Does location matter?

Innovation, startup, silicon valley or fen or bog whatever. Does location matter if you intend to start a new venture?

The FT ran a piece in 2005 investigating the phenomenon of Cambridge startup success; "The Fertile Soil of Silicon Fen". The argument goes that Cambridge's close social circles and the willingness of entrepreneurs to try again and again, priming new ventures with prior experience and capital while also drawing on the fertile imaginations and academic excellence of the University's graduate output.

In spite of the small scale of firms spawned under Cambridge's influence, profiting from early success undoubtedly worked, the next question was always going to be "can a Cambridge startup achieve global success?" Well apparently that question is answered in the affirmative, albeit by firms that aren't quite household names but are nonetheless well known in their respective fields. The Cambridge Startup Report "From the lab to the limelight" looks at recent history surrounding Cambridge. Previously Cambridge innovation stories were characterised by early stage sales, meaning few firms attempted to grow and achieve scale success; now it seems that has changed with the four+ biggest Cambridge startup stories displaying longevity, ability to grow beyond the initial concept product and the capability to scale.

So a question: What would a 'Dublin Startup Report' have to say?

References

Maija Pesola. The Fertile Soil of Silicon Fen, The Financial Times, 2005 (link)
The Cambridge Startup Report "From the lab to the limelight" (link)

Accenture report on managing a global workforce

HR capability is perceived to be a crucial input into whether a multinational organisation is able to manage a global workforce or not. Global presence and global expansion necessitate the extension of a firm's workforce into regions beyond those that were responsible for its origin. Expansion may be an outward pushing into new markets or it may arise through acquisition or disparate national organisations and businesses. Zynga for example has grown into a multinational firm by virtue of its acquisition strategy, buying smaller games developers from Sao Paulo to Tokyo to Boston, London and beyond.

This report from Accenture highlights the remarkable growth of business taking place in emerging economies; what might have previously be considered the 'developing world'. This change implies another change, a change in employee's perception of corporate culture and prior assumptions that culture reflected the national character of the parent company. Corporate culture is increasingly being seen as cosmopolitan, global, international, not necessarily an extension of a central value system or language of the parent. HR is posited as a force for standarisation, a system for enforcing unity in so far as the corporate entity is constituted through policy, procedure, terminology etc. HR is also posed as the corporate function best placed to encounter, interpret and implement compliance with local regulation while at the same time as it translates between and among the global 'locals' of national offices within the international firm. In this sense HR becomes a shared service, a global function that services the 'local' wherever it is.

Reference
Gartside et al, (2011), Different strokes: How to manage a global workforce, Accenture. (link)
Commentary from Silicon Republic, July 19 2011 (link)