Archive for December, 2017

CEE Review: The most valuable U.S. companies over 100 years | Our latest issue of Kaizen, and more

Monday, December 18th, 2017

News and Opinion

This 23-year-old just closed her second fund — which is focused on aging — with $22 million. Tech Crunch.

Madam C. J. Walker: The ultimate self-made woman. Archbridge Institute.

Dr. Jaana Woiceshyn: Why is there racism in business?

An email from Elon Musk reveals why managers are always a bad idea. Inc.

Creative destruction builds prosperity as it topples big companies. How many of the year 1955 Fortune 500 companies are still on the list? FEE.

Most valuable U.S. companies over 100 years. Visual Capitalist.

Almost half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by American immigrants or their children. The Brookings Institution.

Robots to help stock shelves at 50 Walmart stores. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Our latest issue of Kaizen features interviews with Krzysztof Jurek on entrepreneurship in Poland and Laura Niklason on entrepreneurial biotechnology and can be viewed at our site.

Announcements

The Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics welcomes applications from those who wish to attend their workshop on teaching business ethics on June 1-3, 2018. More information can be found at their website.

Idea: “Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing.” — Abe Lincoln

See you next time with our digest of new and interesting items in entrepreneurship, ethics, and political economy. Here are the previous editions of CEE Review.

Interview with Laura Niklason on Entrepreneurial Biotechnology

Thursday, December 14th, 2017

[This is the full interview with Laura Niklason which was published in our Kaizen newsletter.]

Laura Niklason on Entrepreneurial Biotechnology

Dr. Laura Niklason is the Nicholas M. Greene Professor at Yale University in Anesthesia and Biomedical Engineering. She co-founded Humacyte, a company which grows tissue replacements that could provide lifesaving improvements in treatments for vascular conditions.

Kaizen: Here we are here in Chicago. You were born and raised in Chicago?

Niklason: I was born actually in Evanston. I grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago. I went to college when I was sixteen at the University of Illinois and then I went to graduate school and medical school at the University of Chicago. I’m originally an Illinois girl, for sure.

Kaizen: Before you went to university, how would you characterize your schooling or your education?

Niklason: By and large, I went to public school. I had a couple of years stint at a private school during seventh and eighth grade, but, by and large, it was public school education. I would say it was a fairly good educational experience, with some exceptions, but I generally had enough challenges and enough opportunities to learn the things I wanted to learn. I did finish high school early, after three years because I had run out of stuff to take.

Kaizen: Were you strongly academically-oriented then?

Niklason: Well, there were some times early in high school where I had bad behavior, but we’re glossing over that period of time.

Kaizen: Despite the bad behavior, you learned what you needed to do to get your degree done.

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: Where do you think your academic motivation and focus came from?

Niklason: I think the expectation came from both of my parents. I think the assumption and the expectation was that all of their children, me included, would become very good at something. From the time I was very young, I had really good aptitude for quantitative things and scientific things. Those things were exciting and interesting to me and came easily.

Kaizen: Would you say it was broad-ranging into sciences or some sciences more than others?

Niklason: I would say fairly broad-ranging. Throughout life, I’ve come to be fairly good at biology and physics and math. I’m not as good a chemist, but I can cross across several disciplines, and that’s actually been really helpful and it’s actually been instructive and it’s provided direction actually in the ultimate research areas that I’ve chosen, because I’ve chosen a research area in adulthood that actually relies upon being able to draw inferences from multiple different disciplines.

I decided in college I was probably a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none. I could do any kind of science pretty well. I sought an area where I could put all that together.

Kaizen: It was back in secondary school when you were focusing on a career area?

Niklason: I always assumed I was going to go to medical school. I always assumed I was going to be a physician, and I always assumed I was going to be a research physician. I didn’t know what kind of physician or research physician I would be, but I always had a sense that I wanted to have impact and change the way the world worked. I felt that from a fairly young age.

Kaizen: You mentioned University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. How did you choose that for your university?

Niklason: I only applied to two schools. I applied to the University of Illinois and University of Chicago. Didn’t get into the University of Chicago, probably in part because of my bad behavior. University of Illinois was a great school and it didn’t cost very much, and so that’s where I went.

Kaizen: Then at the University of Illinois, what did you focus on there?

Niklason: I started off majoring in chemistry. I did that primarily because both of my parents were chemists, and I assumed I would be good at chemistry. I discovered midway through my freshman year that I actually wasn’t terribly good at chemistry, but I discovered, much to my surprise, that I was very good at physics, and I honestly did not know I was good at physics in high school. I’d taken physics, I didn’t feel like I was particularly good at it, but I think something about my brain changed.

All of the neuroscience that people talk about as far as your brain changing in its abilities during teenage years and even during age 20 to 25, I think that’s all actually true. I think that I was intellectually capable of understanding things at age seventeen and eighteen that I simply could not understand at age fifteen and sixteen. It wasn’t just a maturity thing; it was an increase in aptitude.

Kaizen: Because the brain continues to grow and develop too.

Niklason: Right.

Kaizen: Then your interests are shifting more towards physics in university time. Either of interest or as part of university requirements did you take courses in humanities and social sciences and arts and so on?

Niklason: I took several courses in philosophy. I actually tried to do a minor in philosophy, but I couldn’t quite pull all the course work together. I enjoyed philosophy very much. I took one or two literature classes. Those were mostly English requirements. I did not take really many courses in the arts or the social sciences very much. It was mostly philosophy, literature, and then the sciences.

Kaizen: At the graduate level, I know you got a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago and then a medical degree at Michigan. In what order did you do those?

Niklason: Well, I was in a combined M.D.-Ph.D. program at the University of Chicago. The way that works is you do two years of medical school and then you step away from the medical school curriculum and you become a graduate student, and you finish your Ph.D. and then you return for the last two years of medical school. I did the first two parts of that, I finished my Ph.D., but then I met a man who later became my husband while I was in graduate school, and he was at Michigan. I then transferred to Michigan after I got my Ph.D. and completed medical school at Michigan. My transcript reads a little funny in terms of time, but it was because of that move in the middle.

Kaizen: Your Ph.D. work—what did it focus on?

Niklason: My Ph.D. work was in biophysics in a very quantitative area. I was interested in developing new methods of X-ray imaging at the time to try to understand the physical dimensions and the degree of disease that’s present in blood vessels, for example, in arteries that supply your brain or supply your heart. I was interested in developing imaging methods and quantitative analysis to tell the physician how sick these blood vessels were.

Kaizen: That was the focus of your Ph.D. work at …

Niklason: Chicago.

Kaizen: Chicago, okay. Then when you transferred to Michigan, you had two more years of medical school there. Is this still general training or does one start to specialize at that point?

