodology, but is equally effective. You can open a bottle in any room – whether it is an aircraft hanger, a small closet and/or a living room. As long as these rooms are more or less air-tight, gas will spread evenly everywhere – guaranteed by the second law of thermodynamics. This is not a violent process, and it does not require any work. Sometimes it is faster, sometimes it is slower. But, the end result is that gas fills all space.

The challenge is that this process is irreversible: even though no work was involved in spreading the gas, there is a lot of work involved in pushing it back into a smaller space. You have to push the gas back and exert quite a lot of pressure to do so. There is only one reason and the principle is plain and simple: gas naturally wants to spread to a state of maximum entropy, to a state where it is evenly spread out.

For all those physicists out there – space needs to follow Fermi-statistics! For everybody else: there is one more important piece in gas expansion. Some particles will never share space with anybody else. These particles are called Fermions, and their entire behavior is dominated by that trade. Their space rules are more like toilets – and less like elevators. One person will fill the space!

A third model is much more deterministic. Space is allocated according to its use. Each space use has value – somebody does a meeting, somebody works there every day, somebody received and advises students, somebody develops strategy from there. If there is an agreed-upon model for value generation, a value per square-foot can be assessed and space can be distributed that way.

There are clearly two challenges of that third model. First, the distribution only makes sense in a data-rich environment. You need to know how space is used and what people do in there. Otherwise, no good process can be built. Second, room uses change sometimes on short time-scale. Some enforcement process has to be in place that decides what time-scale should be used and/or how the displacement process is implemented.

I have been trying to understand how space is allocated in universities, and especially at the University of Michigan. I do not pretend that I understand the process, and, I cannot vouch whether or not that process makes sense. But, for an uninitiated observer, space allocation is a mix of all three principles.

On a strategic time-scale, a use-case is being used. That use-case is based on an expected impact either in teaching, student-support, or research. But, the problem is that once people move in, changes are very, very hard to implement. The reason for that is that, from the time people move in, the first two space allocation principles – territory and spreading – take over. It’s tough to predict how this works and how decisions are made. Somehow, every space is always allocated, no matter what. I have made a habit of walking around places and looking at their use. In fact, according to my estimation, between 20% and 40% of space is under-utilized.

I have taken many walks in hallways. There are labs I yet have to ever see a person in (yes, I do have a key, and I did check; yes, I checked at all times of the week, randomly). I have no clue why they are not losing their space, or, at least are not being merged with others. Well, it can be understood with our gas-laws. Speaking like physicists, they are just Fermions following their natural urge towards the state of maximum entropy. When you try to take space away, however, you notice that there are little dogs in there. You bark and they even bite. It can get dangerous.

Go visit the Center for Entrepreneurship: there are 4-5 people working in a space of two, and – I might argue – by any metric of success, providing a lot of value. The good news is that this was recognized and that we are working on the room next-door for the space-challenged people in the CFE.  Come visit me in my office that I am sharing with a colleague. We may be making history here—an Associate Dean sharing his office.

We have been doing this because I strongly believe that we are a much better place if we more fundamentally think about how we use space, not just at the University of Michigan, but also in our work places and apartments. Is the space adding value to us, to our work and lives? Do we, in fact, need the space we have – if so, why are we paying for it? And, what are the spaces we can share with others – in fact – what are we better off sharing?

We learned at the Center that there were real benefits from sharing space. We are a collaborative bunch and we are in absolute lock-step with each other – that’s one of the reasons we just perform better as a group. We possibly make more mistakes, but we fix them a lot faster than any other group I know. This is of tremendous value to all of us. Needless to say, there are parts that don’t work so well. Sometimes, we need to concentrate and work and that’s really tough with lots and lots of people in the same room.  It’s also tough to advise a student with an audience – we don’t want to do that.

There are tremendous benefits to careful and critical consideration about space, and how we derive value from it. Most of the time, a shared office is not less valuable than a single office. A shared lab may be much more innovative than a single PI lab! And, it really is worth taking on the dogs and the ever-expanding gas – at least sometimes!

