Tech IT Easy

August 20, 2008

What VCs and Employers have in common

risk-reward.jpgPremise: I’m in the midst of preparing a presentation for my thesis defence—practice-session this Friday, and final one on September 5th. My thesis is on how high-tech startups can bridge the equity gap, and I’m still busy every day interacting with potential employers. Love it when my hobby and my “job” work out in synergy! :)

So what do venture capitalists and employers have in common? Investing in startups and hiring employees can be tremendously fun for sure. You’re funding bright ideas and getting fresh blood into the company. But there is also a significant information asymmetry between the “Investor” and the “Investee.” Both VCs and employees use similar means to overcome that, I think.

The VC investment process
Startups have the problem that they lack a track-record and collateral. So they can’t just walk into a bank. And VCs need to find ways to deal with that. Well, technically, most VCs don’t even bother. Statistically speaking, over 80% of VC investments focus on buy-outs, i.e. established SMEs that are just changing ownership. It’s pretty easy to see whether a project is good or bad in that case, you just have the people-risk to deal with. That attitude is not surprising either, since a VC-fund is typically restricted to about 5-10 years worth of investments, while some really high-tech startups (e.g. in medicine) can take 10-15 years to get out of the red figures. For purposes of this post (and my thesis), I use venture capital as an umbrella term for entrepreneurial finance, which covers a whole ecosystem of investors.

How VCs manage risk is typically through:

  • Intense scrutiny beforehand—they analyse the business plan, the team, and possibly exchange information with other venture capitalists;
  • And intense monitoring & control during—using staged investments, spreading the risk by syndicating with other venture capitalists, taking seats on the board of directors, and by using compensation arrangements, including stock options.

You can probably see a pattern here already. Since VCs, or rather startups, don’t have the luxury of having a house or similar as collateral, nor having forecastable (just imagined) income-streams, VCs have to rely on judging quality on qualities that do exist: the business-plan, the team, and industry/market-insight. And they minimise their risk-exposure over time, by investing in chunks and making sure that priorities between them and the founders are aligned through contractual and other means.

One important thing worth mentioning is that the best way to minimise risk is to spread it across a portfolio of investments. Again, VCs tend to have this luxury, even if smaller investors (e.g. business angels and friends) do not.

The hiring process
The parallels must be obvious. Employers too have to rely on softer qualities, like CVs, grades, work-history, and all of it hopefully accurate. How employers manage risk is typically like this:

  • Erecting high barriers to entry—relevant work-experience, good grades, etc.
  • Prolonging the application process—erecting multiple hurdles, which applicants must pass.
  • Using monitoring & control tools during the employment-period

And, also spreading the risk across multiple applicants! Again, I think, the term “employers” should be qualified: there are large companies, with well-established risk-reducing (or quality-enhancing) procedures, and smaller/younger ones, with less of a history and less resources to dedicate to this.

I do think that startups can find pretty creative ways to deal with it. The primary one, which I have found here in Europe, is working with interns. I think this works pretty well for a certain segment of employees, as long as it’s combined with a proper motivational structure! The other one which I like, is encouraging entrepreneurism from the start. There is no net to catch you if you fail in a startup, and by having applicants show that they have this attitude even before they are hired, you ensure a certain alignment of priorities. Note: I think this perhaps works better for business-applicants, correct me if I’m wrong! I think it was Seth Godin that once wrote that the best way to hire a person is to just put them straight to work and see how they do. That’s your application process right there!

You can employ techniques from VC-investing after hiring someone as well: using a staged approach (which is typically an internship and/or trial-period), monitoring (in a nice way, I hope), and motivational tools. I think the one major difference between VCs and employers is that there is less “psychic distance” between the latter and their employees. VCs, while being considered active investors, can still get away with weekly or monthly contacts. Employees are exposed to the company every day, requiring a more human relationship. Just my opinion!

Regarding motivation, I like the idea of empowering employees, which I wrote about on my old blog before, and I’m also wondering in general about the effectiveness of stock-options vs. other motivational means. Certainly, considering the recent exit-unfriendly climate, people have become more sceptical about stocks. At the same time, I personally think that people work a little harder if they are working for themselves. Again, correct me if I’m wrong!

