Scaling Innovative Ideas

€800 billion a year. That's the price tag Mario Draghi says Europe must meet to stay competitive with the US and China. As an investor and sustainability entrepreneur, reading the Future of European Competitiveness report was eye-opening. It's clear that Europe has to close the innovation gap and invest boldly in clean energy and digitalisation, but this is only part of the challenge. Draghi emphasises that radical change is necessary to prevent the EU from becoming less competitive on the global stage. Here are a few key points from the report that resonate with me, both positively and with concerns: 👉🏻Scaling EU Companies: Draghi highlights that Europe is failing to scale its companies, which limits our global competitiveness. We have incredible innovation happening here, but the lack of support to take these companies to the next level is a major issue. 👉🏻Investment in R&D: The report points to underinvestment in research and development. If we want to remain at the forefront of sectors like clean tech and mobility, we need much more capital flowing into R&D, especially in emerging technologies like AI and renewables. 👉🏻Venture Capital: Draghi's report underscores the urgent need for more venture capital across Europe, a core message I strongly support. We need greater acceptance of venture capital as an asset class, especially in Germany, where the market remains risk-averse. This lack of funding pushes our most innovative companies to scale up elsewhere, particularly in the US. Europe needs to step up to provide the environment needed for startups to thrive and grow right here at home. 👉🏻Common Debt: The idea of joint EU borrowing for green and digital projects is essential to remain competitive, especially in areas like clean tech and mobility. This is a necessary step to unleash the full potential of the sector. 👉🏻The China Challenge: Europe's reliance on China, particularly in clean tech, needs to be rethought. I've seen firsthand how fierce the competition is in the electric vehicle space. While Draghi stresses reducing dependencies, I do think we must be cautious of the economic disruptions a rapid decoupling could cause. 👉🏻Streamlining Policy: Entrepreneurs are struggling with the slow pace of European decision-making, especially in green tech. We risk losing our competitive edge if we don't accelerate policy change. Europe has an incredible opportunity, but it requires bold action. Do you think Europe is ready to rise to the challenge, or will bureaucracy stand in the way? Let's discuss in the comments... #Draghi #Innovation #Sustainability #CleanEnergy #VentureCapital #Investment

🌍 Scaling Deep Tech in Europe 🇪🇺 Europe’s deep tech moment is now — but scaling it takes more than just great inventions. This bold report reveals what’s holding us back: 🧠 A fragmented talent ecosystem struggling to retain the best minds 💸 Funding gaps, especially at the growth stage (only 14% of EU deep tech companies reach Series C) ⚖️ Risk-averse investors and policymakers who talk innovation but fear uncertainty 🌐 Weak connections between research, industry, and venture capital But it’s not all doom and gloom. The report sets out a real execution plan for Europe to lead in AI, quantum, robotics, semiconductors, and next-gen materials. That includes: 🔧 A call to create 1,000 scaleups across 10 years 👥 Building a talent flywheel through global hiring and EU-wide mobility 🏦 Plugging the Series B & C financing gap with sovereign funds and institutional capital 📈 Creating scale-up-focused innovation policies — not just R&D ones ⚙️ Whether you're a founder, investor, or policymaker, this is your playbook to put Europe in the deep tech driver's seat. We don't need more slide decks. We need execution. And this report shows exactly how to do it. Respect to the European champions behind the Deep Tech Network. 💡 Let’s move from potential to power. #DeepTech #ScalingEurope #InnovationPolicy #AI #Quantum #OGApproved #EuropeanTech #StartupEcosystem #ExecutionMatters

Most companies don't need more content. They need better, more strategic, value-driven content. 🚀 👉 Copying your competitors? It only adds to the noise — it doesn’t differentiate you, and it definitely doesn’t drive pipeline. Here’s what to do instead if you're serious about scaling content the smart way: → Audit your existing content — identify what's driving outcomes (not just traffic). → Align your strategy with your Sales, Product, Success, and Support teams — integrate real customer feedback into your content plan. → Map your content to the full buyer journey — awareness → consideration → decision → expansion. → Focus on intent over volume — not every high-volume keyword matters to your funnel. → Identify opportunity gaps where you can genuinely add value, not just "rank." → Build content clusters around your core solutions to strengthen topical authority. → Refresh and optimize existing content regularly to keep it aligned with evolving customer needs. → Treat SEO as a distribution channel, not a content strategy. → Prioritize formats that match intent — blogs, webinars, guides, comparison pages, customer stories. → Measure what matters: influenced pipeline, sales velocity impact, time-to-value reduction — not vanity metrics. Content marketing isn’t about churning out more. It’s about building a real growth engine — one piece of strategic content at a time. Need help turning your content into a revenue-generating machine? Drop me a DM and let's get talking! 👋 #contentmarketing #b2bsaas #b2bmarketing #saasmarketing #seostrategy #b2bcontent