Niklason: I didn’t specialize then. This is just general medical training. When I finished my medical training at Michigan, I realized that I was very interested in work that involved taking care of the very ill, very ill patients either in the intensive care unit or in the operating room. I developed a passion for that specialty during medical school.

Kaizen: Could you say what made that so attractive to you and interesting?

Niklason: Very ill patients are always very complicated. They’ve always got a lot going on. There’s no two that are identical. Understanding how to take care of a very sick patient often involves bringing together a lot of information from a lot of different quarters and synthesizing it and then making a plan. That differs from the mental processes that underlie much of the rest of medicine.

For example, I can’t remember if I said this to you before … If I’m repeating myself, please stop me … but for much of medicine, you might walk into the doctor’s office and you have a single symptom. “My symptom is diarrhea or whatever.” The good internist will then automatically generate a list in his head of the top twenty things that might be your problem. Then he will go down and check off that list one by one.

My brain was never very good at that. I could never begin with a single fact and generate a list. What my brain was very good at was taking a bunch of information, some of which was coherent and some of which was conflicting, and synthesizing that and coming up with one or two or three possibilities and directions to go. That’s what I see medicine is. It’s assembling a lot of information in real time and making choices.

Kaizen: That’s a challenge, right?

Niklason: That’s a challenge, and every patient’s different.

Kaizen: Especially with the people who are very sick, as you were saying.

Niklason: Yes, because things change sometimes very rapidly in real time, and you have to respond in real time. Taking information and then modify your plans as necessary.

Kaizen: What year was it when you finished med school at Michigan then?

Niklason: I finished medical school in Michigan in ’91.

Kaizen: You became a professor at Yale in 2006?

Niklason: I went there as an associate professor in 2006 and was promoted to full professor, I don’t know, three years later or something.

Kaizen: Okay, 2009. Between 1991 and 2006, what did you do in those fifteen years?

Niklason: I finished training, my clinical training, at Michigan and then Mass General. I did a year of internship at Michigan in medicine until ’92 then I did residency and fellowship in anesthesia and intensive care unit medicine at Mass General. I finished that up in ’96.

Kaizen: Again, that’s in Boston.

Niklason: In Boston. During that time, I also became interested in my current research area, which is regenerative medicine and using cells to create functional tissues that might be used to help patients. I started that research interest around ’95, and that overlapped with my clinical training. I worked in that area as a post-doc trainee at MIT until ’98. Then in ’98, I went to Duke University, and I was there until ’05.

Kaizen: Your time in Mass General is more practicing internship and then the time at MIT is more research-oriented?

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: Then you went to Duke University in North Carolina for a number of years. What was your position there?

Niklason: I was jointly appointed between the department of anesthesia and the department of biomedical engineering at Duke. I was a tenure-track assistant professor there and was promoted to associate professor with tenure after five or six years. I spent about 30% of my time working in the intensive care unit, taking care of the very ill, and then about two-thirds of my time running a research laboratory in biomedical engineering and teaching courses.

Kaizen: Running a lab side is an expensive operation. How does the funding go? Are you responsible for raising the funding, or is it a joint thing with the university or the department?

Niklason: In general, for most tenure-track professors at research institutions, there’s what’s called a startup package where they might provide you with a certain amount of money in order for you to get your operation running. My startup package was comparatively small, only because I wasn’t smart enough to ask for one that was suitably sized.

Kaizen: A learning experience.

Niklason: It was a learning experience, yes. I started with $50,000 a year for three years, which is actually, by today’s standards, obscenely small. Thereafter, any tenure-track faculty person in the sciences is responsible for getting grant money to support their own salary and also to support the salaries of the people who work for them and their research reagents.

I spent the first three years as an assistant professor working really diligently, desperately to try to get research funding. I probably wrote ten research grants a year without exaggeration for the first three years. I was writing grants, at the time, this very novel area of tissue engineering, this was in the late 1990s, and everybody pretty much thought it was just silly work and couldn’t be taken seriously. I had a very hard time getting funded. I came very, very close to bowing out of academia entirely after about three to three and a half years because I was simply not successful in getting funding.

Kaizen: What kind of organizations are you seeking funding from?

Niklason: Many. National Institute of Health—which is a federal agency, National Science Foundation—another federal agency, private foundations, American Heart Foundation, various anesthesia research societies, societies of aging research. These are private foundations. I managed to get small grants from private foundations that kept me alive, kept me on a minimum oxygen level for a number of years, but typically the large grants that can sustain a laboratory operation for a number of years are provided by federal agencies. It took me three and a half years to really land one or two of those and really have solid financial support.

Kaizen: Right. There’s like an entrepreneurial bootstrapping right here where you’re young and you have a lot of ideas and you’re hopefully working in a new area, but because you’re young you don’t have the track record yet of publications or the big name. If you’re working in a new area it seems speculative. What is the thing that, so to speak, enables you to leverage your way up?

Niklason: There’s a couple of things. I think your perception is exactly right. I think all young people who are trying to fund their research organizations, they’re all viewed as inherently risky because they are, and I was working in a risky area.

For me, in order to finally get some traction, it was dependent on a few things. One, and probably most importantly, was learning to partner with more senior people who were working not in my area, because nobody was working in my area, but who were working in related areas. By teaming up with them, I looked like I was a better bet, that I was a little bit less risky because I was viewed as having somebody more senior upon whom I could rely. In reality, I didn’t rely on these more senior people very much, but it certainly helped with the appearance of the thing.

Kaizen: It’s a seal of approval.

Niklason: Yes. In addition, I finally learned that what I wanted to work on was not necessarily what these research entities wanted to fund. I had to modify my research plans somewhat to be more palatable to my audience. I had to learn to be less of a Don Quixote jousting at the windmills, trying to get exactly what I wanted to do, and instead bend a little bit and understand what the funding agencies thought would be reasonable to support.

Kaizen: Then at about the three-and-a-half-year point you mentioned that’s when you got a big grant.

Niklason: Yes, I got two big grants.

Kaizen: Two big grants. What does big mean in this context?

Niklason: Big means roughly $250,000 a year in direct costs to my laboratory for four or five years. In addition to that, all universities charge what’s called overhead. For example, Duke charged 65% overhead. If I would get $250,000 in a year, Duke would get 65% of that in addition. That would just go to funding the building and the electricity and administration and whatever.

Kaizen: How much administration support would they be giving you?

Niklason: Almost none.

Kaizen: You still had to do all your own books and…

Niklason: Oh, absolutely.

Kaizen: The overhead really is a very high tax.

Niklason: Well, it’s a high tax, but it pays for the laboratories. If the roof-

Kaizen: Oh, all of the fixed capital, they’re providing that? I see.

