Murdock to make business bigger part of NBA’s strategy

Click here to enlarge image

Oct. 13, 2004 – Former McKinsey consultant Sean Murdock has one foot in the door of the NanoBusiness Alliance, of which he is incoming executive director, and another in AtomWorks, a Chicago trade group, which he is departing.

Small Times’ David Forman spoke by phone with Murdock, who explains why he’s making the transition, what he’ll do differently with the NanoBusiness Alliance as it enters a new phase of its existence, and why he thinks the nanotechnology sector is on track to evolve into an industry of its own.

Click here to enlarge image

Why did you decide to make the move to the NanoBusiness Alliance?

A few reasons. The first, the most important, is that I think the NBA is an incredibly important organization for the future success and growth and development of the industry and so I was very excited to have an opportunity to step into that role.

You know, (NBA co-founders) Mark (Modzelewski) and Nathan (Tinker) did a phenomenal job really launching the NBA a few years back and working on the policy front and building excitement and consensus around the need for the 21st Century Nanotech R&D Act, then stewarding it through the process to get it passed.

Do you see yourself making any fundamental changes to the mission of that organization?

I wouldn’t say making changes to the mission. I think that we all bring different skill sets and, you know, I think Mark and Nathan obviously did an amazing job on the policy front. My area of expertise, if you will, is business strategy, having come from McKinsey, and I’ve done a lot on the regional economic development front.

There are a couple of platforms that I wouldn’t say are different, but we’re entering the next phase. The first phase was establishing the platform. You know, get the bill passed. Ensure that the seed corn for the growth of the industry is there.

Frankly, now there are going to be more innovations coming out of the research funding that’ll be the basis of more entrepreneurial and startup activity and more nano-related business activity.

Do you therefore expect that activity is going to heat up in the next couple of years, such as accelerated creation of new companies and launching of nano-related research capabilities within corporations?

I do. I think roughly speaking the federal government investment in nanotech and the private sector are about equal. And I think in the next couple of years you’ll see the private sector overtake the government as the source of funding for nanotech activity.

In the legislative lobbyist phase of the NBA, the passage of the R&D Act was a clear, specific goal that was pursued and accomplished. Is there something that’s analogous to that as the organization enters this next phase?

I think there are a few things that will create a more conducive business environment. One, obviously, is to stay on top of the environmental and health-related discussions with nanotechnology. It’s very important that we be proactive here. Two, is just staying on top of and trying to facilitate and support trade and international market development.

Three, we’re really going to try and enhance some value-added and business-oriented platforms. We’re going to try to shape things like that in ways that are of benefit to our stakeholders. I can’t get into too much detail here.

Let’s just say that we’re going to be working toward creating a series of value-added member services in terms of networking, in terms of knowledge management, in terms of traditional trade association type things.

What did you think of the UK report (on nano opportunities and uncertainties, released in July)?

My impression is that, I would say 80 to 90 percent of the stuff in there I agree with. By and large it was pretty reasonable. One, they said by and large nanotechnology poses no new risk. By and large. Not everything but the majority of it.

Two, they found that the call for a moratorium either in nanotech research or in nanomaterial production was unjustified. Three, they correctly identified that as we think about the environmental and health issues, it’s critically important to put things in context, in the context of the use of the material and the application.

Is there anything you will look to do with NBA or anything you’ve done in the past with AtomWorks that’s tried to address that, to reach out to the press and try to be a moderating influence?

Yes, we’ve done some of that. It’s one of the things I was referring to earlier. Clearly we will have a strong focus on making sure that a fair assessment of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology — whether they be health, environmental, etc. — are out there.

We will try to engage the media, but I will say this: We’re not going to try to control the message. Let me be clear on that. I don’t think that’s the right approach. And I don’t think folks in the industry are trying to do that. We will try to create resources and empower people with the real facts and put them in context.

What happens now to AtomWorks? Does it get folded into the NBA? Does it exist on its own as a separate entity?

AtomWorks will continue to exist on its own. There are some developments there that I can’t talk about right now, to be honest with you. But AtomWorks will continue to focus on driving the development of a nanotech cluster in Illinois and coordinating more broadly throughout the Midwest.

So how it’s going to be structured, where it’s going to be based, is still basically being developed?

The NBA will continue to have a very strong presence in Washington, D.C., obviously, from a policy point of view. It will continue to have a presence in New York as more and more of the companies mature and get to the point where there are real considerations from the financial markets. So that, I can definitely say.

Can you give me a sense of what the timeframe would be like for working out the details?

Next couple of months.

Everybody’s been talking a lot about the meaning, or lack thereof, of the Nanosys IPO withdrawal. Is a watershed nanotech IPO important in the first place?

Well, you know, my father always told me there are two parts to reality: That which is and that which seems to be. And both are important. It (a watershed IPO) is important insofar as it affects people’s perceptions, which affects their willingness to invest. It’s something that makes tangible the opportunity for people to rally around.

So would a watershed IPO probably increase the supply capital available to folks in the nanotech industry and therefore accelerate the commercialization effort of people? Yes.

There are vertical industries. There are things like biotech, which span lots of spaces. Nanotech is kind of similar in that regard. And then there are the categories on Wall Street. How do you see this unfolding on Wall Street and what do you think would be the most beneficial way for it to unfold?

You will see nanotech evolve as a sector because there are platform capabilities involved with the ability to see, to visualize, to simulate, to synthesize, and to create products using nanoscale control. And that capability will have different vertical markets.

Look at biotech. Today a large portion of the biopharmaceuticals are based on biotech. But for a long time these were basically just drug development and licensing operations. And increasingly biotech companies have gotten into product development.

I guess what I’d say is nanotech will be viewed as an industry over the longer haul. I think what you’ll have is the industry analysts looking at the semiconductor industry, looking at the pharmaceutical industry, etc., paying very close attention to nanotech innovations and how they will bear on the industry and on the competitive dynamics within the industry.

So we might have both nanotech stock analysts and nanotech market analysts and they would kind of be hybrids?

Look at it for a second. Nanotech’s going to enable some interesting blurring of boundaries, if you will. We know that DuPont is getting into the displays business with Olight, right. And we know that DuPont and others are working on printed electronics and essentially plastic or polymer-based electronics. You know, over time that’s a different market than we think about them being in. They’ll be in the electronics and communications space.

If you look at biotech, biotech forced a re-examination of the chemical and life sciences industries. There was consolidation. You had Monsanto moving into genetics, genomics, etc. You had DuPont doing the same thing. You had chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies, agricultural companies starting to re-examine how they might ultimately all work together, compete with one another, and what the implications of this technology were. Nanotechnology is going to force this same type of thought process.

POST A COMMENT

Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account. Comments won't automatically be posted to your social media accounts unless you select to share.