By: Nomara Parra Sánchez

In recent years there has been a significant growth in the number of agents that make up the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Mexico. In this ecosystem, private equity funds, accelerators, incubators, entrepreneurship centers, mentors, angel investors and a host of public and private sector bodies have gradually been added with the same purpose: to help and train high level entrepreneurs. In addition to being perceived by various ecosystem players, this growth has been reflected in studies such as the one conducted by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), which measures the factors that increase entrepreneurship levels worldwide. According to the results of the GEM, from 2010 to 2014, the rate of early entrepreneurial activity in Mexico rose from 10.5% to 19%, that is, the number of entrepreneurs, owners and managers of new businesses between the ages of 18 and 64 nearly doubled. Has this growth also meant that there are more women entrepreneurs?

Everything seems to indicate that yes, although there is still a long way to go to encourage the entrepreneurship of more women and, in this way, reduce the gender gap. According to the Female Entrepreneurship Index, an analysis of 77 countries prepared by the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, which measures the conditions that encourage and motivate women to become entrepreneurs, the country with the best conditions for “entrepreneurship” is the United States, with a score of 82.9 (the maximum score is 100 points), followed by Australia and the United Kingdom. Among the top 15 places, the only country in Latin America we find is Chile. What position does Mexico occupy? The 41st place, and it is among the 61% of countries that obtained a qualification lower than 50 points, indicating that it still does not offer favorable conditions for women entrepreneurs.

What needs improvement? According to the entrepreneurial ecosystem that has been formed in each country, different objectives and public policies must be pursued. For example, in Europe, there is talk of helping women so they can more easily detect business opportunities; in Latin America of focusing on exports and thinking about foreign customers; in Africa, of improving access to sources of finance; and in East Asia, if improving women’s perception of their own knowledge and skills to start their company (Female Entrepreneurship Index, 2015).

Based on the results of the index, it is observed that women entrepreneurs still face several challenges. Ireri Ablanedo, a consultant in social development and civil society, explains that support networks that allow women to dedicate time to their endeavors are needed. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicates that the burden of unpaid work (Mexican women dedicate four hours a day more to unpaid work than men), traditional gender roles and the lack of reconciliation policies between work and family life are barriers faced by women in the labor market (IPADE, 2013).

If we want to see more women become entrepreneurs, we must break these barriers. The idea is not only “to want more female entrepreneurs,” but also to reap the benefits they bring to their community and environment. For example, women spend more than 70% of their earnings on the community and their families, while men only inject between 30 and 40% of their resources to these ends (Mexican Association of Women Entrepreneurs, Ammje, 2013). At the same time, according to Julieta Cayre, director of Girls in Tech Uruguay, the fact that there are women co-founders in the ventures generates another vision and another culture, better teams and work environments. In addition, a study by the Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Index Fund showed that when women hold leadership positions in companies, they achieve better returns and greater degrees of innovation, retention and job satisfaction.

Despite the increase in the number of female entrepreneurs since 2008 and the fact that they are starting up businesses not only in social sectors, but also in various industries, such as retail, technology and health, there is a need to increase this number and, therefore, and to hear more cases of success, as Hernán Fernández, founding partner of Angel Ventures México, says.

The full incorporation of women into these activities will not be solved by quotas, but by measures that ensure equal opportunities in the context of gender differences. It is not a matter of women and men being equal, but of generating conditions with sensitivity to gender issues.

The formulation of policies that take into account gender differences should consider the following factors:

• Equality in access to advanced training, especially in fields traditionally dominated by men.

• Equal conditions for the permanence and consolidation of the training of women.

• Generation of an environment conducive to the full development of women in the business field.

The generation of equal conditions for women’s access to and permanence in education and entrepreneurship implies a deep awareness of their differences and the need to overcome the obstacles that hinder their incorporation into these areas of work.

It is necessary to identify the barriers that inhibit women’s entrepreneurship, such as stereotypes, lack of self-esteem and lack of encouragement and recognition by parents, teachers and counselors. Stimulus strategies should be designed for women. Some of the actions that have been successful are the promotion of networks, the diffusion of new role models and support activities in the initial stages.

At present, the economic, social and cultural potential of women’s work is an essential part of the viability of any national development project. For this reason, and to contribute to the diffusion of new models of social roles, let us look at examples of women who have excelled in the entrepreneurial ecosystem for their innovation and impact:

• Guadalupe Latapi, founder of Aires de Campo

Marketing of organic products with a network of producers integrated by family farms, indigenous and peasant cooperatives, and small and medium scale agro-industries.

• Leticia Jáuregui, founder of Crea

Social enterprise that trains and provides advice to women entrepreneurs from marginalized communities to strengthen and grow their businesses. To date, Crea has worked with more than 16,000 women and has benefited them and more than 65,000 members of their families and communities.

• Juana Ramírez, founder of Sohin (Soluciones Hospitalarias Integrales)

Company with a portfolio of personalized services whose objective is to improve the quality of life of patients and their families, reduce the costs of hospital care and expedite the procedures of insurance companies.

• Gabriela León, founder of Gresmex

Mexican company specializing in antibacterial and home care products, which by means of nanotechnology eliminates up to 99% of viruses and bacteria. (WeGrow, 2014).

• Arali Camacho, founder of School Control

School administration and communication platform that keeps schools connected to students and parents in an easy and safe way.

• Gabriela Enrigue, founder of Prospera

A company that offers solutions for micro and small businesses to grow, offers products that are competitive globally and become instruments that generate wealth for society.

What distinguishes all of them is the passion with which they dedicate themselves to their young companies and that, although they probably did not have the ideal conditions to start a business, they demonstrated that it could be done. Their stories serve to inspire millions of women.

For a woman who is planning to start a business, there are several useful recommendations, such as the following:

1. Take the initiative. More than a third of Mexican women between the ages of 15 and 29 do not study or work (Labor Secretariat, 2011).

2. Believe in your personal abilities. Women tend to underestimate their entrepreneurial skills and do not believe they are sufficiently prepared. The ideal time to start is when the decision is made. Along the way you learn what is needed.

3. Think big. Once the decision to start a business is made, efforts must be directed toward creating a new, scalable and innovative company, rather than a traditional business.

4. Form multidisciplinary teams. No one is looking for virtuous entrepreneurs, but teams that complement each other. It is not ideal to have teams made up of only men or only women.

5. Generate the desired working conditions. In a new company, it is necessary to promote the changes that are required for the business to function well.

6. Be consistent. An entrepreneur’s first initiative may not give results, but what matters is perseverance.

By: Claudia González Brambila, Luis Arciniega y Daniela Ruiz Massieu

Few stories about Mexican garage entrepreneurs are as fascinating as that of Simón Sacal. His interest in becoming a technological entrepreneur began at the beginning of the 21st century when Simón was barely 18 years old.
The Young University Student
His parents had returned from a trip with a healthy snack they had bought at the airport. Unlike many of the low fat, low calorie products back then, this cookie tasted good. While trying the new snack, the Sacal family commented on the trend toward eating healthy food and people’s growing concern about watching their weight. The idea about how attractive it could be to market products of this type in shopping centers also emerged. They envisioned a Krispy Kreme- type business model, in which customers could see how the snacks are produced and how the aroma from the preparation of these snacks would attract customers. That family talk, which may have seemed inconsequential at first glance, awakened Simón’s entrepreneurial spirit.

By that time, Simón had studied the first semesters of his industrial engineering career at the Universidad Iberoamericana. There he took advantage of the library resources and began to research the productive processes of snack food. With the help of the director of industrial engineering and a professor of food engineering, Simón was able to understand the basic concepts of the subject and he conducted his first experiments in the production of processed foods in the university laboratory.

Simón’s fascination with understanding how food was processed motivated him to attend every exhibition and conference on the subject.

In less than a year, Simon’s tests had progressed so much that he needed more complex laboratories, so he investigated where the most important research infrastructure in our country in food science and technology was located. The best option was the National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán (Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán) (INN), a research institution of the highest level, which is accountable to the Secretariat of Health.

Not knowing anyone at the INN was not an impediment. The 19-year-old young man met with Josefina Morales de León, head of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the INN. He explained to her that he was researching the production processes to produce low-fat foods and asked her for help in using the institute’s research infrastructure and in testing new productive processes. The young entrepreneur’s enthusiasm convinced Josefina to allow him to use the department’s laboratory one afternoon a week, and not only that, he also received the support of the laboratory researchers.

Within a few weeks, the members of the INN laboratory explained to Simón that what he wanted to achieve had almost insurmountable technological limitations. Until that moment, food production processes faced the dilemma of an inversely proportional relationship between good nutrition and good taste. That is, the more fat and calories are removed from a product, the less flavor it has.

But precisely what distinguishes a technological entrepreneur is his ability to invent a process that is conceptually different. Thus, Simón’s focus was on developing a productive process that would produce tasty, good-textured foods that, at the same time, were low in calories and fat. After many attempts, Simón invented a productive process with which he produced rice cookies that tasted good. With the new technology, by means of pressure and temperature changes, a base of rice and fiber was cooked, without frying and without oils, which could be made in any shape and any flavor could be added. Simon’s innovation seemed interesting, so with the help of his father, Simón hired a law firm to do a global patent search. It was necessary to find out if there was a similar productive process and if there were patents that protected the intellectual property of the process. Patent searches are expensive and time consuming, but Simón believed in his idea and that made him persistent and he did not lose his enthusiasm. Several months later, when the firm confirmed that there was no similar productive process in the world, his enthusiasm grew even more. Encouraged by his father, Simón set up a laboratory in his garage and hired a couple of food researchers to help him once a week in his experiments. With the support of the entire family, he made the necessary equipment to begin the production of the first products. Of course, the results were not good at first. In one of several attempts to make the new equipment, Simón burned the whole electrical installation of his house, but that did not keep his family from continuing to support him.