Niklason: Yes, but the equipment I have to purchase. But, for example, there are facilities with microscopes in them that costs a million dollars. I can go over to that facility and I can use that microscope for $100 an hour. That support is distributed within the institution, but there’s not a lot of direct support that comes to me via that.

Kaizen: Out of that, you’re paying your salary and any research assistance that you hire and then…

Niklason: Pipettes and chemicals.

Kaizen: All of the those things…

Niklason: All those things.

Kaizen: All right, on 45% of the money that you bring in.

Niklason:  I would bring in $250,000.

Kaizen: Or 35%, sorry. 35%.

Niklason: I would bring in $250,000. That’s what I would write the grant for, and NIH would write a check to me for $250,000. They would then also write a check to the university for $170,000.

Kaizen: The overhead will be on top of that?

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: Okay, good. I was going to say you’re getting down below $100,000, and that’s…

Niklason: It doesn’t sound like very much money.

Kaizen: Yes. You have $250,000. You can live on that and get some stuff done.

Niklason: Right.

Kaizen: Then you’re in a position to publish as the research is coming out and going to conferences and build up your name and get some traction that way. Moving to Yale in 2006, you were working on the blood vessels at this point.

Niklason: I’ve been working on engineered blood vessels. When I went to Yale, I’ve been working on engineer blood vessels for a decade, or eleven or twelve years.

Kaizen: How did the idea of that particular engineering blood vessels come to you and what were your main steps, or what hurdles did you have to overcome and new knowledge that you need to acquire?

Niklason: That’s a very, very big question, and I could answer that for a very long time, but I won’t burden you with that.

Kaizen: But the two-minute version?

Niklason: The two-minute version. The two-minute version of where I got the idea was that, well, first of all, I’d been interested in blood vessels and their diseases since my graduate work. My graduate work had been in that area. I had a particular case when I was training in anesthesia where I was taking care of a heart bypass patient who needed a new artery for his heart. Typically, surgeons take a vein out of the leg to do that operation. They take a vein from the patient’s leg and they sew it onto the heart.

In this patient’s case, they opened up both of his legs and looked at his veins and they decided that they didn’t like them, so they sewed up both legs. They then opened up his arm, his whole forearm, looking at his radial artery, because they wanted to take one of the radial arteries, one of the arteries out of his arms and sew it into his heart. They decided that that would lead to complications, and so they sewed his arm back up and didn’t use it.

They then made a third incision and they cut into his abdomen. They peeled an artery off the surface of his stomach and swung it up into his chest to serve as a bypass artery for his heart. This all took many hours and looked really barbaric. In watching all of that, I thought there’s got to be a better way.

This was in the mid-’90s, but even at that time, twenty years ago, we really understood a lot, scientifically, about the cues that go into healing of an artery, growing new arteries, arteries as they develop in the embryo. My decision then was to try to leverage what we knew at the time about how arteries grow, try to bring those lessons into the laboratory and apply them so that we could grow new blood vessels essentially from scratch.

As time went along, I had to leverage other insights about certain biochemicals that we needed to apply that really weren’t appreciated at the time. Our work really clarified the importance of mechanical input. We learned that if we stretch these arteries while they’re growing in a way that mimics the heartbeat, that had a profound impact on how they developed. That wasn’t really very well understood before we did that. There were things that we learned about the basic under workings of how new blood vessels grow and assemble themselves. We had to learn those things along the way so that we could pull that trick off in the lab.

Kaizen: Are there synthetic competitors or alternatives here? I was thinking about some sort of engineered plastic tubes, for example.

Niklason: Sure. There are several types of engineered plastic tubes. There are plastic tubes made out of Teflon, plastic tubes made out of Dacron, and even some tubes made out of materials called polyurethanes. Primarily, Teflon and Dacron tubes are what are used now clinically when a patient needs a new blood vessel, but they don’t have a vein of their own, for example, to use as a replacement.

One of the big drawbacks with all of these forms of plastic is that when you sew a piece of plastic into the body, your body’s immediately aware that it’s not your own tissue. The body reacts by forming scar tissue around the implant, creating a lot of inflammation. Oftentimes, these synthetic blood vessels will clot because blood is running through them, but it’s running through a piece of plastic rather than your own blood vessel. That stimulates clot formation. The failure rates of these plastic tubes are actually quite high.

Kaizen: Was that an additional motivation for you?

Niklason: Yes, that was absolutely a motivation.

Kaizen: From that conception in the middle ’90s, at what point would you say you’ve solved enough of the science and the lab processes to be able to develop blood vessels realistically for medical application?

Niklason: Well, that’s also an interesting question because I believed I could do it after ten years of work.

Kaizen: This was around 2005?

Niklason: Around 2005. Indeed, that’s when I spun out my biotech company, Humacyte, in 2005. It turns out we couldn’t really pull it off for another four or five years after that because I think, as a scientist, you have to be very optimistic about your ability to solve problems and venture into new research areas that have never been done before.

I think I took that inherently optimistic mindset with me when we started up the company. I think that’s necessary. I think if you’re pessimistic you’ll never start a company in the first place. But I optimistically thought that getting the technology to a point, we were very much in a pilot-scale phase after ten years, and I thought that it would take us really only three years to get the technology to a point where it would be ready for first-in-man trials. In fact, we were eight years away.

Kaizen: Oh, okay.

Niklason: I can remember telling people when I started the company in 2005 that I would be able to mostly pull away at around 2008 or 2009, because, frankly, most of the problems would be solved by that time, and it would just be blocking and tackling. I can tell you for sure that twelve years later, most of the problems are still not solved, and it’s not blocking and tackling even yet.

Kaizen: All right. At this stage, 2005 or so, how many people are working in your lab?

Niklason: At my lab at Duke at that time, I had probably twelve or fourteen people. I took three of these people out of my lab when I started the company, and they moved over because they were wanting to. They were excited about it. I took two Ph.D.s and one technician out of my lab and moved them to this little tiny startup space, in a tiny incubator about twenty-minute drive from the university.

These folks started up. I begged some money from my parents and one of my first employees begged some money from her parents. We hung up the shingle. They walked into this room, and there were no pencils. I mean there was nothing.

Kaizen: That was your startup capital?

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: A lot of sweat equity, so to speak, a little bit of startup capital.

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: Was it the same thing then with Humacyte starting to seek venture capital?

Niklason: Yes. Humacyte has sought venture capital at several different points during its development, but we actually have never taken venture capital officially per se. As it turns out, Humacyte was funded by a combination of angel investors, friends and family, and various grants both from the National Institutes of Health, but also from the Defense Department, because the Defense Department is interested in our technology. It was cobbling together angel investors, friends and family, and grants for, frankly, the first nine or ten years of the company’s existence.

Kaizen: That would take you through about ’13 or ’14 or ’15?