My six year old girl is severely allergic to peanuts and any other nut for that matter. We have therefore joined an ever-increasing set of families for whom allergies and its related effects are both life-changing and ever-present.

My family is not alone: approximately 100 people per year die in the US from food-induced anaphylaxis, and there are reports of staggering increases of allergy rates among children, especially in the US, but also in other countries. Many call it an epidemic, but some of the numbers are still somewhat contradictory as new research emphasis is focused on this important issue. The underlying reasons of these increases are highly debated. Maria is the first person in our extended family to have severe peanut allergies and we have friends with similar stories. These allergies are triggered somehow, possibly by food we eat, such as peanut butter, or its additives.

I never liked peanut-butter. To me and to many people growing up outside of the US, the combination of peanuts and butter always sounded to me like vanilla ice cream and ketchup, and I am still amazed to hear that people actually eat this, even together with jelly – yak! But, for many people a PBJS (peanut butter and jelly sandwich) is in fact the definition of an old-fashioned and great breakfast and snack.  This is the likely reason for the fact that peanut allergies are much more common in the US, as compared with other countries. Allergy rates in the US are around 3-5%. In China they are only around 1%, and in France possibly below 0.5%. Thus, peanut allergies are a truly American problem- thanks very much, George Washington Carver!

In fact, the story is not that easy. The type of exposure to peanuts, the additives to the process used to prepare peanuts and related products, and also the time and frequency of introduction of peanuts to children, may play a significant role in determining allergy rates. Furthermore, genetic, environmental and immunologic influences strongly affect the disease.

So, why I am bringing this up as part of a blog on entrepreneurship?

First, the search for underlying reasons of peanut allergies should take into account geographic and cultural differences. Novel technologies, as pioneered by Google in their flu trends provide unique and critical information about this, and many other diseases, that can be analyzed and validated. Medical research in a flat and connected world is changing dramatically. Entrepreneurs will take advantage of the new opportunities and invent new research tools previously unimaginable.

Second, this explosive increase of allergy rates creates entrepreneurial opportunities. I want a website of every restaurant and shop around Ann Arbor, or wherever I go with my family, that tells me whether their food is peanut-free or not. I remember going to a famous Pancake Place near Chicago (Evanston) and being told that the only thing my girl could eat there is a cup of strawberries. We have become very good about walking out of restaurants. It’s not because we are picky, it’s because my girl has a hard time breathing if we get things wrong! This is not a choice we have. So, who builds a website that collects allergy information? My family, as well as the nearly 10% of families for whom food allergies are a reality, would like choices. The same is true for healthy food, kosher food, etc. If the information is reasonably complete, I would be willing to sign up for $100 per year or more – just in case somebody is thinking about a business model.

Third, there are companies that are ignoring the problem and they will have to learn or suffer the consequences. The most blatant of all of them is Delta Airlines. After being able to travel with our family on Northwest Airlines, because they had pretzels, it is now almost impossible to travel with Delta. Apparently, Delta feels that, due to its Georgia headquarters, it needs to serve peanuts and therefore transforms airplanes to danger zones for families like mine. They even have a policy which goes something like this: you can call them up ahead of the flight and tell them that your kid has an allergy. They will then not serve any nuts three rows ahead and behind your child, and – my favorite part – the flight attendant will get on the microphone and say “I am sorry that we are unable to serve peanuts from row 20 to 26 because of a child with peanut allergies in row 23”. Here is the even more exciting part: they have no replacement food options! If you sit with a person with allergies, you are going to have to eat ice-cubes – that’s all they have for you: great business for the Georgia peanut farmers but not desirable for the Delta customers who sit near children with allergies! Needless to say, Delta is going to learn a key lesson about entrepreneurship: customers move their business away if you don’t respond to their needs! That’s what my family is going to do.