The Snack Market.

Snack food in Mexico is dominated by a single producer, Sabritas, which dominates more than 70% of the market. Barcel has not been able to increase its market share by more than 20%, despite being part of Grupo Bimbo (the largest bread producer in the world) and having the largest distribution channels in the country.

The figures were not encouraging. Simón was convinced he had developed excellent technology, but he could not find a way to scale the business, so that his business potential could be fully exploited. However, his commitment and enthusiasm continued to grow. He began to consider the possibility of moving to the United States to produce and market his products there. He thought that in that country there was greater appreciation for low fat, low calorie products, so people would pay more for them than in Mexico. In addition, the consumption of snacks per capita in that country is much higher than that of Mexico. He also assumed that marketing would be easier, in the sense that the points of sale do not take so long to pay for the products, there is greater competition and the distribution channels do not belong to the producers, which simplifies the task of marketing the products.

Managing Growth

When Simon was planning to leave for the US, the Conacyt-Nafin Fund for entrepreneurs injected capital in order to build a plant to manufacture the snacks. However, the business proposal not only intended to expand the business, but also to change the business model so that Mexican children would benefit from the HIS (International Healthy Snacks) technology. Therefore, the plant manufactured low-fat, protein-rich and iron-rich snacks, which really contribute to a kid’s good health. Obesity, together with child malnutrition, is one of the most important public health problems in Mexico. Simon was aware of that, and he was really satisfied with the idea of using his technology to help overcome such problem.

A few months after the plant in Naucalpan was built, thousands of Fit-Bits bags, in metallic packaging, were being produced and distributed in schools, in Centers for the Integral Development of the Family (day care centers funded by the government), and in Social Development Ministries. The state of Hidalgo was the first one to be pleased and convinced with the technology. The products were also massively distributed in the states of Quintana Roo, México, Nuevo León, Morelos, and in Mexico City.

Moreover, distribution of the products was extended to other points of sales; products were sold at convenience stores and supermarkets.

In 2007, mass production began. The growth was exponential, and in the next couple of years another two production plants were built, one of 1,600 m2 and another of 1,500 m2. Managing the rapid growth was the achievement of Simon’s father. Gabriel Sacal, Simón’s brother, managed and controlled the production of the three plants, which together totaled more than 3,300 m2.

But Simón’s entrepreneurial spirit could not concentrate solely on running a large business. In 2009, he became interested in the development of technologies for the production of the raw materials, primarily rice. In order to improve the technology of snacks, it was essential to produce better raw materials that would allow the vertical integration of the production of healthy snacks. Thus, in that same year, 2009, the construction of a pilot plant for the production of raw materials began.

In 2010, five years after having participated on the Board of Directors of International Healthy Snacks (IHS), the Conacyt-Nafin Entrepreneurs Fund had to conclude its participation in that governing body. As with virtually all investment funds, after a period of five to seven years, the funds sell their shares, either to another investor or to the entrepreneur himself. In this case, the Conacyt-Nafin Entrepreneurs Fund sold its shares to the rest of the other IHS shareholders. A few months after Conacyt-Nafin’s departure from the Board of Directors, Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest investments funds, became interested in IHS.

There was no greater indicator of the company’s potential. Carlyle Group is not a fund specializing in food technology. On the contrary, it has focused its investment mainly in the aerospace industry, transportation, generation and distribution of energy, and telecommunications and the media. In addition, unlike the endless negotiations between entrepreneurs and investment funds that are typical in this type of agreements, after a few months of negotiation an agreement was reached.

The entry of Carlyle Group in late 2010 had three main purposes.

1. A production plant was built in the State of Mexico with state-of-the-art technology. This allowed the Sacal family to manage the plant from its corporate offices in Bosques de las Lomas.

2. An administrative team of the highest level was hired. In particular, the new director of marketing implemented new product designs and a much more complex and targeted advertising campaign.

3. A new product, Ser O Chips, was designed with more solid production technology, whose intellectual property is even more protected than the previous technology. This new product has zero fat, has fewer calories than low fat and low calorie cereals, such as Special K and, best of all, it tastes like potato chips!

The Future of the Company

The challenge of International Healthy Snacks is to further position the brand, especially in strategic locations, so people know where to buy Ser O Chips and the nutritional benefits it offers. In Mexico, few people consult the tables of the nutritional value of food, and even less of snacks. Consumers who are concerned about their weight and health normally consume products labeled “light” even though they only have 10% fewer calories than the traditional product.

Another important challenge for the company is the internationalization of the brand and the products. In this point, new managers and the new group of investors will have a strategic role.

For Simón, it is clear that the value of IHS is not in marketing or in distribution, as is the case of the leading competitors in this sector. IHS is a technology company and as such it will continue investing in technological innovations. Simón recognizes the role of Conacyt in promoting an ecosystem so that it can be innovated in Mexico.

The Sacal family knows that the applications of IHS technology have a global reach. The next steps are to expand the technology in several ways: to install plants in other countries, to create new products with flavors that correspond to the tastes of each region, to continue elaborating fortified products to combat malnutrition and to make strategic alliances with governments and distributors so that more and more people enjoy and benefit from delicious and healthy snacks with technology made in Mexico.

References

• González Brambila, C., Arciniega, L., Ruiz Massieu, D., 2015, Un camino a la innovación tecnológica en México: Quince casos de éxito. Cengage Learning.

By: Claudia N. González Brambila

Growing through innovation is the dream of all business leaders. The idea of having a predictable and stable portfolio of product, service and administrative innovations, with high margins and with the long-awaited goal of being the first in the market, is what virtually all those in charge of defining a strategy in a company seek. Why, despite the fact that everyone wants it, is innovation still so scarce and complicated?

The reality of many companies is that the top managers have too many incentives to focus on results in the short term. Organizational incentives encourage incremental change, but do not favor experimentation or risk taking. In general, managers do not know how to develop products and disruptive technologies, have little tolerance toward risk and do not know how to measure the performance of creative groups and innovations.

On the other hand, the main obstacles to innovation are the long periods for development, the lack of coordination between the areas of the company, a risk-averse culture, scarce knowledge of the customer, poor selection of ideas and lack of understanding of the adequate measurement tools.

One way to counteract these drawbacks is to co-create. Co-creation is defined as a business or marketing strategy that results in the generation of joint ideas between the company and its clients.

Markets participate in debate and discussion forums for both the most active companies and consumers. Thanks to this, there is a change in the traditional model of passive consumption, and criticism, combinations and new possibilities are generated.

Through co-creation everyone is expected to win: the organization is better aware of the perception of its product or service through the voice of its own users and these individualize the offer.

Thus, co-creation creates close experiences with groups of clients or potential clients, whose cooperation with the company makes both achieve synergies.

Many organizations have implemented co-creation by asking people around the world what ideas they have. What makes co-creation work for some companies and others not?

Co-creation is not recent. At the beginning of the 19th century, Napoleon found the solution to the problem of providing nutritious food to his troops on the march through co-creation. Without a doubt, the internet has extended the use of this tool and we increasingly find more examples of successful cases. For example, Tchibo, a cafeteria and department store of German origin and with stores throughout most of Europe, launched its platform “Tchibo ideas” in 2008, to know the daily problems of its customers and to ask them to propose solutions. Netflix has also used this system. It received more than 44,000 contributions and improved its recommendations system by 10%. Starbucks launched MyStarbucksidea.com to gather ideas from its customers and has received more than 100,000 proposals from around the world.

NASA asked how it could reduce exposure to cosmic rays on the International Space Station. More than 1,000 people proposed solutions and four received an economic compensation for the creativity of their ideas.

One of the main objectives of co-creation is to develop new products, for which you have to have more ideas of products that people need or solves a problem for them. But one must not forget that it is also a way for customers to feel accepted and appreciated.

According to Dahlander and Piezunka (2017), successful organizations in co-creation undertake two types of actions.

1. Proactive attention: give to get

Instead of waiting for ideas to be presented to them, organizations should propose ideas and invite people to discuss them. Thus, people will know what ideas the organization expects, in addition to gaining the confidence of feeling they are part of the innovation process. This will empower the participants, as they can evaluate the ideas of the organization.  A reciprocal communication is established and the exchange of knowledge is encouraged and there is motivation to continue proposing ideas.

This is even more important when a company takes the first step of these initiatives. Nobody wants to be the first to suggest something, so the organization should be the first.

2. Reactive attention: showing that is matters

Organizations that respond publicly to suggestions receive quite a few more outside suggestions. With this, the proponents of ideas are validated and they are encouraged to follow up on their proposals. At the same time, it sends a signal about what kind of suggestions the organization values most.

New proponents also learn what interests the organization and feel cared for and recognized.