Niklason: Yes, about 2015. We had our first really substantive external raise of capital in 2015, after the company had been in existence for ten years.

Kaizen: Wow! That’s still research and solving all the blocking and tackling and other science issues that crop up.

Niklason: Well, yes. The way Humacyte was developed is we basically spent the first two or three years developing robust methods to culture human arteries from human cells in the laboratory. The additional twist that we added was that after we cultured the arteries from human cells, we developed a way to treat the tissues and essentially wash the cells out of the tissue that we had grown in the lab. The reason we did that is because by removing the cells, we made the tissue non-immunogenic, which means that we could take the tissue and implant it into person A, B, C, or D.

Kaizen: It’d be a more generic tissue.

Niklason: Yes. It was a generic, universal donor tissue, and we expected that patients would not reject this tissue. It became a tissue that we could generate in the lab and then we could ship anywhere, and it could be implanted into any patient at any time without fear of rejection. That really became our product. We spent three or four years developing that.

Kaizen: At the same you were starting the company, you were making a transition from Duke to Yale University. How did that come about?

Niklason: That was by accident. I spun out the company in January of 2005. A few months later, I was asked to go up to Yale to give a seminar. Professors are asked to give seminars at different universities all the time. I went up to give a seminar and was really struck by the quality of the intellectual environment and the clinical environment. By late 2005, I had signed a contract to move from Duke to Yale. I got wooed away very shortly after I started the company. Note to self: do not start a company and then immediately move away, all you future entrepreneurs. That is not a life lesson that I would repeat.

Kaizen: Well, how portable is your company? It’s based in North Carolina, but you have people working there with families and so forth.

Niklason: About a year or two after I went to Yale, we looked very seriously at moving the company to New Haven, Connecticut. We went so far as to sign a lease on some new space in New Haven.

At that time, the company was only five, six, seven people, and the key people would have moved. The problem was their spouses because their spouses couldn’t find jobs in the New Haven area. I would have lost a high fraction of my key people in my then tiny company, so I decided not to do that. We backed away from that. That means that for the last twelve years now, I’ve been flying from New York to Raleigh almost once a week.

Kaizen: That’s quite a commute.

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: What is the business work when you are a faculty at Yale, but you’re also running a business, and there’s obviously a strong overlap in the research and funding issues and so forth. How is all that sorted out?

Niklason: There are several aspects to that. As a professor, it’s true of Yale and it’s true of many universities, tenure-track professors are allowed to carve out up to 20% of their time to function as consultants with outside entities. My official title at my company is as consultant or founder. I’m not an officer of the company. I have no people at the company directly reporting to me. I consult for the company and advise them.

Kaizen: I see.

Niklason: I do not directly run the company per se. We have a management structure, we have a CEO who runs the company. That said, with respect to inventions and intellectual property and patents, I have to be very, very careful and I have to draw very bright lines between work that’s done at my company and work that’s done at Yale, because Yale is a nonprofit institution. Professors get fired, if it’s discovered that they’re using their NIH-funded laboratory at a nonprofit institution to generate intellectual property, which they then take for their own enrichment in their own company.

I take that very seriously. The work that gets done at my company, at Humacyte, is physically separated. It’s in North Carolina. It’s its own free-standing thing. In my laboratory at Yale, if I invent anything at Yale, by definition, according to my employment contract, Yale owns the intellectual property. Anytime I invent anything, I fill out an invention disclosure and I carry it over to the Office of Technology Transfer and they file a patent and Yale owns that patent. I’m an inventor on that patent and my students might also be inventors, but Yale owns the intellectual property.

Kaizen: Does that hold even if you wrote the grant and brought in the money for that idea?

Niklason: Absolutely.

Kaizen: Okay.

Niklason: Absolutely. Anything I do on university soil is owned by the university and/or with university resources. However, if the invention would be useful to my company, then it’s in everyone’s best interest, including Yale’s best interest, to turn around once the patent is filed, they turn 90 degrees and pick up the phone and call Humacyte and they say, “Do you want to license this patent?” Often Humacyte says yes. When that happens, Humacyte then has to pay to Yale all of the costs of prosecuting the patent, but they also pay royalty fees and milestone fees.

Kaizen: Are there standard percentages that are worked out?

Niklason: There are semi-standard percentages; however, each negotiation is independent and new because the value of different patents can vary.

Kaizen: Sure. Everybody wants as much as they can get depending on the anticipated value of that patent.

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: Around 2015 you said it was another milestone. You got more significant funding.

Niklason: Yes, we got a lot of funding. We started our clinical trials in late 2012, and…

Kaizen: This is clinical trials to work with FDA?

Niklason: We got permission from the FDA in 2012 to begin implanting our engineered blood vessels in patients and to begin testing them in patients. Our first implants into human beings was in December of 2012. We implanted a total of sixty patients in six hospitals in Europe and the US. We followed those patients for several years. It was on the basis of that data that we raised a significant round of funding in 2015.

Kaizen: The patients in Europe, is that with an eye to getting approval to market the blood vessels in Europe?

Niklason: Yes, absolutely. The initial clinical trials that we did in sixty patients were really just to establish initial function and safety, but it was not any sort of comparative trial. We just finished enrolling a large trial, which was funded in part by this $150 million that we raised in 2015. We just completed enrolling a 350-patient trial where we’re comparing our blood vessel against the plastic blood vessel made out of Teflon. This trial has been underway in six countries in thirty-eight different hospitals.

Kaizen: Wow! $150 million in funding.

Niklason: But the trial really costs $20 million or $30 million. The $150 million pays for a lot of things, but part of the $150 million goes to that trial.

Kaizen: Is that from one source or a series of sources?

Niklason: There were multiple investors who came in with the $150 million. In fact, that was from a total of about twenty-five different investors.

Kaizen: Is there a venture capital firm that puts this all together, or how does that work?

Niklason: We work with an investment banking firm who specializes in helping small private companies raise money from wealthy individuals or from hedge funds or private equity funds. With the help of this bank, this bank functioned as a yenta or as a matchmaker, we were introduced to various investors who were interested in investing in this space. The investors were from all over the world.

Kaizen: That’s in 2015. Then what’s the anticipated timeline? Now we’re substantially through 2017 until the next milestone is reached.

Niklason: Yes. Our first milestone … The $150 million actually came in two pieces, in two tranches. We got the first seventy-five in 2015. We had to largely complete enrollment of this phase three clinical trial in order to get the second half. We recently secured the second half of funding based on our enrollment of this large trial.

We now have to follow all of the patients in this large trial for at least a year. In late 2018, we’ll have an initial read on, first of all, whether our product works and whether it’s safe, I fully expect it will be, but also will have the read on whether or not our product works better than a piece of plastic and, if so, by how much.

