Editor's note: The new book Shaping the Waves: A History of Entrepreneurship at Harvard Business School looks at the School's fifty-plus years of training entrepreneurs as varied as Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, the Office Superstore; Arthur Rock, the legendary venture capitalist; and Paul Conforti and Kim Moore, founders of Finale restaurant.
This excerpt recalls the entrepreneurial efforts of Bruce Ferguson (HBS MBA '79), Scott Webster (HBS MBA '81), and Dave Thompson (HBS MBA '81). After working briefly with NASA on a research projecttheir paper won a Space Foundation prizethe team finds itself reunited and pondering the future.
So thanks to a fortuitous nod from the Space Foundation, Ferguson, Thompson, and Webster were together again only a few months after graduating from HBS. Along with the other members of the CMS [Creative Marketing Strategies] team, they crowded into a low-budget hotel room on that October evening for an impromptu celebration. In the midst of these modest festivities, Dave Thompson said that he had an announcement to make.
"Bruce and I have decided to start a company," he said. "A space company." He looked at each person around the table. "So, who's game, and who's not?"
"I'm game," responded Scott Webster immediately.
At the Space Foundation awards ceremony earlier that day, Webster had heard featured speaker Ben Bova quote from James Michener's novel Space, and in that moment, he knew he had to work in the space industry. "The quote was about how each generation is presented with a frontier," he says now. "And if you didn't find a way to work on your generation's frontier, you would miss the meaning of your own epic, your own age. Our frontier was, and is, space, and I wanted to be there."
Webster's alacrity was the notable exception (and even Webster gave the project weeks of careful consideration before he officially signed on). The other MBAs in the room engaged in some serious hemming and hawing. Finally, one of them asked the question that seemed to be on several people's minds: "Dave, are you crazy?"
Thompson and Ferguson did not feel crazy. They had been bouncing ideas off each other all summer, and they were convinced that they had hit upon an idea that could work. Winning the Space Foundation prize, traveling to Houstonthis simply fanned the fires that were already smoldering.
In effect, they would serve as project managers for the development of NASA's new rocket. |
True, their first concepts for a space company were mostly duds. One ideathe "gas station in space" concept, whereby they would recapture the extra rocket fuel jettisoned from space shuttles, store it in a tank, and make it available to orbiting spacecraft in need of refuelinghad potential in theory, but wouldn't become practical until far more rockets were coming and going in the vicinity of the gas station. "That summer," says Thompson, "NASA was predicting that in a couple of years they'd be launching a space shuttle every two weeks. So our idea was a bit ahead of its time."
But a more immediate opportunity had surfaced. Through his connections at NASA, Thompson had discovered that a potential project was coming together: the development of a Centaur upper-stage rocket, adapted for the space shuttle, that would help kick the heaviest-category satellites into orbit. Why not form a private enterprise, and offer to take a crack at the project? This was the idea that Thompson and Ferguson laid on the table that night in Houston.
Ultimately, of the seven CMS team members, only Thompson, Ferguson, and Webster decided to go ahead with the idea. As the trio well knew, there were very good reasons not to move forward. Most daunting, moving forward meant challenging the generally accepted idea that any private space-related venture was doomed to be unprofitable. Staggering amounts of money would be needed. To date, the money that had backed each and every successful venture had come from government sources. The drill was well known: Congress set NASA's budget; NASA then contracted with its "regulars" to take on aspects of the project that could not be accomplished by the agency in-house.
Given these circumstances, none of the trio of HBS grads was prepared to quit his day job. Instead, they worked long-distance to come up with a proposal. Their plan was innovative, phased, and contingent: They hoped to get a commitment from NASA to buy their finished upper-stage rocket (or at the very least, win the agency's seal of approval). They would use that commitment to raise the private capital needed to finance the engineering and testing. In effect, they would serve as project managers for the development of NASA's new rocket.
In April 1982, the three men incorporated their venture, calling it Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC). By that time, their proposal to coordinate the Centaur upper-stage rocket project was nearly done. Here is where a measure of luckafter preparation, the entrepreneur's best friendseemed to come into play. In June, just as OSC was putting the finishing touches on its plan, the Reagan administration unveiled its new National Space Policy. In keeping with the administration's overall tilt toward the privatization of government functions, the government henceforth would continue to support the space shuttle program, but also would take steps to stimulate private-sector involvement in that program.
In particular, said the Reaganauts, entrepreneurship in the space field would be encouraged, and private investors in the space business would receive special tax incentives. The timing couldn't have been more perfect. During that same month, OSC made its pitch to NASA for the Centaur project. But despite their lucky timing, OSC's founders did not hear what they wanted to hear.
"The Centaur was a liquid-fueled, partially cryogenic upper-stage rocket involving enormous safety issues," says Bruce Ferguson. "Adapting it for the space shuttle probably would have been a $500 million programin other words, huge. NASA listened to our proposal, and then they said, 'Thanks very much, boys, but why don't you try something a little less ambitious?"'
Despite the privatization push of the National Space Policy, NASA chose to develop the adapted Centaur itself. Perhaps to underscore its willingness to work with private-sector entities, though, NASA steered the founders of Orbital toward another potential project. This one, which would require funding in the range of $50 million, seemed to be of more manageable proportions.
The challenge, although smaller, was still formidable. With most of its budget already allocated to other programs, NASA had been unable to proceed with a new middle-range rocketa "transfer orbit stage," or TOSthat would launch medium-capacity satellites from the space shuttle. Orbital was encouraged to find a way to get the TOS rocket designed and built in the private sector.