Typical pattern: prioritising content creation while treating distribution as an afterthought. This imbalance represents a fundamental misalignment of strategic resources. The scenario plays out with remarkable consistency: Marketing teams invest considerable resources crafting elaborate content pieces. Meticulously researched whitepapers, visually striking infographics, comprehensive guides. Yet allocate minimal thought or budget to ensuring these assets reach their intended audience. During interviews I posed a straightforward budget allocation question: "How would you invest £10K for maximum impact?" The responses were disappointing. Elaborate production plans consumed 80-90% of hypothetical budgets, while distribution received no consideration. It's a professional disconnect: • 𝗖-𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲: Focused on commercial metrics—pipeline contribution, conversion efficiency, revenue attribution • 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀: Optimising for production quality, volume, and creative excellence Both perspectives have merit, yet they operate in parallel rather than converge. The underlying dynamics: 𝟭. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 The concrete nature of content creation, which includes visible outputs and definable milestones, offers comfortable metrics for tracking progress. 𝟮. 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆 • Channel orchestration • Algorithm changes • Pipeline impact It isn't easy. 𝟯. 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 Content teams track subjective standards of 'quality' while commercial leadership prioritises audience reach and business outcomes. The distribution-first mindset represents a more sophisticated approach to content strategy. Strategic principles for you: • Begin with audience ecosystem mapping—where does your ideal prospect already engage? • Reverse-engineer content formats optimised for native platform performance • Integrate distribution partnerships during content conceptualisation, not post-production • Design within platform constraints (most social algorithms favour zero-click content) • Establish budget allocation principles that properly weight distribution channels A strategically positioned content piece that reaches 1,000 precisely targeted prospects consistently outperforms exceptional content with little reach. The nuanced truth is that most content marketing initiatives don't underperform due to quality deficiencies, but rather because of no distribution. ----- p.s. Want to know why your marketing isn't working? Get my free 6-part email diagnostic series (link in profile Oren Greenberg)

Why AI Pilots Don’t Scale in Healthcare: A Framework for Thinking Clearly Many AI pilots in healthcare start with promise and end in silence. It’s not because they lack accuracy or ambition. It’s often because they lack architecture. Or alignment. Or adoption. McKinsey’s Five Frames of Transformation can help us think clearly about how to move from isolated AI pilots to scalable, embedded solutions. When adapted to healthcare, this becomes less about technology and more about systems. Here’s how I’ve come to see it: 1. Aspire Start with purpose, not tools. The right question isn’t “How can we use AI?” It’s “What patient outcomes are we trying to improve, and why?” For example: “Reduce diabetes-related amputations through AI-enabled early detection in polyclinics.” Meaning gives AI relevance. 2. Assess What is our starting point? Do we have usable data, engaged clinicians, and the right infrastructure? Readiness is often overestimated. Before building anything, diagnose the system honestly. 3. Architect Design with the end in mind. Create a cross-functional operating model. Align procurement, governance, ethics, and clinical workflows. Involve clinicians early. Build explainability in from day one. Think platform, not pilot. 4. Act Deploy gradually. Use shadow mode. Pair AI tools with human judgment. Refine based on user feedback and unintended consequences. Implementation is not a one-time event. It is continuous calibration. 5. Advance Sustain what works. Monitor for model drift. Institutionalize training and feedback loops. Move AI from innovation to infrastructure. Build learning systems, not just smart systems. In Singapore, as we deepen Healthier SG and move toward a team-based, preventive model of care, this framework reminds us: AI is not the transformation. It is a tool within it. The transformation is cultural, clinical, and structural. What frameworks or insights have helped you scale AI or digital innovations in healthcare? #HealthTech #AIinHealthcare #PublicHealth #HealthierSG #ClinicalAI #SystemsThinking #NHG #DigitalHealth #MBBS #MPH #MBA #INTP #Enneagram5