Kaizen: That’s a year and a bit by a larger number of patients, the initial sixty. How many patients are we talking about now?

Niklason: The total trial that we just completed enrollment in is 350 patients. Half of those patients got plastic that’s already on the market and half of those patients got our blood vessels.

Kaizen: Now this is to satisfy investors and your own personal goals. There’s also the regulatory agencies in the US and Europe. What’s the anticipated timeline for them, supposing you get the results you want by the end of 2018?

Niklason: When you design a trial like this, it’s always in very close cooperation with the FDA, and we also work closely with the European regulators, because you want to get some assurance from the FDA that if you complete the trial and spend the $30 million to do this, once you have your answer two or three years later, you would hope that if the data is good, the FDA would view the data as sufficiently strong so that they could give you approval based on that data. The trial was designed absolutely working in lockstep with the regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.

We’ll get results in late 2018. We’ll then have to do some filings with the regulators and hope to get approval in late ’19.

Kaizen: Then that means going into production in ’20?

Niklason: We will be in production in 2019, gearing up for an anticipated approval.

Kaizen: The math almost works perfectly then, if you started around 1995 down this road, twenty-five years later, finally, you have a marketable product.

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: Okay, wonderful.

Niklason: Yes, a big chunk of your adult life.

Kaizen: Yes, that is substantial. Then there are issues of scaling up in mass production, hopefully. It’s one thing to do things in the lab and then with even a few hundred patients working with industrial engineers who specialize in this. What was that process like?

Niklason: The process of scaling and making something very, very rigorous and reproducible and very highly documented is an almost orthogonal skill set compared to the research and discovery and pilot-scale processes that I’ve done as a university researcher. I can tell you that it takes absolutely a team of people who have been working in manufacturing and in pharmaceuticals for many years, and I can tell you that we’ve been working on the science and the engineering of scaling up our process for the last five or six years, and we’ve still got another two years of really intensive work ahead of us to be ready in 2019.

As with all cutting-edge drugs or biologic treatments, or even new complex medical devices, the scale up, and the reliable, consistent scale up, is one of the hardest pieces of the puzzle. It’s always much harder than people anticipate. It just takes a long time to get it right.

Kaizen: You mentioned when you started Humacyte, it was you and a few people who you took out of your lab at Duke.

Niklason: At Duke, yes.

Kaizen: On the Humacyte side, how many people are officially with the company?

Niklason: Ninety-five.

Kaizen: Ninety-five in your labs at Yale?

Niklason: Twenty.

Kaizen: That’s a total of 115 people that you work with?

Niklason: Yes, it’s a lot of people.

Kaizen: It sure is. You’re still back and forth significantly between Raleigh and Yale?

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: This might not be a fair question, but if you’re anticipating, say 2020, things would be in operation, are you thinking about what you will work on next or what you will be doing in those years?

Niklason: Well, I mean the beauty of being able to have one foot in academia and one foot in the private sector is that I’ve been able to maintain my research interests and my new R&D interests in my Yale lab all along. I’ve actually been commenting to several people, in my academic life, my research work is probably as exciting right now as it’s ever been. We have four or five projects that we’re working on in my lab at Yale that I’m very excited about. Only one or two are related to engineered blood vessels, most of them are on completely different topics, but they’re very exciting and compelling to me.

I’m also very fortunate now that I happen to have a really good team working for me. We’ve got great ideas and I’ve got great people. It doesn’t get a lot better than that. We’re working on cell therapies for lung disease, we’re working on cell therapies for diabetes. We’re working on engineering a new trachea, a new wind pipe.

Kaizen: Wow!

Niklason: I even have one project, it’s a crazy project that I’ve been working on for a number of years now, but trying to find molecules that might slow down cellular aging. It’s a very, very exciting time.

Kaizen: Wow!

Niklason: I will have no shortage of things to do.

Kaizen: That’s great.

Niklason: Yes.

Kaizen: We’ll get more philosophical about your career as a scientist. Looking back over the years, obviously a lot of knowledge, a lot of intelligence goes into being a successful scientist, things like perseverance or a question of the courage to be able to ask new questions or a willingness to fail a number of times and come back. Are there character things that stand out for you as essential to becoming successful in the sciences?

Niklason: I think success in the sciences is related to success in entrepreneurship. They’re not the same thing, but they do have some similarities. If I look at the similar qualities that bridge both, I would say they fall into three categories. The first is optimism, and I started with that earlier.

I think if you’re going to start a company or if you’re going to start research in a new area that nobody understands at all, you have to be imbued with some level of optimism that you’re going to find something that works or you’re going to figure out something positive, and it’s not all going to be a failure. One thing that people say about working in scientific research labs is that you have good days and bad months.

Kaizen: That a new one to me.

Niklason: That’s about the ratio. That’s about the ratio. If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research. There’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t work. The only people who can stick with that ratio are people who are inherently optimistic that they’re going to get to a good outcome eventually. I think optimism is really fundamental.

Kaizen: That drives the perseverance.

Niklason: That drives the perseverance. That’s a part of the perseverance, yes, but going along with that, the optimism and the perseverance have to be coupled with realism, and that’s at least as important as the other two things, because being mindlessly optimistic doesn’t actually get you there. You have to temper your optimism with an unflinching willingness to look at the data in front of you and to interpret that in a clear-eyed fashion and to believe what nature is telling you and not have your optimism or your preconceived notions impinge on that and skew your view of what’s real.

Kaizen: A ruthless objectivity has to work with that optimism.

Niklason: Those two can exist in the same head more easily than one might think, but having them both there all the time is very important.

Kaizen: On that clear-eyed look at the data, we do know there’s a temptation among many scientists, they want to get the publication, they want to get the grant to fudge things or to set things aside, especially if you’ve been having a bad month, so to speak. How do you deal with those moments when they come up?

Niklason: I think it’s more of a temptation for people who are younger and who are more insecure and more desperate. The concept of scientists making up data and falsifying results, I’m sure that happens. I think that doesn’t happen very often.

What happens far, far, far more often is what I was referring to earlier, is a bias or a fervent belief that your theory is what’s operative in the universe. If you do six experiments and five of them “fail” because they didn’t give you the answer you were expecting, mentally you feel comfortable with throwing out those five results and publishing the sixth. Is that forgery and dishonesty and lying? Not quite …

Kaizen: Right.

Niklason: But it’s getting carried away with your own belief system, but what it leads to is the same thing. What it leads to is the fact that a very high fraction of publications out there cannot be repeated by independent laboratories.

Kaizen: You get built-in confirmation bias.

Niklason: Yes, it’s more confirmation bias than it is outright lying.

Kaizen: How about issues of social pressures? In many cases, you have to raise the questions that are new, and sometimes those can challenge existing big names in the field, sometimes it can challenge the general public notions of stem cells or various sorts of things. Did you run into those social pressures?

