個案總覽

Don Valentine participated in the beginnings of two significant milestones: the birth of the silicon chip and the development of the venture capital industry. From humble beginnings, Valentine became a legendary salesman at Fairchild Semiconductor and National Semiconductor, before founding Sequoia Capital in 1972. Valentine was comfortable making high-risk bets on unknown entrepreneurs in markets where he saw great potential. Unlike other venture capitalists of the time that focused on finding outstanding entrepreneurs or groundbreaking technology, Valentine took a different approach. He focused predominantly on the size of the potential market.

At the time of the American War of Independence (1776-1783) and for several decades after it, Great Britain dominated the global production of cotton textiles. In fact, Britain became so dominant in textile manufacturing and trading that Manchester, its industrial capital, was nicknamed "Cottonopolis." By contrast, American manufacturing of export-oriented or even tradable-quality cotton textiles was practically nonexistent. This position of relative American backwardness changed with the influence of two prominent individuals: Samuel Slater (1768-1835) and Francis Cabot Lowell (1775-1817). Slater, a skilled British textile machinery engineer helped to develop the country's first cotton spinning mill. Lowell, a member of a prominent New England mercantile family, established the first integrated cotton spinning and weaving facility in what became the city of Lowell, Massachusetts. Together Slater and Lowell brought the sophistication of British industrial revolution technology and introduced innovative methods of factory production to the United States.

The founders of Zaggora reflected back on a tumultuous year-and-a-half in which they had generated, from just $40,000 in personal savings, a multi-million dollar sportswear enterprise selling Hotpants to women. These were hotpants not of the 1960s hipster variety, but instead the first sportswear product of the new brand Zaggora that was made with a specially developed multi-ply fabric technology that heated up during a workout. While the founders had faced several challenges including averting bankruptcy, now they faced an equally difficult time ahead. Should they grow the enterprise by continuing with their current bootstrapped online approach, or attempt to get their product into retail stores? Should they continue to self-finance and keep control, or cede some control by taking on venture capital funding?

NEA was established in 1977 and it subsequently morphed into one of the largest venture capital firms in the world. Despite its size and significance, some other firms established during the same era such as Kleiner-Perkins and Sequoia (both were established in 1972), are arguably better-known. No venture firm, however, can parallel NEA in terms of its scale and its commitment to organizational and operational innovation. From early on the founders predicted that NEA would grow in size and significance, but the challenges associated with achieving these goals were formidable. How could NEA scale and generate favorable returns from a large capital base for its Limited Partners (LPs)? How could General Partners (GPs) be integrated and incentivized? How could the bi-coastal structure be sustained over the long run?

On October 1, 1891, as Senator Leland Stanford cut the ribbon at the ceremony gifting 8,000-acres of his Palo Alto, California, stock farm to a new, 559-student university bearing his name and seeking to produce "useful" in addition to "cultured" graduates, the majority of onlookers were orange groves and wildflowers. There was, as Gertrude Stein would remark of nearby Bay Area city, Oakland, nearly 50 years later, almost "no there, there." That is, it was a place with little social depth, identity, or culture. But over time, the region became synonymous with a culture of entrepreneurialism and developed into the most significant innovation hotspot in the world. What factors, if any, made what was to become known as "Silicon Valley" unique? Will Silicon Valley remain a vibrant community of technological innovation and economic growth, or will it decline like other previously thriving U.S. regions?

In 1965 William Elfers left Georges Doriot's American Research and Development Corporation to found Greylock, his own venture capital firm. Over the ensuing three decades followed a series of eight Greylock partnerships, during which time Elfers never lost a general partner or saw a colleague leave to start his own venture capital firm. Furthermore, each of the investors in Greylock's first fund participated in all succeeding partnerships. Elfers was among the first to pioneer the limited partnership structure of the modern venture capital firm with Greylock being organized as a series of limited partnerships, each of which pooled the investment capital that its general partners and limited partners committed for finite lifetimes. Greylock was established against a long historical tradition of New England financial innovation going back to at least the nineteenth century. In essence Elfers helped to create a new organizational approach to venture capital through mechanisms that deeply reflected New England's financial investment culture.