In sum, co-creation also has advantages and disadvantages. It makes customers feel accepted and helps the company introduce new products that are more innovative and creative. It can also serve to approach marketing niches that the organization has not yet explored. Another advantage is that it reduces costs of market research, because the company can find out trends and offer improved products. At the same time, the company draws the attention of the media and increases and narrows the relationship with is customers, which currently is a crucial asset.

Among the disadvantages of co-creation is the problem of how to make customers feel needed, without giving much importance to the concrete development of the products. Do not forget that you will not materialize all your ideas. It is possible that a good part of the products that are proposed are “good wishes,” but they are not profitable. When organizations serve different types of customers, the evaluation and selection of ideas is a complex and multi-factored process that can generate great skepticism between customers and designers.

The value of co-creation occurs in the psychological, economic and organizational planes. On the psychological side, customers feel better because they are taken into account not only to externalize their problems, needs or trends, but also to propose solutions. Economically, companies detect business opportunities and increase profits. And on the organizational, the costs of innovation and generation of ideas are reduced, in addition to reducing the uncertainty about whether a new product or service will be successful, which increases the productivity of the company.

In order for co-creation to generate value, the company must focus on the experience of all the participants: customers, employees, suppliers and others. It should seek a direct interaction in order to have the appropriate and efficient tools, such as a well designed, functional and easy-to-use platform.

References

• Dahlander, L., Piezumka, H. (2017) Why Some Crowdsourcing Efforts Work and Others Don’t. Harvard Business Review.

By: Mara Martínez

“Innovation has nothing to do with how many research and development dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.”

Steve Jobs

The intrinsic relationship between innovation and economic development has been demonstrated throughout economic history, which is why this argument has been used to explain the progress and backwardness of several nations. The evolution of the term “innovation” has gone from being the small introduction of changes in the productive processes to being a tool for the codification of new knowledge. In the era of telecommunications and the internet, this represents a great opportunity for all. On the one hand, for developed countries it implies congruence with their current model of knowledge generation and, on the other, for developing countries it means an opportunity to take advantage of innovation to grow. Despite this great opportunity, Mexico is one of the countries that invest the least in innovation: only 0.57% of GDP is allocated to innovation in sectors such as health, so that these areas are increasingly lagging behind (CONACYT, 2016).

This article will present the situation of the health sector in Mexico and demonstrate the urgency of allocating greater funds to the sectorization of innovation. The proposal will be illustrated by analyzing the following statement made in the last OECD report (2016), OECD Reviews of Health Systems: Mexico: “All the main actors agree that Mexico needs to build a more equitable, efficient and sustainable health care system.” The presentation covers three sections: first, we will discuss sectorial innovation as a vehicle for economic development and strategic regional positioning; second, the elements that explain the current lag observed in the sector will be presented, from the great fragmentation of the system to the low quality in the supply of health providers; and finally the integration of entrepreneurs will be proposed in an experimentation environment that creates bridges between the public and private sector, with the aim of speeding up the dissemination of innovation to sectors such as health, which are in great need of sustained change.

During the last decade, there has been a very dynamic revolution in the information technology sector, which has facilitated the interconnectivity between sectors, such as agriculture, military, medical and even aerospace. This propeller of economic growth has not been an isolated consequence, but a result of the effect of modernization and innovation as a vehicle of development for an increasingly globalized era. However, the concept of modernization in regions such as Latin America has had very different results, compared to the European or U.S. construction project. We live in a disparate world. Worldwide, 20% of the population earns 86% of the total income; the poorest 20% receives 1.1%; developed countries consume 70% of the planet’s available energy, 75% of metals and 60% of the food (Gestiopolis, 2013,s.p.). This scheme becomes alarming if we analyze countries with dissimilar realities within the same region, such as the United States and Mexico.

National innovation is a complex phenomenon, which used to be measured by the single injection of resources into research and development and the number of research staff (OECD, 1996). In the 1990s, it was considered to be a useful theoretical framework, until the difficulty in measuring the general innovation of the economy became increasingly evident. The complexity of its measurement was based on a greater number of coordinated actions between several economic and social agents, both public and private, which caused a substantial change in the way of conceptualizing it. Currently, innovation in a country is conceived in a different way, because its diffusion depends on its effective institutionalization. Today national innovation is conceived as a tool of internal policy making to achieve a regional positioning, in such a way that within the national system different agents are assembled, for example, government agencies and institutions, universities, businesses, productive sectors, research centers, technological institutes, job training centers, intermediary organizations that support business activity and the financial system (Dutrénit, 2010).
In the case of Mexico, the constitution of the National Innovation System has been late. Historically, the social assessment of science and technology and innovation activities has been low, and despite recent efforts such as the Special Program in Science, Technology and Innovation – for the period 2007-2013 – it is clear that there is fragmentation in the interactions between public and private agents. A bibliographic review concludes three fundamental points: first, it is important to achieve a greater linkage between the public sector and the private sector’s intermediary and financial institutions; second, it is necessary to design better mechanisms to transfer knowledge generated in the projects to the end user; third, it is necessary to sectorize innovation with specific demands, for example, detailed calls can go out so that the entrepreneur talent can focus on what the country truly needs.

Faced with an investment of 0.57% of GDP for innovation in sectors such as health, and general investment in the sector equivalent to 10% of GDP, it is clear that there is a discrepancy (AMIIF, 2015, p.3) not only because the health budget exceeds 9.1% of GDP recommended by the OECD, but because of the simple reason that the return on investment in innovation is minimal. Now then we are either taking into account funds for truncated research or we must rethink the fate of the resources.

The Mexican health system continues to be fragmented. One of the more important challenges is that attention to the public is provided through a conglomeration of disjointed subsystems. Each subsystem offers different levels of care at different prices and with different results, so each one has its own network of clinics, specialized doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, treatment centers and unions. For example, parastatal companies such as Petróleos Mexicanos and government entities such as the Secretariat of National Defense, the Secretariat of the Navy and the Secretariat of the Armed Forces have their own health services. The approach and the strategies of these institutions vary, and although the complexity of the system makes it appear solid, until a few months ago it was not possible to access services between institutions. In addition to the problem of fragmentation, according to the OECD, Mexico faces a general challenge due to the lack of a long-term health care system that serves an inverted population pyramid, in addition to dealing with the low productivity of health professionals, which prevents greater effectiveness in the results.

These inefficiencies require reform: first, quality care centered on the individual is needed; second, Mexicans must be informed about access to health benefit packages regardless of employment or social status; third, the fragmented approach to health financing needs to be unified; finally, evaluation of the performance of medical services in relation to quality and efficiency (OECD, 2016, pp 1-10) should be included within the reform requirements. The previous requirements point to a profound need for change, which cannot come exclusively from the government sector, since the transformation of the Mexican health system depends on several actors. It is necessary to reverse this situation and create greater links to sectorize innovation, especially in health. This is strengthened by links between academia, the private sector, coordination agencies and entrepreneurs. Even though it may take time, the first efforts toward this approach and linkage could be through the innovators themselves who deal with the specific demands.

It is well known that Joseph Schumpeter (1942) emphasizes the role of the entrepreneur as an agent of innovation who implements new combinations of productive and material forces, whether it be the introduction of a new good, a new product, the opening of a new market, a new source of raw materials or the creation of a new organization within any industry. Thus, the activity involves the use of existing resources in a different way. The case of the Mexican entrepreneur is no exception. The Amway Global Entrepreneurs Report 2014 (AGER) revealed that entrepreneurship is highly valued throughout the world, with China (83%) and Mexico (82%) occupying the top two places. Specifically, e-commerce is the most popular among the average Mexican entrepreneur; however, in the past five years, the application of information technology and the use of low-cost materials have been the driving force behind more health projects.

According to the portfolio analysis of several venture capital funds, about 1,000 health projects have been identified, from those focused on the early detection of chronic diseases or ophthalmological services for the base of the pyramid, to services of accompaniment and transportation for the elderly. More than ever, collaboration in entrepreneurship has been fundamental in this sector, given the complexity of the system in which it operates. This, along with the desire to break with new proposals for the population, have promoted a laboratory of experimentation with cross-alliances and dynamics that have the potential to create new bridges of diffusion that take the initial steps to sectorize innovation.
To demonstrate the above, the following project will be presented as a case study: Adult Care Services, Emma, S.A.P.I. de C.V., hereinafter referred to as “Emma.”

Emma was created in the summer of 2015 to compete in a university contest convened by the ITAM Center of Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (EPIC Lab) and the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship. This student project focused on creating a new market in Mexico: the non-medical accompaniment for the elderly. The basic idea was to generate a high value added service that promoted self-sufficient aging for seniors who wanted to grow old at home, with a focus on combating social isolation of the elderly and the lack of professionalization of non-medical care.
The problem was clear: in a few years, the inversion of the population pyramid would lead to a population growth from 11 million elderly adults reported in the last census, to more than 30 million in 20 years (INEGI, 2016). In a demographic transition context, the risk of early symptoms of dementia and depression would be five times greater in socially isolated older adults. In addition to the above, the lack of a formal long-term care system, plus the targeting of resources of only 6.2% of GDP for care of the elderly and a pension problem created an unfavorable forecast for the Mexican health system in the next few years.