Niklason: Sure. I mean, interestingly, different scientific fields have different subcultures and different levels of social pressure. It’s remarkable. The social pressure in the vascular engineering space is actually not that high. There’s tremendous competition among scientists, but the social pressure to just conform to one intellectual view of the universe is not that high. In contrast, in some areas of lung biology, the social pressure to conform to a particular view of the universe is incredibly high. It can be incredibly difficult to publish in that area if your results conflict with the current dictum.

Kaizen: That’s by the leading editors or the main researchers in the field or the big names?

Niklason: The big researchers in the field who drive scientific opinion.

Kaizen: Okay.

Niklason: I’ve often had to … Not water down my results. I’ve had to underplay results that conflict with what people want to believe and want to read. I’ve had to take publication in much, much lower quality journals than I would otherwise have chosen or been able to publish because my results don’t conform with what people want to see out there.

Kaizen: Many young people who are interested in the sciences don’t necessarily think of themselves as entrepreneurs or even have a realistic sense of the business end of writing grants and managing people and managing money and so forth. Is there advice you would give to younger people who are in the sciences and they’re attracted to the sciences because they love science, but to be aware that they might very realistically be business professionals and/or entrepreneurs at some point in their career, especially in hot fields like biotech?

Niklason: I think that, again, there’s two parts to the answer to that question. Running any scientific laboratory, whether it’s in the private sector or in the university, involves two things that people don’t think of all the time with science. It involves managing people and getting teams of people to work on the experiments that you want to see done. It also involves writing so that you can tell people about what you did and so that you can raise money to do more of what you’re doing.

Kaizen: That’s a kind of salesmanship there.

Niklason: It’s salesmanship and telling a very clear and compelling story to a diverse audience, even a scientifically diverse audience. Management and writing are two things without which, at a minimum, you must become a compelling writer. If you’re not a compelling writer, you will fail as a scientist no matter where you are, full stop.

Kaizen: That will be a surprise, I think, to many of them.

Niklason: Yes. It takes time to become a compelling writer, and it’s painful. It’s like what Benjamin Franklin used to say about the amount of pain and suffering it took him in order to become a good writer and about how he had to write every day. There was no getting around it.

Kaizen: Yes, he’s right.

Niklason: Young scientists need to learn that even though writing is almost universally painful for them, because if they were verbal, they wouldn’t be in the laboratory. They have to learn that that’s really important, but also managing people is very important, and that’s a soft skill.

I tell people I think there are born leaders. I think it’s possible to be a born leader. There are very few born managers. There’s a few, but not many. Most people learn how to manage. It’s an acquired skill, and watching how other people do it and learning how to speak directly with people, but also to speak with them in a way that’s acknowledging what their motivations are. Being both direct and directive but also sympathetic, that takes time and maturity, but it’s critical to running your own operation.

Kaizen: Looking back on your own college education, is there anything you would have done differently with an eye to the writing skills, the people management skills on top of the science that you needed to learn that’s indirectly …

Niklason: I probably would have written more. I wrote as little as I humanly could in college. I took my one writing course, and I hated it. I got through it. It was fine. I probably would have written more. As far as being a manager, I’m not sure that’s something that a young person at that age should really focus on because, frankly, I think you’re still busy becoming your own person. I think in order to manage well, you have to know who you are first.

Kaizen: That’s nice. A huge amount of it is going to be just having a lot of social interactions. That’s not going to happen until you’re in a professional environment.

Niklason: Until you’re later and older.

Kaizen: Fair enough. Was there any advice from a mentor when you were younger that has stuck with you over the years?

Niklason: One thing is one mentor who really shaped what I’m doing said to me … He said basically all the easy stuff has been done. If you want to have a really satisfying career and if you want to do something that matters, then pick a big, important problem and spend ten or fifteen years and solve it. I took that very much to heart, and that’s exactly how I lived my professional life since that time.

Kaizen: Wonderful. Think big and be ambitious.

Niklason: Yes, and do not expect to be Mark Zuckerberg. Do not expect to become a billionaire in thirty-six months because that’s really not how it works 99.999% of the time.

Kaizen: Right. It might be twenty-five years.

Niklason: Yes, or more.

Kaizen: Yes, absolutely. Why don’t we stop there? Because that’s actually a really good ending point with that.

Niklason: Okay.

Kaizen: Great.That’s a lot of good stuff.

Niklason: Good. I’m glad.


This interview was conducted for Kaizen by Stephen Hicks. for more information on Laura Niklason and Humacyte, visit their website.

More Kaizen interviews with leading entrepreneurs are here at our site.

Interview with Krzysztof Jurek on Entrepreneurship in Poland

Thursday, December 14th, 2017

[This is the full interview with Krzysztof Jurek which was published in our Kaizen newsletter.]

Krzysztof Jurek on Entrepreneurship in Poland

Krzysztof Jurek is CEO of Logon SA, Logonet, Ltd. and LED Lighting Poland, as well as the President of the Bydgoszcz IT cluster, an association of IT companies and universities in central Poland. He’s also a board member of Pracodawcy Pomorza i Kujaw, a local employers’ union with 270 entities and is actively involved with Faith and Light.

Kaizen: Where were you raised?

Jurek: I was born in Bydgoszcz, Poland in the 1960s. When I was in school, it became pretty clear to my family that I had a thing for science, mathematics, physics, and playing chess with my grandmother’s brother who would reminisce about the war. These were the things I enjoyed. I would also dismantle things and put them back together.

I studied electronics in high school. It was also at that time that I learned to really be with people and became more open. It was mainly related to youth religious communities (the Oasis Movement).

In the years 1980-1986, I studied engineering at the University of Gdańsk. I was engaged in charity work at the same time. After my graduation I decided that I would like to do something that would combine my interests and allow me to do some good. This is why I applied to medical university.

Kaizen: When you were a child did you expect to be an entrepreneur?

Jurek: Definitely not. I didn’t think about entrepreneurship during my childhood, and I didn’t think about it even after I started working as an employee. I thought about finding an interesting job and devoting myself to other social activities.

Besides, there weren’t many private companies in Poland at that time. Small farmers, gardeners, and craftsman were the only entrepreneurs. I didn’t even think that I could become some kind of manager. My idea of a career was to work as an engineer on the technical side of things. However, everyday reality in communist Poland was, to some extent, a preparation course for being an entrepreneur. People had to make so many things on their own with very limited access to materials. It allowed them to develop creativity and independence.