Arthur Rock was known as one of the country's first venture capitalists and was instrumental in launching major Silicon Valley firms, such as Fairchild Semiconductor, Intel Corporation, Apple Computer, Inc., Scientific Data Systems and Teledyne Incorporated. He was the first venture capitalist to be featured on the cover of Time magazine. Rock was adamant that his success was due to luck and being in the right place at the right time. Others argued differently, emphasizing in particular his unique style of investing and his focus on selecting the right people. Was this a case of luck or a classic example of the principle: back the right people?

Whether the government or markets, or a mixture of both, can provide efficient and effective incentives for encouraging entrepreneurial activity and new venture financing is an age old question. Public promotion efforts are controversial and in most cases they tend to fail. In the United States, debate about the role of government in these areas can be traced back to at least the Great Depression and the period immediately after World War II when the issue became a particular concern. Policy makers considered that existing financial institutions could neither provide the necessary due diligence nor the pool of risk capital that was necessary to spur entrepreneurial ventures. Furthermore, there were calls for additional inducements in the form of tax related incentives. The mechanisms that were used raise questions about benefits, costs and unintended consequences. Can, and should, the government influence entrepreneurial activity and venture financing? What are the limits to government intervention?

Genentech is a rare success story in the biotechnology industry. Hundreds of billions of dollars of venture capital have been invested without the expected transformational effects. Established in 1976, Genentech was to develop the new science of recombinant DNA into viable therapeutic products with mass market appeal, something that most scientists agreed was at least a decade away. The founders, Herbert Boyer and Robert Swanson had limited financial resources, so they turned to Tom Perkins, the co-founder of Kleiner-Perkins, for venture funding. Genentech developed through an effective union between scientific and venture investment mindsets. In 1980 an IPO valued Genentech at $300 million. In 2009 it was fully acquired by the Swiss-based healthcare company, Roche, for $47 billion. Roche had held a majority stake in the company since 1990.

Whaling was a prominent global industry in the nineteenth century and the United States was dominant. By 1850 there were about 900 whaling ships in the world and 700 of these were American. Rates of return on capital were high compared to benchmark investments, at least in the early years of the nineteenth century. The whaling industry was one of the earliest to grapple with complex issues in relation to the provision of high-risk investment capital, syndication, organizational form, ownership structure, incentives, team building and principal-agent tradeoffs. It represents an important starting-point for exploring the origins of American entrepreneurship and venture financing.

Following the lean years of the Great Depression when bankruptcies proliferated and financing for new ventures virtually dried up, new demand for capital was created in a post-War environment of scientific and industrial expansion. Venture funding occurred more widely in the United States than it ever had done before. While the roots of the American venture capital industry are long-standing and multifaceted, they are frequently traced back to the pioneering initiatives of the French General and Harvard Business School professor, Georges Doriot, who established the American Research and Development Corporation (ARD) in 1946.

Native Americans were subjected to a protracted and painful process of forced removal from their land. The case provides "first hand" evidence on the debate over Indian removal as it took place during the early nineteenth century. The first document is excerpted from Andrew Jackson's First Annual Message to Congress in 1829 and the second document from Jackson's Second Annual Message in 1830, the year the Indian Removal Act was passed. The third and fourth documents cover the Congressional debate over the relocation of Indians, which led to strong partisan splits and divisions between the North and the South. Document three is excerpted from Whig Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey's six-hour speech to Congress opposing Indian removal. Document four is excerpted from a speech by Senator John Forsyth, a Democrat and former Governor of Georgia who spoke in response to Senator Frelinghuysen's remarks. A final document presents the Cherokee perspective and the reasons for their opposition to removal as represented by a memorial letter, written to the United States Congress in 1829. A statistical portrait follows the documentary evidence.

In October 1945, Henry Ford II received a telegram in his office at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan written by Charles "Tex" Thornton, a U.S. Air Force colonel. The telegram presented an opportunity for Ford to deploy a system of statistical control which had been developed and applied successfully in the management of the Army Air Forces. Henry Ford II had recently assumed control of his grandfather's troubled automotive empire, and was looking for experienced auto industry men to help him make Ford a dominant name once again. Thornton had no industry experience whatsoever, but seemed convinced that his ideas could be applicable to Ford's company. Perhaps the Ford Motor Company could use an injection of new ideas. Hiring Thornton and his men could end up being Ford's most inspired move. Or his most disastrous.