Emma was founded on the conclusions of previous research and the desire to innovate for a sector that for years had been neglected. Thus, a Mexican company was established that provides transportation services and accompaniment for seniors. Through a digital platform, relatives of the elderly select a companion who their loved ones like, as well as an individual plan with activities which translate into well-being, learning and activating interests such as, for example, from recuperating the enjoyment for playing chess or cards to learning how to use an iPad. In this way, a trilateral service is provided: to the family, to the elderly, and to the companions – called “Emmas” – with great human warmth and with surveillance on the internet.

With a small founding team, an administrator, an engineer and a doctor, a network development team made up of five young entrepreneurs, an Emmas team, a mentoring council and more than 500 hours of accompaniment sold in the first pilot, an operational team with a well established purpose and procedure manuals was established. At the head, there is a general director (in charge of strategy, sales – B2C and B2B -, content management, creation of alliances), an operational director (in charge of accounting and finance, legal framework, human resources and design) and a quality director (medical supervision, evaluation of Emmas performance, management of accompaniment methodology and medical alliances).

Emma relied on the market economy, such as Uber or Airbnb, which has self-regulation capability and dynamic prices, profile of the collaborators and top quality services. The platform retains 25% commission and frees up the rest (75%) for Emma for its service, which incorporates the companions as independent collaborators in a flexible legal and tax scheme that allows them to enter and leave whenever they wish. For that reason, Emma manages to recruit the best companion profiles, which ensures quality and safety through a rigorous selection process.

Innovation and leverage in information technology allowed the creation of a scalable entrepreneurship project with great potential for social impact. In recent months, Emma has collaborated closely with the National Institute of Geriatrics (INGER) and leading companies in its industry, with the purpose of conducting experimental pilot projects that favor synergy schemes. While much remains to be done, Emma’s corporate vision is to reach out to more people and benefit those who really need it, with the goal of occupying an important place in the Mexican healthcare system, concretely, long-term care for the elderly.

In conclusion, there is room for maneuver in innovation in the healthcare sector. While the idea of innovation can be misunderstood as scientific discoveries, inventions or unique creation of hardware, the space for the optimization of information is immense. Emma is a clear example of the combination of software development and the work of a highly qualified accompanying staff. However, the implementation of innovation does not come alone, but must be driven by a national body that prioritizes needs by sector, so that, as an instrument to capture opportunities, it creates solutions. The National Innovation System must go from being an uncoordinated system to becoming a facilitator to execute innovation policy. The national paradigm should seek to improve each social component to achieve greater efficiency, productivity, effectiveness, and above all, job opportunities that inspire others. In my case, as Emma’s co-founder, my motivation is in knowing that “investing in health is equivalent to doing it in all areas of development for a more just, equitable and sustainable Mexico.”

Bibliography

• Asociación Mexicana de Industrias de Investigación Farmacéutica (AMIIF) (2015), <http://funsalud.org.mx/portal/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/memorias-AMIFF-FUNSALUD.pdf>, consulted on December 5, 2016>
  CONACYT (2015), “Recibirá ciencia, tecnología e innovación inversión de 91 mil 650 mdp del gobierno federal”, Mexico, press release, on <http://conacyt.gob.mx/index.php/comunicacion/comunicados-prensa/566-recibira-ciencia-tecnologia-e-innovacion-inversion-de-91-mil-650-mdp-del-gobierno-federal-conacyt>, consulted on December 5, 2016.
• Dutrénit, Gabriela et al. (2010), El Sistema Nacional de Innovación mexicano: instituciones, políticas, desempeño y desafíos, México, UAM, 1a. ed., 2010.
• Garita Roberto (2013). Teoría económica del comercio internacional, en <http://www.gestiopolis.com/teoria-economica-del-comercio-internacional/>, consulted on November 29, 2013.
• OCDE (1996), “Sectorial Cases of Innovation”, on <http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/sectoralcasestudiesininnovation.htm>, consulted on November 20, 2016.
• OCDE (2016), “Estudios de la OCDE sobre los sistemas de salud: México”, pp.1-10, 20-35.

Cinvestav

For several decades, innovation has been considered to be a key element of progress, industrial change and competiveness, and its determinants are carefully studied. In this context, the collaborative activities between companies and academia (universities, research institutes, etc.) are one of the most analyzed factors. The main interest in analyzing these collaborative activities lies in the fact that in order to concretize innovation projects companies need knowledge they generate internally or that they adopt from universities or research institutions (Tether, 2002).

The importance of the connection between academia and companies has been fully recognized and documented (for example, Suárez, 2013; De Fuentes and Dutrénit, 2012). The subject has been analyzed from the perspective of the companies and researchers, and it has been seen that collaboration has benefits for both groups, especially for three reasons: 1) a significant proportion of the high level innovations is the result of cooperation agreements (Tether, 2002); 2) the acquisition and assimilation of new knowledge is encouraged (van Rjinsoever, et al., 2008); and 3) the level of human and social capital of researchers increases (Boardman, 2009).

Since there are several reasons to encourage these collaborative activities between universities and businesses, for the past two decades numerous studies have been published that analyze factors such as the characteristics of different types of partners, the channels of knowledge transfer, the characteristics of the connected companies, as well as the advantages and barriers. Figure 1 shows the main factors of the analysis and the authors who have studied them are cited.

Figure 1. Factors of analysis in the collaborative activities between business and academia.

The Collaboration of Companies in Mexico

Every two years, INEGI conducts a survey on Research and Technological Development (ESIDET) for CONACYT. One of the main advantages of this survey is that it collects a large and representative national sample, since 3,124 companies were surveyed in 2006, 2,818 in 2008 and 4,118 in 2010.

The ESIDET has two units of analysis: the company (production sector) and the institution (sectors of higher education, government and non-profit institutions). In this study the company was considered as a unit of analysis and the three data sets corresponding to ESIDET 2006 (2004-2005), ESIDET 2008 (2006-2007) and ESIDET 2010 (2008-2009) were used, for which we have six years of information (2004-2009). In the databases, information was collected on the collaborative activities of academia and business and the data was analyzed with the Excel and Access programs.

Table 1 compares the participants that offer products or services and those that have created processes or methods. It is noted that despite the importance of the connection between the business and academia, companies carry out almost 70% of the innovation activities, without any type of collaboration.

Table 1. Development of products, services, processes and methods.

In general, it is shown that the collaboration between companies is considerably greater (between 12 and 17%) than between companies and research institutes, universities or other institutions of higher education, which is less than 10% in the three periods, for both product and process innovation.

Another important aspect that emerges from the table is that the data is uniform and varies little over time. For example, the percentage of the companies that collaborate with research institutes was less than 10% in 2006 and continued until 2010.

According to the data in Table 1, companies do not entrust the development of their innovation projects to universities or research institutes. That applies both to products or services as well as for processes or methods, since in both cases the percentage is virtually zero, which indicates that companies do not change their strategies of collaboration, since the figures are very similar in all three periods.

The Need for Collaboration

Thus, despite the proven importance of the collaborative activities between academia and business, the index of these activities is extremely low (about 5%, approximately) in Mexico.

Collaboration is important because factors such as the acquisition and assimilation of new knowledge and the increase in the level of human and social capital of researchers and entrepreneurs amply justify the promotion of these activities. It is also important that in Mexico activities recognized as determinants of innovation are encouraged, especially because a good system of innovation is essential for technological change, increased competitiveness and economic growth.

REFERENCES

Boardman, C. (2009), “Government centrality to university-industry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers.” Research Policy, 38, 1505-1516.

De Fuentes and Dutrénit, G. (2012), “Best channels of academia-industry interaction for long-term benefit.” Research Policy 41:1666-1682.

Numprasertchai, S., Kanchanasanpetch, P., Numprasertchai, H. (2009), “Knowledge creation and innovation capability in the public university.” International Journal of Innovation and Learning 6, 568-580.

Suárez, D. (2013), “Dynamic innovative strategies at the firm level: The case of Argentinean manufacturing sector.” Document presented at the DRUID Academy 2013, in Comwell Rebild Bakker, Rebild, Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.

Tether, B. (2002), “Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis.” Research Policy 31, 947-967.

Until recently, it was widely believed that heading up industries with a high level of technical sophistication was complicated for lesser-developed economies. However, in recent years, companies from emerging economies have begun to gain ground on the multinationals of the traditional powers.

Today stories abound of companies that have established themselves as leaders in their respective markets despite the uncertain technical conditions in their countries of origin. China, India and Brazil are examples of countries with high rates of economic growth with high levels of poverty and inequality, but nevertheless they have begun to achieve notable business accomplishments, as seen in companies like Huawei Technologies, Tata Group or Embraer.

One of the industries of greater technological complexity – due to the rigor of their standards, requirements and international certifications for their products, processes and systems – is the aerospace industry. The demands posed for an emerging economy developing an industry of this magnitude are enormous. Some countries, such as Argentina and South Africa, have tried to develop it and failed. To design and manufacture a new airplane can take 5 to 10 years, during which time each component is subjected to rigorous testing. Millions of dollars are invested long before safety and quality certifications can be received. The financial risk is enormous and a single failed project can lead a company to bankruptcy.

Therefore, it is a sector that has been historically dominated by the United States and some European powers. It is characterized by its vertical integration and by being led by national champions such as Boeing and Airbus. However, increasing globalization has produced a radical change in the global value chain of the sector. Niosi and Xhegu (2010) have identified three major trends in the industry chain: 1) increasing concentration, 2) outsourcing or subcontracting, and 3) internationalization.