I spent my childhood in communist Poland. What it meant for us was that our country remained under the Soviet Union’s control, and because of that freedom, private property, and enterprise were virtually nonexistent. There was no free speech, and you weren’t allowed to say what you thought. However, 1980, which is when I was in college, brought about some big changes. It was a big spring in Poland with the great Solidarity movement and the victory without violence. There were strikes, but there was no talk about free enterprise yet. Civil rights and freedom were often mentioned during these protests. Unfortunately, martial law was introduced in 1981, and the Communist regime stopped all of that. The Polish economy really struggled until 1989. In 1988, the government had introduced “Wilczek’s law,” which included business-friendly regulation. The Polish Round Table talks and negotiations between the Communists and the opposition, which had the support of the nation’s population, radically changed everything. That year Poland got to partially free elections.

Kaizen: Why did you decide to become an entrepreneur instead of working in an already established company?

Jurek: I like challenges, and entrepreneurship allows me to be creative and independent. Also, I find it easier to devote more of my time to work when I know that I work for myself.

On the other hand, I have to deal with high risk and responsibility, and you can’t just quit when things go wrong.

Kaizen: When did you start?

Jurek: We founded our company in 1991.

Kaizen: How did you make your first steps?

Jurek: After I graduated from college I went to a medical university, and I was able to organize a little IT cell there. In the meantime, Poland had changed and people were finally able to found their own companies. My friends from university had an idea, and they talked me into going into business with them. What convinced me was that I knew this industry very well. They just wanted to try this new thing, but I really got into it and tried to solve problems as well as I could. After a while I quit my job at the university.

My partners decided to keep their jobs, so I bought their shares.

Kaizen: What is the importance of business planning?

Jurek: When we were starting out we didn’t have any specific plans. We just knew that we would do something related to IT. We thought, let’s try to do something, and we will see how things go. After all, there is little risk here.

Even after all this time I am still a bad role model when it comes to planning things out. I am self-taught, which means that over time I developed a certain system that allows me to verify my plans and adapt to the current situation. I think it might result from the nature of the IT industry, as it is changing all the time. Very often, I use simple cost-and-risk planning as a substitute for more comprehensive blueprints. It is close to agile project management.

Kaizen: How much research and planning did you do?

Jurek: There was no need for research and planning when we were starting out. We didn’t even know what an entrepreneur really does, so we had to learn everything from the scratch; bureaucracy, law—we were finding out about these things step by step. Our first tax audit was very enlightening.

That being said, so many things are based on intuition and using common sense to create new rules. Even these days I try to make some kind of first step or a test before every major project.

Kaizen: How did you raise the initial money?

Jurek: It was all bootstrapped from the start. I had a job at my university that paid a modest salary and supported us for a short while.

We saved as much capital as we could, and after some time banks introduced reasonably priced loans.

There were a few merger or buyout proposals in the meantime, but none of them materialized. I have always been very cautious about going public, as it would mean taking responsibility for investors’ money.

Kaizen: How important is belief in yourself and your product?

Jurek: It really helps. Customers and business partners want to work with someone who is convinced about his or her product. But when this conviction is not real and made up just for marketing purposes, it might have an opposite outcome.

Kaizen: About salesmanship—how do you get past the awkwardness?

Jurek: Not everyone is a salesman, but it is a very useful skillset. Putting yourself in the customers’ shoes and putting in a genuine effort to solve their problems might be really helpful. You have to understand their needs, and when you are competitive and have fun solving these problems it is even better.

There are so many things that you just can’t learn from a lecture. Some corporations undergo sales training where salesman are taught that it is good to be honest, fair, and to respect your customer, but at the same time people who clean their offices are treated like objects. In my company, both my employees and I say good morning to cleaning ladies.

Kaizen: What has been your biggest challenge and how did you overcome it?

Jurek: Finding a balance between my professional and private life. Passion requires great commitments, and it is important not to ignore uneasiness that arises when you neglect your family. It is in these moments when you have to fix things and compensate for it.

Kaizen: How do you recover from setbacks?

Jurek: This is touching a little bit on psychology and psychological resistance. What works for me is to distance myself from the materialistic side of things and to try to patch things up when I have done something wrong. Sometimes you just have to let things happen their own way. That being said, I found that often setbacks are what motivates me and helps me focus on my work.

Kaizen: How do you maintain your optimism when times are tough or you’re facing disappointments?

Jurek: You need something apart from your company. Something that gives you a strong foundation in these changing times. For me this is my family and my faith. Moreover, I am fortunate to have people in my company that I can depend on. Also, going to work on a bicycle throughout the year, in all weather, has been one of my small pleasures.

Kaizen: How important is the value of perseverance?

Jurek: Perseverance is very important. Every project is bound to encounter problems, and only by tackling them are we able to move forward. My colleagues often come to me with different ideas. Regardless of whether are we pursuing them or not they just keep coming in with new ideas. This is when I tell them, “Let’s do something; let’s focus on execution. We won’t achieve anything by simply thinking about new ideas. We need to take action and be persistent.”

Kaizen: Not all successful entrepreneurs are also able to manage larger businesses. What additional or supplemental skills do you see as necessary?

Jurek: It is very common among small business owners to treat a company as if it was their wallet. It is important to distinguish between your assets and your company’s assets. Even when you own your business, you need to set some boundaries.

Of course, you also need the ability to delegate work, cooperate, and define rules that are clear for everyone.

Kaizen: What about the temptation to compromise?

Jurek: I am not a guy who sets tough goals and tries to achieve them at any cost. I like to have fun doing what I do. It is style that is more important to me. This approach also provides challenges. It would be a compromise to give someone a bribe. It would be taking an easy way, doing something I do not enjoy. I think it is far better to be uncompromising.

Kaizen: How do you think about your role as a leader?

Jurek: Even when, in theory, you decide to take a teamwork route, it is easier when there are leaders around. Sometimes I would prefer to avoid it, but there is a need for a certain hierarchy. On the other hand, mature leadership means pulling back at the right moment and letting others develop.

You can build your authority in many different ways, from a position of strength, your competence, or relationships.

Leadership should be natural. What I mean by that is working together with your team, not running away from problems, and being an example of commitment. When it comes to me, I try to understand most of the processes that go on in my company, all the way from accounting to technical solutions.

Kaizen: What is your greatest reward your business accomplishments have brought you?

Jurek: You can perceive my company as a kind of tangible creation, which you can either be happy about or be dissatisfied that it has not developed more.

In 2016, a regional newspaper chose me as the manager of the year in the voivodeship. I really like what I do even though I have to deal with very serious problems. On the one hand I appreciate huge independence, but on the other hand I must deal with the consequences.

Kaizen: How have you managed to fit or balance your career goals with other life goals, e.g., relationships and family?

Jurek: Eventually I managed to find a balance, although it was not always easy. I regret a lot of moments, especially when the children were little and I was consumed by the company. There were times when I had to send a replacement to school when the parents’ presence was required because I was busy with a meeting or an official trip.

