This explains why it is very risky and unsuitable for a small fund to concentrate on a specific technology, especially if you are playing the game at a low level of technology aggregation where the displacement time is short. So many books have been written on this subject and so many articles have covered every single angle of it that I am not going to theorize on the subject. I will only add my two-cents based on my own experience and style of handling deals. Management is a vital variable but definitely not the single most important one. They are all vital.
Bad management is just as deadly as basing a venture on a faulty business plan.
The management team is a variable, not a constant, and can be altered provided that the investor has structured the deal properly. Having an incompetent CEO is not as fatal as it may seem provided that the investor is sharp enough to detect the early signs of trouble. By contrast, the technology or product-solution dimensions are fixed items, thus much harder if not impractical to modify in a deal. A venture based on a flawed technology or that is tackling an emerging market that requires an inordinate amount of technology is doomed no matter how superb the management team. The formula does not work simply because the John Doe who founded High-Tech Inc. two years ago and sold it yesterday at 100 times its initial value is not the same John Doe who sets out to start another venture today.