The first trend is the consolidation of competition in a few world producers in a natural oligopoly structure, which is necessary to achieve economies of scale, cover the high costs of development, and meet the reduced international demand facing manufacturers of original equipment. Companies have found great benefits in outsourcing, as they delegate certain production activities, particularly the secondary ones, to manufacturing companies in emerging countries. These tasks of sub-assembly and manufacture of subsystems allow them to reduce their costs, focus on the final assembly, marketing, and research and development (R&D) without losing control over their technology. Finally, with the latest trend – internationalization – de-verticalization and globalization of the production chain are favored. This trend is a result of the end of the Cold War and the reduction of government subsidies that has increased the cost of production and R&D, as well as the recent economic crises that have affected the demand for aircraft and have reduced sales volumes. Consequently, a phase of international cooperation for the development and assembly of aircraft has begun, as happened with the Boeing 787.

For emerging economies, these global trends present a great business opportunity and a means to increase their technological capacity. Among the commercial advantages, it should be noted that the incursion in the aeronautics chain generates an economic impact that is reflected in the contribution to the gross domestic product, in exports and in their value added, as well as in the increase in skilled employment (National Research Council, 1999). Second, according to Boeing (2015), the aviation and tourism industries are in full expansion, which will increase the demand for aircraft that businesses today do not have the capacity to meet completely. This opens a new market niche, especially for regional aircraft, that companies such as the Canadian Bombardier, the Chinese AVIC and COMAC, and the Brazilian Embraer are seeking to control.

On the other hand, there are also benefits to improving the technological capacity and levels of innovation. Emerging economies can participate in the waves of R&D, such as in the development of new composite materials, in the improvement of systems and security software or in the creation of biofuels. In addition, the high technological level of the industry and the multiplicity of contributing disciplines provide the beneficial effects of the technological spillover on other related industries, which increases their technological development, productivity and competitiveness.

According to data from ProMexico (2015), Mexico became the world’s largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the aerospace industry between 1990 and 2010, with about 33 billion dollars, mainly from its principal trading partners, the United States and Canada, and to a lesser extent the European Union. In the last 10 years, the sector, which was almost nonexistent before, has grown at an average annual rate of 17% in terms of exports, and the number of companies has grown to more than 325. Among these are subsidiaries of companies of the stature of Bombardier Aerospace, Honeywell, GE, Safran and Airbus Helicopters.

The reason for this important inflow of FDI has to do with the competitive advantages that Mexico has and that make it a valuable ally for the original equipment manufacturers that want to internationalize their production.

First, Mexico went through an intense period of transformation of the industrial base beginning with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which allowed the installation of industries such as the metallurgical, automobile sector, electronics and chemical. These industries contributed to the formation of human capital with scientific and technological skills useful for the aeronautical sector and whose cost of labor is lower than in other attractive emerging economies. As if that were not enough, efforts have been made to create specialized institutions of higher education in the sector, such as the Aeronautical University of Querétaro (Villavicencio et al., 2013).

Second, the proximity to some of the world’s largest aerospace conglomerates, such as those of Seattle and Wichita in the United States, and Montreal in Canada, as well as the commercial benefits of NAFTA, reduce the costs of exportation and transportation, which places Mexico as a viable option to integrate into the U.S. aerospace chain.

Mexico also maintains relatively stable macroeconomic conditions in terms of inflation and economic growth and offers support and fiscal and economic incentives to firms so that they can install their operations in the country. In addition, Mexico provides security for industrial property, having adhered to international protection standards, and allows subsidiaries to maintain full control of the company, without having to resort to partnerships with Mexicans to be installed in the country, unlike other emerging economies (Brown-Grossman y Domínguez-Villalobos, 2013).

In summary, the competitive advantages offered by Mexico for the installation of large original equipment manufacturers and their suppliers of aircraft parts and subsystems are truly exceptional. However, serious challenges remain in order to take advantage of the technological and knowledge spillover and to scale steps in the aerospace value chain, especially in the training of skilled personnel and the integration of Mexican companies into the chain. Despite efforts to provide specialized educational programs, the lack of skilled labor remains the biggest barrier to taking advantage of these benefits, since it prevents original equipment manufacturers from relocating their R&D activities in the country. Similarly, the integration of Mexican companies to the value chain is still in its infancy and there are few success stories of Mexican companies that have achieved international certification as suppliers. The vast majority is dedicated to manufacturing, while only a small percentage performs engineering and design activities. This is cause for concern, because the specialization of low cost, low value added industrial activities could repeat the “maquila effect” observed in other Mexican industries, such as automobile, which took nearly two decades to incorporate itself as a link in the chain of high technological complexity. (Villavicencio et al., 2013).

The industry’s potential to increase the technological capability and economic growth of the emerging economies is indisputable. However, the perpetuation of Mexico as a low cost country rather than a center of aerospace innovation can lead it to missing the great benefits of the sector. The first steps in installing the appropriate companies were in the right direction. The following step is to acquire technological and innovation skills to be inserted into the chain and to develop products with greater value added so that the aerospace industry can contribute to the growth of innovation and the economy of the country.

References

Brown-Grossman, F. and L. Domínguez-Villalobos (2013), “¿Tiene la industria mexicana las condiciones para integrarse a la cadena de valor internacional de alto valor agregado?”, in La industria aeroespacial: Complejidad productiva e institucional, Mexico, FLACSO, 135-159.

National Research Council (1999), Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Niosi, J. y M. Zhegu (2010), “Multinational Corporations, Value Chains and Knowledge Spillovers in the Global Aircraft Industry,” International Journal of Institutions and Economies, 2(2), 109-141.

ProMéxico, (2015). “Mexico’s Aerospace Industry Road Map: National Flight Plan 2015,” México: ProMéxico, 7-55.

Villavicencio, D., J. Hernández and L. Souza (2013). “Capacidades y oportunidades para el desarrollo de la industria aeronáutica en Querétaro,” in La industria aeroespacial: Complejidad productiva e institucional, Mexico: FLACSO, 49-86.

How and why does someone decide to start a business? Normally, the entrepreneurial process arises with an innovative idea of a product or service. The first thing that entrepreneurs do is to decide if their idea is worthwhile. Is it really a good idea? Is the product or service viable from the technological point of view? Is it going to sell? What results does market research reveal?

To answer these questions, entrepreneurs conduct feasibility studies and, if the results are encouraging, they make a business plan.

The feasibility study analyzes the product, the industrial sector, the organization and the economic aspect. The business plan investigates in greater detail whether the product will have sufficient demand to make its commercialization worthwhile and which business model is the most attractive for marketing it. It also analyzes the production and organizational aspects, and finally an economic and financial assessment of the business is made to determine the profitability of the enterprise. All those aspects help to have a detailed picture of what the business will be and to minimize the risks involved in creating new businesses.

Today, virtually all cautious entrepreneurs draw up business plans before marketing their product or service. However, the same importance is not given to integrating the market and “non-market” aspects.

Market considerations include the interactions between the company and other private agents, which are voluntary and consist of economic transactions and exchange of property. Non-market factors are those of society – public institutions, beneficiaries, government and the media – and they may be voluntary or involuntary.

Baron (2013) proposes that the non-market environment be analyzed and characterized according to four factors: issues, interests, institutions and information. Issues are the basic unit of analysis and focus. For example, in agricultural biotechnology, the issue is the discussion of regulatory policies for genetically modified food and the public’s reaction to these foods. Interests are the individuals and groups with certain preferences on the issue. Those with the main interests are the agricultural biotechnology companies, such as Monsanto; activists who are concerned about the dangers of biotechnology, like Greenpeace; and the public, which also has certain points of view on the matter. Institutions are those responsible for regulating interests. There may be government institutions, such as regulatory and legislative agencies. In the case of Mexico, there are the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS, acronym in Spanish) and the Inter-secretarial Commission on Biosecurity of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM, acronym in Spanish). In addition, there are non-governmental agencies, such as the media, and the public itself, which has certain feelings and resentments that come from their values and culture.

Information comes from the interested parties and from what institutions know and believe about the issues. In the case of biotechnology, much of the information concerns, on the one hand, the dangers to health and the environment of genetically modified products, and on the other, the greater efficiency of food production.

The relevance of the analysis will depend on each sector and the new technology to be marketed. The sectors in which the government plays a key role – because they require more regulation – are those in which it is imperative to analyze non-market strategies.

The task of the entrepreneurs of new technologies is first to identify how important are the non-market factors, and in the event that they are relevant, to formulate and implement strategies that address the non-market issues of the new company.

For example, Google’s self-driving cars appear to have many advantages. According to the experts, these cars will reduce traffic, accidents, energy consumption and air pollution. From the engineering standpoint, they have been proven to work. Undoubtedly, the market demand will be great, and Google will create an innovative business model to market it, because the business plan makes it look like a very attractive business.

However, in order for it to really reach full market potential, it is necessary to analyze the non-market aspects. To market a new technology, it is not enough to know that there is a market and the technology works, but the entrepreneurs need to know what are the opportunities, challenges, public policies and public opinion.

One of the biggest challenges for Google cars is that in the United States, legislation varies by state. Currently, only four states allow self-driving cars on the road; another 11 states are studying the idea, and eight states have discussed it and failed to approve the cars. Discussion has not even begun in the rest of the country.

