That’s a question that comes up a lot. I have faced it many times as have other BD folks I know. The most common answer that I have heard from people is that BD is “sales with a fancier title.” That is actually the case for some organizations but as a lot of people who have worked with BD folks and are BD folks themselves know BD can mean much more.

My post the other day elicited a reaction from Steve Shu where he pointed out the “definition issue” that BD faces. Steve even wrote a blog post about it back in October. Steve lists a number of business development definitions he has heard over the years and I have heard most of them as well. More importantly, Steve also shares his definition of Business Development:

The role of business development is to find new strategic opportunities for the company and start the company on the path to execute (incubation).

Steve’s definition is a good one. However, it also highlights why there are so many different ideas of what BD is and what BD people do. You can execute on Steve’s definition by partnering, generating new sales prospects, working on M&A, etc.  It strikes me that the best approach may be to design a broad framework to encompass Steve’s definition of BD while also including sub-frameworks that hit each “flavor” of BD including:

• Partnership development
• Strategic market development and sales
• Strategic marketing
• Mergers, acquisitions, and financing
• New business line exploration
• Channel sales
• New product development

Again, as I continue to flesh this out I would appreciate feedback from any practitioners out there that have something to add. Together I think we can create a very compelling framework for BD practitioners.

Chatter in the media about Chicago’s status as a technology hub seems to be growing. In the last few weeks I have been quoted in a couple articles on the topic. The first was a Medill article by Melissa Aparicio that looked at some of the policy issues in the state focused on technology growth. The second was a piece in the Tribune by Wailin Wong that focused on the possibility that Motorola may move their handset division to the west coast after they split the division off in 2011 and what the move may mean for technology.

In both articles I consistently stated my thinking:

• Chicago shouldn’t try to be Silicon Valley.
• Chicago should focus on what it is good at (e.g. building companies that use technology to disrupt businesses like trucking and printing and companies that focus on online advertising, ecommerce, etc.)
• Early stage funding in Chicago is getting better but is still extremely lacking (we need family capital focused on supporting companies in the region).
• There is a lot of great development talent in Chicago but keeping them here is hard and building tech teams is equally difficult.
• What you really need to build the scene in Chicago is to have some home runs hit and then help the lieutenants from those companies start their own companies (we’re starting to see more of that now).

Chicago has a lot going for it but also has some holes that are tough to fill (since they are chicken and egg problems for the most part).

Matt McCall – my former boss and one of my mentors – has a great interview in Fast Company (source: VC Confidential) where he describes his thoughts on the technology scene in Chicago (he even mentions a study/chart on exits in the area that he and I prepared a year or so ago that shows how many billions the Midwest has generated in the past five years). I agree with him on most points but I will say that being an entrepreneur here in the earliest stages is still very hard (but not nearly impossible).

The more I think about, and research, my functional area of Business Development the more I realize that there is very little research on the topic and few, if any, compelling frameworks around how to do Business Development well (keep in mind, I am talking BD as opposed to straight sales and, yes, they are different). It strikes me that this issue may be caused by Business Development’s cross-functional nature. Business Development professionals sit in the middle of the business and work with product, engineering, finance and other functional areas while also developing relationships with folks on the outside that will help the company achieve its objectives and increase revenue. As one recent job description put it:

The Business Development manager needs to be able to pull together teams to drive and influence new ideas or resolve issues, including product, engineering, finance, legal, customers service, desktop, advertising, design, etc.

Basically, BD folks need to be able to round up and work with just about every functional area in a given business. How’s that for a purview!

On top of all that BD professionals also need to develop relationships outside the business while also maintaining a strong understanding of the ecosystem their company plays in along with tangential ecosystems that might serve as growth opportunities for the firm.

That’s a lot of stuff to have on your plate and a good framework based on thoughtful research could really help.

In the coming years I plan to talk more about BD on this site. I also hope to find collaborators who are willing to work on research and framework development with me.

As companies look to increasingly focus on their core, BD will likely become a bigger part of the growth equation for firms since it allows firms to grow into new areas while maintaining focus. I am excited to be a part of the growth of the BD profession and I hope to add to the BD knowledge base as time passes.

From EconStories.tv. Looks like the guys will make more fun economics related videos so stay tuned. You can also download an audio version of the Keynes-Hayek rap battle on the EconStories site. Yes, I have already done so.

1. U Chicago econ prof Raghuram Rajan on the future of capitalism

2. Mankiw on the growth in the monetary base and its relation to inflation fears

3. VCs are being pushed to later stage investing

4. Ways of reading

5. Jonathan Gruber on the “Cadillac Tax“

Very cool visualization by Pedro M. Cruz.

Visualizing empires decline from Pedro M Cruz on Vimeo.

David Roodman’s latest post excerpts some of Stuart Rutherford’s thoughts on microfinance and its effect on the lives of the poor. Rutherford, founder of Save Safe, skips the marketing speak and gives a more realistic take on microfinance, which I appreciate. Roodman’s summary of Rutherford’s key insights is timely considering the increased scrutiny on microfinance lately. (See my posts on Portfolios of the Poor and on some recent studies from MIT for more information on the debate.)

Rutherford’s bottom line on microfinance is especially pragmatic so I will reproduce it here:

[Microfinance is] a useful service that may not always transform poor people’s lives but rarely fails to help them.

That is probably a good context in which to look at, and judge, microfinance as an aid to the poor. For more of Rutherford’s thoughts please check out Roodman’s post. It is well worth a read for anyone interested in the efficacy of microfinance.

1. Programmer productivity and pay discrepancies

2. Higher gasoline and carbon taxes may be on the horizon (and why that’s a good thing)

1. A decade of creative destruction (pdf)

2. At least we don’t live in the dark ages

3. $5 billion (with a B) gift cards aren’t redeemed each year

4. Christmas cost 1.8% more this year

5. Why you shouldn’t buy Christmas presents (no wonder why they call it the dismal science)

6. The case against the millionaire surtax

1. David Brooks on the protocol economy

2. How a new communications technology disrupted America’s newspapers – in 1845

3. Tabarrok’s “no give, no take” policy to be implemented in Israel

4. It’s really who you know and where they are

5. EconTalk: James Hamilton on debt, default and oil

6. When socially responsible investing isn’t: the 529 plan debacle