For me, peanut allergies are a personal challenge because of Maria. Just like any other family dealing with allergies, we don’t have a choice – and we do have to worry. We carry EpiPens everywhere – it’s not because we like carrying a fanny-pack, it’s because an event triggered without preparation could be catastrophic for our family. But, the allergy epidemic offers a micro-cosmos of entrepreneurial lessons for research, businesses and also mistakes of companies who fail to recognize change.

There are two engineering disciplines which have, by many accounts, been most affected by our transition from a local to a global economy: computer science, and aerospace engineering. However, this transition had very different effects for both disciplines. In computer science, this transition has led to a revolution and almost unbound entrepreneurship creating the worldwide web and countless life-changing applications. In aerospace engineering, there is an almost scary entrenchment of the key players and the value of entrepreneurship is not broadly recognized.

I was in Bern, Switzerland last week and communicated with Tony Velocci , Editor in Chief, of Aviation Week and Space Technology, the leading news magazine of  aerospace engineering.

All of a sudden, it struck me how pervasive and ubiquitous Aerospace Engineering really has become. I sent him an email along the following lines:
“I just checked into my plane that will bring me back from Switzerland to the US tomorrow. I did so, on a phone that found the airport based on a vicinity argument I used in Google Maps combined with GPS. Google Maps also provides space images of my entire neighborhood in Bern and I used these to find the cross-section for the taxi pickup I then arranged. I then called the US using a satellite connection in the Swiss mountains to make a taxi reservation at the other side of the trip.”

Ten years ago, I did not have a cell-phone with true international reach. I did not have any GPS receiver, and I never used any space imagery.  But, interestingly enough, Aerospace Industry only gets very little credit for these advances. Furthermore, the commercialization of these applications has pretty much come from anywhere but aerospace engineering: Google, Telecom, etc. Many aerospace companies, especially those working in space, have instead retreated and work 60-70% only for one customer: the government.

That is pretty scary, for many reasons. First of all, aerospace will likely see a substantial drop in spending from Department of Defense, which will affect this entire industry. Second, government work means work with government bureaucrats, who, in many cases, will draw the last drop of entrepreneurial blood out of anybody. They are often failed innovators and bad engineers whose job security derives from being difficult and from causing tremendous ever-increasing stacks of paperwork. They work in antiquated structures with laws that have not kept up with time and technology. They are over-regulated, over-managed and many of them are under-motivated.

Tony has long talked about this and several other key challenges faced by this industry, and his most recent column on “Aerospace’s Perfect Storm” draws a worrisome picture. He points to two important weaknesses which  have the potential to weaken and severely hamper the success of some of the proudest companies the US has seen. Among others, Tony identifies these weaknesses as,
“.. Corporate cultures which discourage rather than encourage risk-taking and innovation are pervasive throughout the US industry due in no small measure to the growing orientation around financial versus engineering managers”.

Tony then asks; “Could that have something to do with the fact that the industry is finding it difficult to attract and retain the best and brightest in the most critical engineering disciplines?”

Indeed, of all the top-engineers who I have seen enter Aerospace industry, this is the principal complaint and frustration. The companies don’t want innovators and change agents. They want people who stand in line and do what they are told. That has allowed a number of my former students to leave their aerospace workplace and look for more challenging and interesting places, such as SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and also new energy companies or biomedical engineering companies. That’s not necessarily bad for these students, but is a loss of aerospace industry.

At the University of Michigan, we want to be known for the education of innovators, entrepreneurs and risk-takers. And, we want our people to play a leading part of major transitions in industry, particularly in Aerospace Engineering. The University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering Department is the world’s first Department focused on this exciting discipline, and has been the place of education and training of some of the world’s best innovators and entrepreneurs.

But, I think, there is almost unprecedented opportunity to create new applications, new companies, and to enable new things that could not have been imagined in a world that was mostly local. The flat world is a world full of opportunity for Aerospace Entrepreneurs!