Wilbur (1867-1912) and Orville (1871-1948) Wright were fascinated by the mystery of flight and they built on the ideas of prominent earlier figures such as Octave Chanute (1832-1910) the French-born American who was influential in fostering the free exchange of ideas surrounding aeronautics. Information exchange between practical tinkerers from across the globe led to a process of cumulative innovation unhindered by rivalry operating through the intellectual property rights system. Yet in 1903, the year the Wright Brothers achieved controlled sustained flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, they applied for and were subsequently granted a US patent for a "flying-machine" which changed the industry irrevocably. While American manufacturers diverted resources from science and technology to patent wars and legal disputes, European aeronautics advanced more rapidly.

Mark Hellendrung, CEO of Narragansett Brewing Company, is deciding whether to partner with a local television station for the upcoming NHL Winter Classic outdoor hockey game between New England's own Boston Bruins and the Philadelphia Flyers at Fenway Park. He had purchased the trademark of the historic New England-based company, Narragansett Beer, four years earlier in 2005. The hockey game offered the company an opportunity to expose millions of potential consumers to their brand. Hellendrung was just one of many local business owners looking to take advantage of the marketing opportunity. The case explores whether investing in a professional sports event represented the right shift in strategy.

Henry Phipps, Jr. made his fortune in the steel industry alongside one of America's most celebrated entrepreneurs - Andrew Carnegie. His wealth was administered in the form of trusts, which he hoped would provide a stream of income for his family and their descendants into the future. Phipps had a clear vision for the intergenerational disposition of his assets, which required both an efficient organizational structure for the wealth to be administered and leadership on the part of family members to keep his original vision intact. Despite undergoing several significant legal and leadership changes, the trusts survived relatively intact and continued to achieve their express goal of preserving the capital Phipps created and providing income for Phipps family members.

In 2008, the U.S. financial system was in a state of crisis and Lehman Brothers went from a major Wall Street investment bank to an insolvent institution. It was a swift end for a firm that had its beginnings over 150 years prior. What would be the firm's legacy? And how, if at all, had its activities changed the course of American history?

In 1931, during one of the worst economic crises in US history, Du Pont announced the discovery of an innovative rubber synthetic product - neoprene. Yet at the time of the announcement, Du Pont did not have any neoprene to sell. Manufacturing facilities were still being erected and production remained at laboratory scale. Rubber synthetics had been developed in Russia, Germany and even in the United States before, but large scale production had never taken off. Would Du Pont's announcement and public disclosure of the basic science lift the barriers to commercialization? What made Du Pont so confident that it could succeed at this uncertain time?

In October 1941, a top secret envoy from the U.S. military was sent to Crosley Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio to request their assistance to construct a weapon that would drastically strengthen the defenses of U.S. troops: the proximity fuze. Such a fuze would allow enemy aircraft to be shot down with a rate of accuracy well above that of previous weaponry. The task would be a challenging one, as conventional wisdom held that it took at least four years for a weapon to go from concept to production, whereas the proximity fuze was needed on a shorter time frame. Moreover, the production process would be complex, requiring hundreds of components produced by dozens of manufacturers, all of which Crosley would have to assemble to produce the finished product. Would Crosley accept the assignment?

In 1929, Chicago, IL mob boss Al Capone was at the height of his power. As head of the extensive crime organization known as "The Outfit" during most of U.S.'s Prohibition Era (1920-1933), Capone oversaw hundreds of brothels, speakeasies, and roadhouses which served as venues for gang-administered gambling, prostitution, and illegal alcohol sales. At their peak, yearly revenues from all of his enterprises combined totaled over $100 million. Capone's ability to operate these establishments with impunity stemmed from a combination of his political ties and a profound fear of reprisal. Capone's ascension had come at the tremendous loss of human life. Turf wars between Chicago gangs had caused roughly 700 gang-related deaths from 1920 to 1930. By some estimates, Capone had been directly or indirectly responsible for over 200 murders, the most notorious of which was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in February 1929, a shootout that had killed seven men from a rival gang. The brutality, efficiency, and wealth of Capone's organization demonstrated the destructive forms of American entrepreneurship in the early 20th century.