Thompson, Ferguson, and Webster considered the project. If they wanted to take it on, they would have to put together a proposal similar to the one they had conceived for the Centaur. That plan had always been a long shot; the TOS, it seemed, was far better suited to OSC's modest capabilities. And this, paradoxically, made the TOS a more daunting prospect. Orbital's founders, now faced with a project that might actually happen, knew they had to move very carefully. The stakes were still high$50 million and the visibility of the project potentially enormous. Orbital was not at risk of being the first company to fail at "privatizing space." But it was at risk of being the first to succeed at it.
In December 1982, Orbital Sciences Corporation made its second pitch to NASA. OSC would find private funds for the TOS project and would coordinate the projectproviding, of course, that NASA would agree to buy the product, or at the very least, agree not to fund any competing projects.
"We told them we would start with their conception of the TOS, raise the capital, manage the project, and sell it on a commercial basis to all comers," recalls Scott Webster. "We told them we could get it done for less money than the government could, and we told them that our product would help them promote traffic on the shuttle."
NASA was impressed, but cautious. The agency first responded by seeking other proposals. "First they offered our idea to the big guys, like Boeing," says Webster. "Fortunately, nobody else was willing to come in. It seemed like a harebrained idea, and the big guys wouldn't touch it unless the government came up with the funding. To go ahead without the funding was inconceivable to them."
This attitude explains why Orbital ultimately got the chance to jump into the TOS game. It also defines the real contribution that OSC made to the larger field of space-related ventures.
"We reminded everyone of an old idea," Webster explains. "The idea is, you put up your money and you take your chances. Orbital applied this idea to an industry where nobody did that. We were ready to go about building this rocket as a private, commercial venture. Nobody else wanted to take the risk, and that gave us a straight, uncontested shot."
One week after OSC presented its proposal, NASA gave the company the green light. Suddenly, both the TOS project and Orbital Sciences Corporation were launched.
[ Buy this book ]
Q&A with <i>Shaping the Waves</i> author Jeffrey Cruikshank
by Sarah Jane Johnston, Content Developer, HBS Working Knowledge
Sarah Jane Johnston: What led you to study entrepreneurship at HBS? Was there something unique about the School and the way it approached entrepreneurship that intrigued you?
Jeffrey Cruikshank: I knew some of the key recent players[HBS professors] Howard Stevenson, Bill Sahlman, Myra Hart, [venture capitalist] Arthur Rock, and othersand it seemed like it would be fun to fit those people into a longer tradition. It seemed to me that entrepreneurship, like ethics and communications instruction, was one of those subjects that the School had been wrestling with almost from day one.
Q: Do entrepreneurs trained at HBS share common traits?
A: At the risk of over-generalization, yes. I summarize some of those traits in the last chapter. They include things like a bias toward action, high energy levels, a love of the game, a comfort with salesmanship, and so on. Of course, many of them arrived at HBS with these traits, too.
Q: As you write, "Being an entrepreneur has not always been seen as a glamorous condition." How has the teaching and practice of entrepreneurship evolved at HBS over the last fifty years?
A: It has evolved from being ad hoc, person-specific, and walled-off to being systematic and embedded in the broader curriculum. It's no longer a case of hoping that at least one senior faculty member (or one brave junior faculty member!) will fan the flame and keep entrepreneurship alive. That's significantly different. Plus, there is a core content to the "e-ship" courses today, that again is larger than one person.
Q: What impact has its approach to entrepreneurship had on the business world in general? Do you see an impact both in the U.S. and internationally?
A: I think there has been a perception that the School is not in the entrepreneurial deal streamthat it traditionally has not been a source of creative capital investment and job creation. That's simply not true. Both directly and indirectlyfor example, by helping to create the venture capital industrythe School has had a huge impact on the practice of entrepreneurship.
Q: In your book you discuss the power of the alumni network. Could you describe some of your findings?
A: Another tough one to generalize about. As I said in the book, there's an image of an "old boy network," in which people sit in wood-paneled boardrooms and do favors for each other. The HBS alumni network is very different from that. It's more like a neural networknodes connecting with nodes, with information flowing freely, and new connections being made all the time. Being an HBS alumnus opens doors but you can only walk through them if you're qualified, and bring something to the table.
Q: What special challenges do you see facing today's entrepreneurs? How do you see HBS entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in general evolving in the future?
A: Entrepreneurs face some of the same challenges that more conventional business people face. What will the domestic economy look like in fifty years, if present trends continue? Already, venture capitalists are demanding that would-be entrepreneurs include offshoring strategies in their initial business plans.
For that reason and others, I think that the impulse to help the local or regional economywhich drove a lot of the stories written up in my bookmay be far harder to satisfy in the future. Similarly, as the U.S. domestic market becomes relatively smaller, some of the creative activities and capital investments that traditionally have taken place here will take place elsewhere. That will be a different world.
Seen from the other side of the table, though, the gradual internationalization of the School can only help HBS entrepreneurs think and act globally. It's not just the biggest multinational corporations that are going to have to do business across borders, and having familiarity with and contacts in multiple countries can only help.
Q: Have you uncovered any trends? And, was there anything in your research that surprised you?
A: I think a main lesson of the book is that trends are only interesting for relatively brief periods of time. HBS entrepreneurs shape whatever wave is cresting at the moment, and are prepared to move on after the wave has crested. That being said, I think some of the most successful people written up in the book had an amazingly deep knowledge of the field in which they operated. It seems that in a lot of cases, at least, successful entrepreneurship starts with passion.