Another problem is the opinion of the media. In mid 2015, the official U.S. agency responsible for traffic security expressed its concern that hackers might attack self-driving cars and endanger public security. Other media warned that although self-driving cars are safe, they are not programmed to deal with other motorists who do not respect traffic signs. Public opinion has its own impression of the risks and benefits of self-driving cars.

The point is that a good part – if not all new technologies – needs to consider the non-market factors in the first stage, and this can make the difference whether or not they achieve their full market potential.

Entrepreneurs should take into consideration which public policies encourage or discourage the new technology. Many new technology companies develop personal relationships with deputies and senators, and that is a very valuable non-market asset. In addition, entrepreneurs with similar technologies can come together to formulate and implement joint non-market strategies, often through industrial chambers or associations. In this way, information can be provided and studies conducted that demonstrate the benefits (or the problems) of the new technology not only to lawmakers, but also to the media and the public.

In extreme cases, an entrepreneur may be forced to change certain aspects of his product or service to minimize the vicissitudes of the new technology.

Understanding non-market factors can give leadership to the company, and thus, higher profits, a better impression among future investors and more elements to face the competition. It is also important to analyze the non-marketing strategies of the competition. If the competition is very active in the media or among legislators, it will surely have the market leadership, even though its new technology is not the best.

In summary, for a product to be successful on the market, in addition to knowing if it works technically and if it has a large potential market, it is also necessary to know what non-market aspects are crucial and may be an opportunity or a challenge for the new technology. To do this, the four factors of the non-market environment must be analyzed and an appropriate strategy be developed.

References

Baron, D. (1995). “Integrated Strategy: Market and Nonmarket Components”. California Management Review. 37 (2) 47-65.

Baron, D. (2013). Business and Its Environment. Pearson.

Stine, D. Non Market Analysis. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiDsFNC6VCI&feature=youtu.be

To understand what happens in Mexico when speaking of “entrepreneurship” – in addition to defining who are entrepreneurs – it is important to learn what the entrepreneurial ecosystem is and what elements comprise it.The entrepreneur is part of a system, like a leaf of a tree, or a tree in a forest. The panorama is filled with those who work, those who are the innovators and those who are dedicated to offering goods and services: the companies.

But behind those companies, behind these entrepreneurs, there are individuals and institutions that contribute so that a business idea can be carried out. All those people and parts of a whole are known as actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. In this ecosystem there are incubators, accelerators, investors and even universities or the government – all with the goal of adding value depending on their function, their experience and their links with the other participants, which enriches the end result and benefits all the participants. More than a term, it already forms part of the public domain.

According to the IMEF 2013 working paper, “A Mexico of Entrepreneurs” (a team to provide ideas and proposals to the financial community and the country), the high impact ventures do no exist in isolation nor do they happen by chance. For new business ventures to have a substantial effect on the economic activity of a country or a city, it is necessary to create an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Casas Alatriste, 2013).

If one starts from scratch, at the emergence of an idea, what actors of the ecosystem are involved in this stage? When the entrepreneur aims to consolidate his business model through commercial and financial validations that support the existence of a market interested in its offer of value, the incubators act as specialized agencies that contribute to examining the idea in order to be a part of the formal economy.

Incubators work in particular with start-up companies that have high growth potential. They are non-traditional innovating business models with a high technological component. In recent years, these new companies have increased in the country, which has favored the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

High impact incubators are a key element, which meet two main objectives: 1) to promote the creation of businesses with institutional bases; and 2) to contribute to the development of new products and services that address the needs and social problems of the region. Incubators focus on the core ideas of a citizen governance: governance, security and civil protection; sustainable economic development; habitability and services, public space and infrastructure; effectiveness, accountability and combating corruption.

In Mexico City, the National Entrepreneurship Institute (INADEM) recognizes only seven high impact incubators: Angel Ventures México, Wayra, Venture Institute, Jardín de Innovación, InnovaUnam, Tecnológico de Monterrey campus Santa Fe and Startup Mexico.

Normally during the incubation, entrepreneurs are offered different services, such as a shared space, with a telephone line and Internet, to operate with other ecosystem participants, development of deliverables (business plans and financial models), mentoring and customized consultancies on business models and even specific advice with financial models and commercial feasibility studies.

Incubators have different incubation programs. It depends entirely on entrepreneurs to decide which incubator offers greater added value in accordance with their interests and vision of their company. In general, incubators try to create the largest number of formal jobs, incorporate cutting-edge technologies or new uses of existing technology and prepare tools to compete in national and international markets. The result is a well-structured business model and a survival rate higher than the other companies in their industrial sector.

Accelerators are found in consolidated companies with a greater degree of progress. Originally, the accelerator programs were created to support the gazelle companies. According to the Economy Secretariat, gazelle companies are those with growth rates above average in the sector to which they belong and, as a result, are also those that contribute most to the development of the economy. Among the accelerators recognized by the INADEM are PwC México, Endeavor, New Ventures, NETBA AND Victoria 147, although there are many others, each with its particular acceleration methodology and dedication to different industries.

Through the INADEM, which is a decentralized body of the Economy Secretariat, the government promotes the ecosystem with a variety of tactics. Also, in the National Development Plan 2013-2018, strategy 4.2.4 is established as one of the National Goals for a Prosperous Mexico. This strategy sets as an objective to expand access to credit and other financial services. This means that through the development bank and with funds approved in the budget of expenditures of the Federation, there is an economic section to consolidate a support fund for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

The INADEM also drives the ecosystem with its rallying power in the Entrepreneur Support Network, which is defined as a strategy for coordination and linkage of the policies and support programs for entrepreneurs and MSMEs of the various levels of government and the private sector. This project is unprecedented and means that the communication between stakeholders will be smooth and the activities will be aligned in similar ways, instead of being isolated efforts whose results are not transformed into common benefits.

The government is not expected to be the primary motivator, but to facilitate the use of the resources that they already have and that previously the MSME Fund distributed. Now there is a clear strategy that includes the other actors and helps them to collaborate.

There are other resources, apart from those from the government. If the company has already validated its business model and wants to raise capital to move to the next stage, it is recommended that it approach a private equity fund. Funds that operate and invest in Mexico include LIV Capital, Alta Growth, Ventures Capital, AVM I, IGNIA, Adobe, and others. They differ in the average investment per company, the sectors in which they invest, and their investment thesis.

It is the responsibility of the entrepreneur to verify that his project meets the requirements of the fund before requesting a meeting with their officials. Otherwise, it is likely that the fund managers will have the impression that the entrepreneur did no research and they will not consider him among their first investment options. Another important factor of the meeting is that it provides the first opportunity to impress the investor and attract his interest in a project.

There are still other, less recognized actors, who are mentors. They do not play a formal role, but they are a key element for the performance of entrepreneurs.

Recently, Richard Branson, founder and president of Virgin Mobile, said, “No matter how smart an entrepreneur is or how brilliant or innovative his business concept is, he needs a good mentor. The difference between an entrepreneur who seems competent and one who already enjoys success is the mentoring.”

Although the positive impact of mentoring in companies has been demonstrated, less than half of the entrepreneurs seek a mentor. There may be several reasons: a culture in which presenting problems or challenges projects an image of failure; a distrust in presenting ideas for fear that someone is going to steal them; or simply ignorance of this resource and its advantages.

However, there are more important reasons to trust mentoring than not to trust it. In Mexico, the mortality rate of the micro, small and medium-sized enterprises is considerably high, almost 80% during the first year. Many entrepreneurs who start a business do not have the tools or knowledge to manage it. Added to that is a legal and fiscal environment that makes it very difficult to establish and consolidate enterprises. At this point, mentoring is more important because it communicates to entrepreneurs the experience and skills of someone who can meet the challenges.

Mentoring has good results in the survival rate and the generation of income and employment, plus it fosters motivation and entrepreneurial confidence. It is essential that entrepreneurs find the right mentor to grow their business and that they build a trusting relationship so that they hold meetings of intellectual enrichment for all.

Here are some tips to find the ideal mentor:

1. Define the problem or challenge well. The clearer and more specific the request for assistance by the entrepreneur is, the easier it will be to find the proper support.
2. Have initiative. Search, find and keep looking. Locate people who have the skills and knowledge that the entrepreneur needs, in addition to the time needed to support him. The entrepreneur must speak with several close candidates and preferably experts in his field in order to decide who is the best for his particular case.
3. Be ready to learn. The entrepreneur must recognize that he does not know everything and he can learn from others. He should also be open to listening to the advice of his mentor and to positive criticism.
4. Be honest and transparent. The more the mentor knows the business and the challenges it faces, the better he will help the entrepreneur to solve them.

On the other hand, there is a need for more mentors, experts who are willing to put their skills and experience at the service of others. Whoever has a career in the business world would do well to share with others what he has learned.

The IMEF 2013 working paper reads as follows:

Models are simplifications of reality that help to understand it better. In this sense, having a model, an outline or a graphic representation improves the understanding of the social phenomena. In many cases, these graphics follow a geometric, rigid and hierarchical logic, which is not an accurate representation of these new realities that are being experienced. Therefore, we looked for a figure in nature that could be used to represent and help understand these ecosystems. We thought of a neuronal cut, of atoms or of galaxies and, finally, we found something that is more simple and accessible: a flower. In both its structure and its reproduction function, there are important similarities with these entrepreneurial communities [Casas Alatriste, 2013].