Scaling is not a bigger pilot. It’s a new product and a new way of working. Your AI Strategy should change the workflow, not just optimize it. Update SOPs, KPIs, and incentives so people use the system by default. Train at scale. Communicate like adults. Close the loop on feedback weekly. Harden the backbone as you scale: - stable data pipelines, - security and privacy checks, - performance SLOs and on-call, - monitoring with alerts that someone owns. Right-size controls to impact: - meeting-summary bot → light checks, fast rollouts, - pricing recommender → validation, rollback plan, - credit-limit engine → rigorous testing, audit trail, human override. Ship with a one-page factsheet: purpose, data sources, known limits, and owner. Use human-in-the-loop when the stakes are high. Keep logs. Prove control. Good governance doesn’t slow you down; it removes debate and speeds you up. Want speed or rework? → Subscribe to my newsletter starting this week: https://lnkd.in/dEwSKCYw #AIstrategy

From BUILD to Business & Market Fit: The Foundation for SME Product Success Last week, I introduced BUILD, a simple yet practical framework for product management in New Zealand’s SMEs. The response was fantastic, with insightful comments on how product management should be adapted to SMEs rather than startups. Now, it’s time to look into “B” – Business & Market Fit. For SMEs, "B" is about ensuring products solve real problems and align with business goals from the start. As one comment on my original post pointed out, NZ SMEs begin with a practical insight from their own industry—a customer challenge they see firsthand. They develop a solution, secure a few paying customers, rely on word-of-mouth, and expand gradually (often to Australia next). But how can SMEs do this more effectively, with less risk? That’s where the practical tools we teach in BUSDEV 722 (product management) and 723 (new product development) come in: ✅ Customer Problem Validation – Before investing in development, test assumptions. ✅ Value Proposition Testing – Tools like the Lean Canvas or JTBD (Jobs to Be Done) framework help SMEs articulate how their product solves a critical pain point. ✅ Market Sizing for NZ & Beyond – NZ is a small market, so thinking globally early is key. Mapping niche expansion opportunities and barriers to entry in Australia or other target markets can save time and money later. Take, for example, an agritech SME developing an automated irrigation sensor. A traditional approach might be: “Build the product, then sell it.” A BUILD approach would be: 💡 Talk to 10+ farmers to confirm the pain point and willingness to pay 💡 Prototype and pilot with early adopters, refine based on real use cases 💡 Design and plan for scaling before committing to manufacturing By doing this, firms can improve their chances of launching a product the market actually needs, want and can afford. In your experience, what process do SME's follow? What tools do they use? And, how can this advice be improved? #ProductManagement #SMEs #BusinessGrowth #BUILDFramework #NewZealandBusiness #BUSDEV722

Our regulatory approval in December was a significant milestone, prompting my reflection on the state of the cultivated meat industry in today's Fast Company op-ed. Despite tremendous progress made so far since I founded Aleph Farms with The Kitchen Hub (Jonathan, Amir), Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Prof. Shulamit and Neta 7+ years ago, we recognize that there are still questions and challenges around the industry’s path to success. Let me share below insights about our strategy to address some of them: 𝐃𝐞-𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞-𝐮𝐩 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐩: When we realized the challenges of scaling too early, we postponed a significant portion of our planned capital expenditures to preserve cash and allocate time & resources to optimize our production process first. In parallel, we decided to focus on smaller initial markets, like Israel and Singapore, which require fewer upfront investments. We introduced an intermediate "mid-scale" phase with contract manufacturing organizations between our pilot and large-scale production. This wasn't about going bigger and faster but rather about a de-risked and capital-efficient scale-up strategy relying on partnerships and asset-light approach.  𝐂𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡: We understood the potential of our versatile platform for diversifying a wide range of animal products. Just as milk can be transformed into yogurt, cheese and butter, we use cells to grow a meat-like product (cultivated meat), but also applications like biomaterials and collagen. With our leadership in biomanufacturing, we can drive a just and inclusive transition and open the way to a constructive dialogue with livestock farmers. 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲: We prioritized being "first to adoption" rather than "first to market.” Our focus on beef is driven by considerations of sustainability, food security and price parity. Our cultivated cells offer documented reduction of environmental impact as compared to conventional cattle farming and help to diversify the supply of animal proteins and fats. Furthermore, they drive significantly higher prices, accelerating the journey to price parity – crucial for long-term adoption. During the hype period in 2021 and early 2022, expectations were often inflated, fueled by significant media exposure and optimistic market surveys, often conducted by independent firms. We must all recognize that while widespread commercialization and profitability are within reach, they won't materialize overnight.     Aleph Farms and other companies are deploying strategies to address the challenges of the industry. Like with other transformative innovations, any S-Curve of adoption takes time to achieve exponential growth. Just as investing in electric vehicles in the early 2010’s showed great returns, cultivated meat offers similar opportunities for both public and private investments- today.