We have five children. I feel happy about them, and I am also connected with my family. My wife was at the same time understanding and fighting for my time for the family. She was not giving up. For a long time we were leading a support group for mentally ill. Someone could say that it was just a waste of time, but for us it was a source of experiences which gave us perspective on ourselves and the work. It can be said that those experiences helped us to get through.

Kaizen: Are there special challenges for entrepreneurship in Poland?

Jurek: In a lot of industries, the domestic market is so big that we don’t have to think about exports even though we should. We manufacture many products which are sold under foreign brands. We could really use more Polish brands. The location of Poland gives us a lot of opportunities. We also have well-educated youth. What is more, people are hard-working.

Kaizen: Now that Poland is much more open, how has its relation to western Europe changed?

Jurek: Many years ago, when Poles went to Germany they admired the houses in small towns—so tidy and trim. Today we have more beautiful ones in our country. We do not need anything but more freedom and equal opportunities. Poles, in the majority, are hard working and very flexible. We can adapt to a new environment very quickly.

Our first governments in the nineties got excited about the idea of a liberal market but opened the unprepared market too fast. Thus, our banks were quickly taken over by foreign banks. Foreign supermarkets were opened, where foreign products are warmly welcomed while our regional products were not. Freeing Polish enterprises from our government’s influence came with selling our national telecommunications monopolist to co-partnership France Telecom, controlled by the French Government.

Our apparent free market isn’t entirely free. When selling Polish products to Germany or France one encounters many difficulties. In the industries that we are very good at there are many restrictions. In other industrial branches, we are colonized.

Despite having a common market, western markets are more protected than ours.

Kaizen: Is it overall a positive?

Jurek: There are more advantages of this opening than drawbacks, but it could have been done better.

Nevertheless, we are happy to be a part of Europe, as we have many relationships and economic connections. Finally, we have a normal, humane relationship with the Germans! We can travel freely. In winter, on Italian or Austrian slopes, Poles are often the most numerous foreign group.

Also, Poland is the sixth largest European country by population and has the fourth largest number of students (after Germany, France, and Italy), so we have much potential.

Kaizen: What do you think of Poland’s relation to Russia and the east, given the long, complicated history there?

Jurek: Many people from Ukraine live, work, or study in my city. Poland supported the independence of Ukraine, and we paid for that through the nose. We produce excellent food, but in Russia its harmfulness was immediately descried. As a result, we were forbidden to export. We suffered huge losses but we can handle it. For example, colleagues who produce apples found new trade areas in Arabic countries.

When on the 9th of June, 2006, Poles bought a refinery in Lithuania, Russians, who also felt inclined to buy it, were trying to make us back out of it. On the 26th of July they announced a failure of a pipeline delivering the raw material, and for ten years nothing can be fixed. In the meantime, they have built a new pipeline with Germany through the Baltic Sea, and that enabled the attack on Ukraine.

Personally, I don’t have much experience with Russia. My colleagues are trading with them. Lately on a congress I engaged myself in a conversation with a Russian. At the beginning it was quite interesting, but when we were discussing freedom of speech and information in Russia he started to divagate about different countenances of truth.

In contacts with Russians, Poles are torn. We do understand Russia and their history. We have a lot in common, and we also like them. But at the same time, we regret their attitude towards hypocrisy and obvious propaganda, which they acknowledge as their own opinion. Such phenomena are present all over the world, even in Poland, but in Russia they seem to be escalated. Thus, we have ups and downs, but we also are able to do business with each other independently from the governments’ help. The development of contacts with Belarus is also noticeable.

Kaizen: Does increasing globalization present more opportunities or more challenges for Poland?

Jurek: Globalization means that we use the same technology, watch the same movies, and we have similar knowledge and opportunities.

Once I was going by ferry from Sweden to Estonia. I looked at a window, and I saw the letters “Bohamet.” It turns out my client, who is almost a neighbor, is the world’s leader in ship’s window production. There is a well-developed industry of plastics in my city. Many plastic elements in cars all over the world are manufactured here. These are examples of taking advantage of the opportunities. There are a lot of such examples of taking part in global technologies.

Friends of my children work in the big Intel development center in Gdańsk. Here in Bydgoszcz, almost one thousand people work for Nokia (formerly Lucent).

At the same time, the quick access to all information provided by globalization can also paralyze development. Whenever you create something or figure something out, you check on the internet and find that somebody has already done it. You lose your motivation to try and to gain new experiences.

Kaizen: What projects are you working on next?

Jurek: In my city, Bydgoszcz, IT companies ensure about seven thousand workplaces. We succeeded in creating a cluster of companies, that is, an association of companies cooperating with each other of which I am the chairman. Lately, we boosted our cooperation with universities to increase IT specialists’ education. The project is based on the cooperation of two universities and businesses.

Kaizen: What do you think is the role of passion and dreams in entrepreneurship?

Jurek: Creating anything requires a lot of work and energy from the creator. Passion and dreams are very good sources of energy. These factors let us accomplish more than it could be expected during the phase of creation. However, passion is not only assigned to entrepreneurs. Earlier, when I was designing computer programs, I was equally engaged.

Kaizen: What is the best advice you’ve been given?

In the first years of my company, during a bad economic situation, a partner from China visited us. He pointed out that the economic situation will not last eternally and that it is the natural sine wave; sometimes it is better and sometimes it is not. Here is his advice: Even if the business goes perfectly, get ready for worse times.

Kaizen: What is the most important piece of advice you would give to new entrepreneurs?

Jurek: Other people’s advice can be heard but is rarely taken, especially when you become independent. For fresh entrepreneurs, maybe this: Adjust consumption not to one’s needs and whims but to the possibilities of making money. If I see a new entrepreneur who starts his or her activity with buying a luxury car on account, I keep a great distance. I encourage young people to collect various life experiences and to be active both professionally and extra-professionally.


This interview was conducted for Kaizen by Stephen Hicks. For more information about Mr. Jurek and Logon, please visit the company’s website© 2017.

More Kaizen interviews with leading entrepreneurs are here at our site.

Kaizen 33: Krzysztof Jurek and Laura Niklason

Thursday, December 14th, 2017

The latest issue of Kaizen [pdf] features our interview with Krzysztof Jurek on the theme of Entrepreneurship in Poland as well as our interview with Laura Niklason on the theme of Entrepreneurial Biotechnology.

Also featured in this issue of Kaizen are guest speakers Gregory Sadler, Chip Hessenflow, and Zach Meiborg, as well as our Entrepreneurial Education conference.

Print copies of Kaizen are in the mail to CEE’s supporters and are available at Rockford University. Our next issue will feature an interview with Federico Zorraquin on the theme of Entrepreneurship in Argentina.

More Kaizen interviews with leading entrepreneurs are here at our site.