Source: Taken from Casas Alatriste, 2013.

In everyday practice, professionals are immersed in their own activities and possibly do not notice they are already part of the ecosystem.

The richness of the entrepreneurial ecosystem lies in the influence of each of the components and in its ability to connect in order to exchange the resources they possess. These resources are human capital, intellectual or economic relationships. The result of adding isolated efforts will prove the theory that 1 + 1 can be 3, or more.

Just as the human being is a witness to the diversity of natural habitats, each with its own context, in a similar way the ecosystem of the entrepreneur in Mexico is unique and unrepeatable. To try to create a copy of models of developed countries would be an irrational endeavor that would interfere with our country’s own, natural evolution. Of course it is always possible to learn from better practices, but without forgetting the basic principle to which the country should advance: conceived, designed, patented and produced in Mexico.

Todo comenzó en 2008, cuando cuatro amigos, Hernán Fernández, Alberto Osio, Christian y Olivier Meade, regresaron a México después de haber cursado sus maestrías en el extranjero.

Durante su estadía en el exterior, y motivados por las ganas de emprender, descubrieron una enorme oportunidad en México, por la falta de financiamiento a negocios en sus etapas iniciales. Estaban convencidos del potencial que había en México de desarrollar nuevos emprendedores, pero sobre todo creían que los nuevos negocios deberían ser innovadores y de alto impacto para que se convirtieran en motor de crecimiento y progreso económico.

Con esta idea en mente, fundaron Angel Ventures México. La primera red de inversionistas ángeles, la cual llevó el nombre de Club de Inversionistas de México. La red estaba formada por personas con alto poder adquisitivo que querían invertir en nuevos negocios, por lo regular en empresas nuevas en sus primeras etapas, a cambio de una participación accionaria. Los inversionistas ángeles del club deberían cumplir con una característica más: no solo aportarían capital, sino que también agregarían valor al proyecto con experiencia y conocimientos profesionales, así como con importantes contactos que serían de mucha utilidad para el emprendedor. El objetivo del Club de Inversionistas de México era claro: vincular a inversionistas ángeles con emprendedores de alto perfil, cuyos proyectos presentarían un mayor riesgo pero, al mismo tiempo, tendrían un mayor retorno.

Los inicios del ecosistema emprendedor

En el 2008 aún no se encontraba desarrollada la industria de capital de riesgo en México ni había un ecosistema emprendedor. Es importante resaltar esto último porque “detrás de un emprendedor hay más de un individuo –o institución– que lo ayudó en el camino para concretar su idea de negocio. A todas esas personas, partes de un todo, se les conoce como ‘actores del ecosistema emprendedor’. Aquí se cuentan también incubadoras, aceleradoras, inversionistas e incluso universidades o el gobierno, con el mismo objetivo de aportar valor dependiendo de su función y experiencia”.

En ese entonces, el ecosistema emprendedor era muy pequeño, compuesto por menos de 15 instituciones, como el Fondo NAEF-Ventana (primer fondo de capital de riesgo en México apoyado por Nacional Financiera), Fondo Pyme, Endeavor, New Ventures, Aceleradora de CNN Expansión, Techba, Mexican.VC, Venture Institute y Angel Ventures México con su reciente creación del Club de Inversionistas de México.

Como la mayoría de los emprendedores, Hernán y sus socios se enfrentaron a críticas y cuestionamientos de su modelo de negocio. Nadie entendía cómo iban a conseguir a los inversionistas ángeles ni, sobre todo, cómo lograrían convencerlos de invertir en nuevos negocios con un riesgo e incertidumbre mayor que los negocios tradicionales. El inicio no fue fácil. El Club de Inversionistas de México tenía menos de 20 miembros y tuvo que posicionarse en una industria prácticamente inexistente para afiliar a más miembros y tender una base sólida. Por fin, después de un arduo año de trabajo, Angel Ventures México logró su primera inversión, tras la cual se sucedieron una tras otra.

Línea del tiempo de las inversiones del Club de Inversionistas de México

• Incide (2009). Primer centro dedicado a la atención de la depresión clínica. Operaba y comercializaba el equipo TMS (estimulación magnética transcraneana) aprobado por la Dirección de Alimentos y Fármacos de Estados Unidos.
• Mmall (2009). Empresa de comercio electrónico cuyos principales clientes eran los trabajadores, a los que proporcionaba incentivos para comprar a través de un esquema piramidal.
• Yolia Health (2010). Centro que desarrolló un procedimiento oftalmológico correctivo que prometía revolucionar la industria de la salud de la visión. Contaba con un método no invasivo para corregir defectos de refracción bajos y presbicia.
• Échale a tu casa (2010). Empresa surgida de una asociación sin fines de lucro, ofreció el primer producto financiero inmobiliario para que familias de bajos ingresos pudieran adquirir una vivienda.
• Red10/ClickOnero (2010). Tienda comercio electrónico con más de 10 millones de usuarios.
• Aires de Campo (2011). La comercializadora más grande de productos orgánicos de México y líder en su categoría.
• Meridia (2011). Primer centro de día para adultos mayores.
• XPress Channel (2012). Sistema de punto de venta en tiendas que permitía la comunicación entre el tendero y el consumidor final con las marcas a través de una pantalla táctil.
• Tequila 17 (2012). Empresa productora de tequila de alta calidad para el consumidor exigente, dirigido a mercados de nicho en Europa.
• Cervecería 5 de mayo (2012): Cervecera artesanal ubicada en la ciudad de Puebla.

Con un portafolio diversificado y después de realizar 10 inversiones, en 2013 Angel Ventures México creó el primer Fondo de Coinversión en México, AVMI, gracias a los esfuerzos de inversionistas institucionales y Nacional Financiera. El Fondo de Coinversión AVMI era de 20 millones de dólares, tenía un ticket promedio de entre 100 000 y 200 000 dólares y estaba enfocado en los sectores de salud –base de la pirámide–, ventas al menudeo, tecnologías de información y agroindustria.

Ese mismo año de 2013, el Instituto Nacional del Emprendedor y la Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico invitaron a Angel Ventures México a participar en un proyecto estratégico: la creación de una incubadora de alto impacto cuyo fin era promover la creación y crecimiento de nuevos negocios, escalarlos y generar empleos de alta calidad. Angel Ventures México se dio a la tarea de buscar 23 empresas con potencial para formar parte de esta primera generación. Todas estas empresas se alineaban en los sectores estratégicos del Distrito Federal, así como también en los cinco ejes para un gobierno ciudadano: (i) equidad e inclusión social para el desarrollo humano, (ii) gobernabilidad, seguridad y protección ciudadana, (iii) desarrollo económico sostenible; (iv) habitabilidad y servicios, espacio público e infraestructura; v) efectividad, rendición de cuentas y combate a la corrupción.

LEl Fondo de Coinversión y la Incubadora de Alto Impacto le permitieron a Angel Ventures México posicionarse como uno de los líderes del ecosistema emprendedor, con lo cual marcó la pauta para los nuevos actores.

Panorama alentador para Angel Ventures México

Como era de esperarse, se observó un crecimiento acelerado de incubadoras, fondos, programas gubernamentales y espacios de coworking y los primeros encuentros que buscaban promover el emprendimiento. Finalmente, en 2014 ya podía decirse que en México se había formado un verdadero ecosistema emprendedor. Lo mismo empezó a ocurrir en otros países. Pronto Brasil, Chile, Colombia y Perú, por mencionar algunos, se sumaron a la onda del emprendimiento fomentado por el sector público y privado. Angel Ventures México se había vuelto un modelo de negocio muy atractivo de repetir, lo que dio pie a una expansión nacional e internacional.

Angel Ventures México amplió sus operaciones a San Luis Potosí, Hermosillo, Guadalajara y Tijuana. El panorama que se presentaba en otros países también era muy optimista y aseguraba el éxito para Angel Ventures México, así que también abrió oficinas en Colombia, Estados Unidos y Perú.

Hoy, Angel Ventures México recoge los frutos de haber sido pionero en la industria de capital de riesgo en México. De acuerdo con un informe realizado por la Asociación Mexicana de Capital Privado en México, la industria de capital de riesgo en México ha crecido hasta alcanzar un valor de 1081 millones de dólares con un crecimiento anual compuesto del 27.51% durante los últimos 14 años. Los fondos de capital de riesgo en México han reunido cerca de 355 millones de dólares en 2013 y 2014, lo que lleva a pensar que la industria de capital de riesgo seguirá creciendo en México y otros países, y que los logros de Angel Ventures México no se detendrán.?

Referencias

Petrone, Barroeta y Parra (2014), “Cómo nacen las empresas”, Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos en Finanzas.

Asociación Mexicana de Capital Privado en México. 2014. Overview of the Venture Capital Industry in Mexico. Disponible en <http://en.amexcap.com/section/industry-overview-of-mexico/>

Los emprendedores sociales no quedan satisfechos ni dando un pescado a alguien ni enseñándole a pescar. Son personas que no van a descansar hasta haber revolucionado por completo la industria de la pesca.

La frase es del estadounidense William Drayton, presidente de la Fundación Ashoka, organización internacional para la promoción de emprendedores sociales. Pareciera que, cuando William Drayton escribió estas palabras, estaba pensando en Daniel Russek.