Most performance ups and downs on Meta can be tied back to reach. An analysis we ran in 2023 showed that the price of REACH on Meta lower funnel campaigns had increased nearly 3x since 2017. On average: - In 2017/2018, you could reach 4 million people/month with a $100k budget. - In 2023, you would need to spend $280k to reach that same 4 million This trend makes sense. No platform sees a higher share of spend relative to user time spent (~23% share of spend, 8-9% share of time spent). This is largely a result of their best-in-class DR capabilities and advertising tools. But Meta's success has meant scale is harder to come by for advertisers, largely due to this increase in the cost of reach. There are generally two ways to grow your reach on Meta: 1. Optimize to reach (or a similar upper funnel "event") 2. Creative optimization I've talked a lot about option 1 recently, so lets spend some time talking about option #2 Creative, at least in a conversion-optimized world, is likely your most powerful limiter and accelerator of reach on Meta. In an auction that favors engagement and "traction", better creative is rewarded with expanded reach and cost advantages. The below chart highlights a real world example of just how impactful great creative can be, on a short term basis. Within 24 hours of launching this new creative: - Conversions increased 3-4x - CPA dropped by 40-50% - Cost per 1000 reached dropped by 50-60% - Total reach skyrocketed (in part due to higher spend) These numbers won't sustain, at least not without continued focus on strong creative. But, these numbers do tell us that we have a much higher ceiling or "in-market-TAM" than we initially thought. We now know what our reach potential is, and we have insights into how to achieve that potential (i.e. creative learnings). This, to me, is the foundational insight behind "wild card" or high variety testing. You generally do not achieve these types of breakthroughs with iterative testing. Real reach growth (3, 4, 5x) is only achieved by doing something materially different on the creative front. If you are continually fighting low reach, high cost of reach, its possible you have a creative problem. Especially with lower scale & lower budgets, creative might be your most effective tool to expand your reach. New Engen

“Fail fast” is fatal in agriculture. The recent piece in AgTechNavigator highlights what many in our field already know: the Silicon Valley mantra doesn’t translate to the farm. For growers, a failed trial isn’t a pivot…it’s a season lost, margins cut, and trust eroded. (https://lnkd.in/egFD5pEZ) Jason Weller of JBS is right to call out the “last mile” as agtech’s chasm of death. Too often, we see brilliant platforms and biologicals stuck in demo mode because they never reach the farmer in a way that fits real agronomic, economic, and social conditions. From my perspective, three truths stand out: 1. Trust is the technology. Without agronomists, cooperatives, and farmer networks backing innovation, no sensor or microbe will gain traction. 2. Adoption is the bottleneck. Farmers don’t need promises they need proof of profitability, reliability, and integration into existing practices. 3. Partnerships are infrastructure. Public–private alliances, like Brazil’s traceability accelerator, are what convert point solutions into systemic change. This is where Corporate Venture Capital must evolve. Investing is not enough! We need to de-risk adoption, co-develop solutions with farmers, and measure success in hectares, yields, and resilience, not just valuations. AgriFoodTech innovation will only move the needle when adoption barriers are treated as seriously as invention. Because in ag, there is no MVP. There is only trust…or failure. #AgriFoodTech #CVC #InnovationStrategy #Sustainability #StartupScaling