Bill Wicksteed, of consultancy group, SQW Limited in the UK writes: ‘Many thanks for keeping me on your circulation – it’s much appreciated. Although it may be that you feel too much is heard about Cambridge UK I thought you and your members might find interest in the attached paper/talk that I gave on networking earlier this year’. Extract follows.
When the Cambridge cluster started to evolve significantly, some 40 years ago, there was considerable pride in the ‘networking’ culture with individuals from different spheres of the City’s life. Individuals are always important when change is afoot. Key roles in the Cambridge cluster were played by:
§ the distinguished scientist, Sir Neville Mott. His 1968 report argued that Cambridge University would benefit from development of science-based industry around the City and encouraging academics to develop links with it. At that time this was by no means a self-evident truth.
§ two young bankers, Matthew Bullock and Walter Herriot, who persuaded Barclays Bank to take a strangely imaginative view of firms’ financial needs.
§ the senior administrator of the wealthiest Cambridge College, Dr John Bradfield, who took the bold step of establishing England’s first science park.
§ successive Vice Chancellors who enabled researchers to establish spin outs.
Cambridge Network Limited (www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk) was established in 1998 – members guide its forward development (and pay £5,000 per year) – major local firms, finance, other service providers, Cambridge City Council, plus ‘outsiders’ too e.g. London Stock Exchange, BTexact and Cranfield University.
Much of the Cambridge success is very context specific. Cambridge is a rather special place with a very distinctive history and structure, but three observations emerge that are worthy of wider consideration:
1. The importance of key individuals who act as networking ‘nodes’ or ‘animators’.
2. People-to-people interchanges are vital for effective networking (see, smell, touch and then trust).
3. Modern communications technologies can play a rich complementary role. But, for most people, the potential to enhance competitiveness is not a sufficient motivation for active networking and my final point relates to parties.
Cambridge is a good place for parties and many of them are hosted by the major firms of accountants and lawyers that are now in the city. The value of serendipitous exchanges that occur at such gatherings should not be under-rated. Through providing unstructured opportunities to see smell and touch they are vital ingredients in building trust – and, equally important, alloying business duties with a little fun.
Contact Bill at wwicksteed@sqw.co.uk for the full paper.