Los días en la universidad
La historia de Fundación Vigas se inicia a finales del 2005, cuando Daniel participaba en la sociedad de alumnos de la Universidad Panamericana. Daniel estaba muy consternado por las pérdidas humanas y económicas que había dejado el huracán Stan. En su calidad de líder de la sociedad de alumnos propuso crear un centro de acopio de artículos para ayudar a los damnificados de Chiapas y Oaxaca. Las muestras de solidaridad y apoyo de los alumnos fueron muy generosas. Al ver la respuesta, Fernando Balzaretti, Director del Montepío Luz Saviñón, le propuso a Daniel que un grupo de estudiantes llevaran personalmente los donativos a las comunidades afectadas y le ofreció que la institución quintuplicaría los apoyos y financiaría el viaje.

La experiencia de ese viaje forjó la visión de emprendedor social de Daniel. El huracán devastó varias comunidades y muchas personas perdieron todo: el techo de su casa, su refrigerador, su cama, y no tenían manera de salir adelante. Habían perdido su patrimonio y no tenían alternativas de generación de riqueza.

Daniel se empezó a preguntar cómo podría apoyar a las comunidades rurales del sureste del país.

Los proyectos de agricultura
El grupo de jóvenes universitarios pensó en impulsar proyectos de acuicultura, que es el conjunto de actividades, técnicas y conocimientos de cultivo de especies acuáticas, tanto vegetales como animales. En realidad, no sabían muy bien qué era la acuicultura, pero les sonaba interesante y empezaron a estudiar de qué se trataba.

Cuando hicieron el análisis de este sector productivo, encontraron en las estadísticas que la pesca tradicional se encuentra estancada, no solo en México, sino en el mundo. En México, el 80% de las poblaciones naturales de peces se encuentran en estado de máxima explotación y el 10% en grado de deterioro. En los últimos 20 años no han crecido las poblaciones piscícolas, pero el número de pescadores se ha incrementado más del 30%. Resultó claro que la acuicultura presentaba una importante oportunidad.

En 2007 se terminó de elaborar el primer plan de negocios de acuicultura de la fundación. La idea era establecer granjas de camarón, que es uno de los productos marinos con mayor demanda y con un alto valor de mercado.

Para contrarrestar la falta de experiencia de los estudiantes, se formó un consejo de dirección y se invitó a empresarios, funcionarios públicos y expertos en acuicultura a formar parte. Convencidos de las bondades del plan de negocios que acababan de trazar, los estudiantes presentaron un resumen ejecutivo al recién constituido consejo, el cual encontró puntos que podrían mejorarse y resaltó las limitaciones. Daniel y otros estudiantes mejoraron el plan.

Pasaron tres años y varios planes de negocio. Ni el tiempo ni las críticas mermaron el entusiasmo del Daniel. Al contrario, con cada nueva versión del plan y con los resultados de cada presentación, Daniel aumentaba su comprensión del tema, y sabía que cada vez se acercaba más a tener un proyecto viable y factible.

Cuando se presentó la cuarta versión del plan de negocios en 2009, se habían integrado al consejo otras personas de primer nivel, como la M. en C. Julia Carabias, profesora de la UNAM y Exsecretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP), el Dr. Carlos Ramírez Martínez, Exdirector General de Acuicultura de la SEMARNAP, y Marco Unzueta Bustamante, Director General Adjunto de Investigación en Acuacultura del Instituto Nacional de Pesca.

Cambio de planes
A partir de esa reunión de 2009 todo cambió. Carlos Ramírez planteó que la idea, tal como estaba formulada, iría directo al fracaso, y explicó los antecedentes. La tasa de supervivencia del camarón es muy baja si no se maneja bien, ya que su cuidado requiere personal muy calificado (que no había en Pinotepa Nacional). Además, la zona en la que se planeaba emprender el proyecto no era favorable para el camarón. La sugerencia del Dr. Ramírez fue que se pensara en cultivar otro producto.

Lo que parecía derrumbar el esfuerzo de tres años de trabajo, fue todo lo contrario. Los argumentos de los especialistas eran incuestionables, y gracias a esas sugerencias los jóvenes empezaron a pensar en proyectos más acordes con las condiciones de la región. Tanto el Dr. Ramírez como el Dr. Unzueta asesoraron la restructuración del proyecto, recomendaron especialistas y aconsejaron sobre la legislación correspondiente.

Ya con los nuevos especialistas, surgió la idea de enfocarse en el cultivo de especies nativas de alto valor comercial, como el robalo o el huachinango. Pero la propuesta no resolvía el problema, ya que esas especies no estaban suficientemente domesticadas, y aunque la tecnología estaba dando buenos resultados experimentales, aún no se podía comercializar. En opinión de los expertos, “estamos cerca, pero todavía no llegamos”. El reto era mayúsculo.

Apuesta por la innovación
Con nuevos bríos, Daniel y un nuevo equipo de colaboradores comenzaron a buscar asesores tecnológicos. Sabían que necesitaban expertos en acuicultura y pusieron manos a la obra. Investigaron en revistas científicas, memorias de congresos e internet los nombres de los científicos más destacados. Localizaron a ocho científicos y les escribieron para presentarles el proyecto social y explicarles que tenía el objetivo de que una población rural, de las más pobres en México, pudiera tener una forma sostenible de desarrollo.

De los ocho científicos, cuatro respondieron con interés en apoyar la causa. Uno de ellos, Samuel Appelbaum, no solo respondió que le gustaba la idea, si no que se ofreció a viajar al país para participar en la planeación y ejecución del proyecto. El Dr. Appelbaum es uno de los investigadores con mayor prestigio mundial y es considerado el padre de la acuicultura del desierto.

LAsegurada la participación del Dr. Appelbaum, Daniel consultó al Dr. Unzueta para que le recomendara a un socio tecnológico en México. Wilfrido Contreras Sánchez, de la Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco (UJAT), era la persona ideal para colaborar en el proyecto. El Dr. Contreras y su equipo llevaban varios años trabajando en la domesticación del robalo, además de que contaban con un gran reconocimiento internacional, lo que les permitiría tener contacto con otros investigadores del mundo.

Al Dr. Contreras le encantó el proyecto y mostró toda su disposición a colaborar. Además, invitó a participar a Kevin Fitzsimmons, investigador de la Universidad de Arizona y Expresidente de la Sociedad Mundial de Acuicultura, con quien compartía una larga amistad y el interés por la disciplina. El Dr. Fitzsimmons también se mostró interesado en participar en el proyecto.

Después de un año de trabajo surgió Multico, un sistema acuícola eficiente que produce tres especies de manera simultánea. Mediante un proceso continuo, con Multico se logró cultivar una especie carnívora, el robalo; una especie omnívora, la tilapia, y una especie detritívora, el camarón. Es como tener tres tipos de comensales con diferentes necesidades.

La gran innovación del sistema es que adapta los principios del ecosistema natural, de tal manera que es posible cultivar varias especies al mismo tiempo. Como los desechos de una especie son los insumos de otra, se favorece la supervivencia y se reducen los costos. Además, el sistema Multico requiere la mitad de la inversión inicial de cualquier otro sistema acuícola y aumenta sustancialmente la productividad por hectárea por año. Chile es uno de los países con mayor productividad acuícola con un promedio de 17 ton/ha/año. Le sigue Tailandia con 15 ton/ha/año, y en México estamos en 2 ton/ha/año. En pruebas experimentales, el sistema Multico ha logrado producir 175 ton/ha/año, diez veces más que la productividad de Chile.

Multico está diseñado para funcionar a una escala pequeña, de aproximadamente 0.1 hectáreas, como una granja familiar en la cual trabajen los cinco o seis integrantes de una familia. El plan es que la empresa que comercializará Multico venda membresías de una operación llave en mano, en la que la empresa construirá toda la infraestructura, brindará capacitación, proporcionará el alimento y comercializará la producción. Los que van a trabajar la granja la van a rentar por 30 000 pesos al mes y su fuente de ingreso será la venta de la producción. La ventaja es que no tendrán que comercializar con intermediarios o distribuidores, lo que implicará recibir un precio justo por su producto. Como la producción es de ellos, está en su propio interés fomentarla. Asimismo, no tendrán que hacer una inversión inicial de seis millones de pesos, que es el costo de una granja.

A finales de 2010 se inició la construcción de una unidad piloto en la que hicieron las primeras pruebas industriales de la tecnología. La parte crucial era probar que lo que marchaba en la teoría funcionaba realmente en esta unidad instalada en Pinotepa Nacional.

En febrero de 2011, los tres científicos, Daniel y David presentaron una solicitud de patente para México y Estados Unidos en el Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Intelectual (IMPI).

En marzo de 2011 se constituyó formalmente Maricultura Vigas, SAPI para comercializar Multico.

A la fecha se han llevado a cabo varias pruebas piloto de Multico que han permitido detectar fallas y corregirlas o minimizarlas, y se abrió una escuela para capacitar a los futuros colaboradores. El proyecto está en un punto de inflexión para empezar un desarrollo económico sostenible.

Referencias

González Brambila, C., L. Arcinega y D. Ruiz Massieu, D. (2014), “Un camino a la innovación tecnológica en México: Quince casos de éxito”, Cengage Learning.