What are some creative ways to hire employees, do you think or have you experienced?

Vincent

August 19, 2008

Word-association game: vital Pro skill-sets?

Filed under: Business intelligence, Consulting, Education, Entertainment, Friends, entrepreneurship, innovation — Tags: , , — Vincent van Wylick @ 4:05 pm

Fun with words.jpgI was first going to call this “vital entrepreneurial skill-sets,” but not everyone is an entrepreneur (nor am I), so instead, let’s call it Pro, which means someone that performs well in his or her profession

The rules of the game are simple. Come up with a single important area that a professional should master in order to do their job well. And add where (s)he should get that knowledge, for example a book-title, a website, a course, or otherwise. If this is specific to your job, add what you do.

Some examples:

Skill: Deductive ability - aka to analyse facts and come to conclusions
Good place to start: read Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes

or

Skill: Delegation - aka understand the job so well, that you can “outsource” part of it with clear targets to meet.
Good place to start: read Micheal Gerber’s The E-Myth Revisited.

I’ll start

Skill: Basic accounting
Good place to start: do a course at your local chamber of commerce; they are usually cheap and you’ll meet other people that you can learn together with.

You’re next! For every suggestion, I’ll come back with one of my own. I’m hoping to make this the most commented post in Tech IT Easy ever! Ambitious, I know.

Oh, and, KEEP IT FUN! :)

Vincent

August 15, 2008

Do good products sell themselves?

This is a good question to ‘crowdscource,’ as I’m sure there’s some disagreement about it.

Products (to which I include services, for now), exist on different spectrums, of course, some of which are:

product dimensions.jpg

And all of which will to some extent affect a product’s “stand-alone sales-potential.”

The question of ‘good‘ in ‘good products,’ also begs for interpretation. A product, let’s say an iPhone, is not just its physical parameters and software, but it is the whole ecosystem around it—carriers, apps, other partners, relevance to consumer-context (e.g. work or home)—as well as factors like price, quantity, the message that communicates the product’s value, the company’s goodwill, etc.

So by a “good” product I in fact mean: good execution on the technology- and market-side. In a business-plan also, you may have presented a great product, and that will go a long way, but it’s plenty of other factors that will convince an investor.

Crossing The Chasm.jpgEven so, the best product can still meet with plenty of opposition from the mainstream-market, what Geoffrey Moore calls the “early majority” or “the pragmatists,” who:

care about the company they are buying from, the quality of the product they are buying, the infrastructure of supporting products and system interfaces, and the reliability of the service they are going to get…

Take a B2B-situation, where conventional solutions are favoured, because they have proven their worth, while new products still need to build up a reputation of not only being good, but being good continuously, something that can show its value in next year’s numbers. In a B2C-situation, decisions are made somewhat less long-term perhaps, though still much more conservatively than amongst early adopters.

Both of these can be seen catch-22 situations, where it can be argued that customers want good products, and the development of good products requires cashflow, i.e. customers. That kind of reasoning ignores that presence of early adopters and investors, however.

Entering the B2B/B2C “mainstream” is clearly also a matter of good execution, but one which is much more contextual to the consumer, and which can be affected by other non-qualitative factors also (such as politics, incentives, or competition).

So, the question stands: do good products sell themselves? Name some examples if you can.

Vincent

Related reading:

August 14, 2008

I won the lottery!!!!

Filed under: Entertainment, Friends — Tags: , , , , — Vincent van Wylick @ 8:45 am

lottery.jpgOK, see you later suckers! I just got this mail (bold parts added by myself) and I’m outta here!

ATTENTION: WINNER

This is to inform you that you have been selected
for a cash prize of €850,000.000.00
(Eight Hundred & Fifty Thousand
Euros Only) in our promoting program held on the 14th of Aug,2008/ The
selection process was carried out through random-selection in Our
computerized email selection system (ess) from a database of over
95,000 e-mail addresses drawn, were selected globally
( Email-
award/Postcodesloterij nl.) .

Contact our claim department with the
below info :

Name: Mr. Van Der Wal (AD)
Claims-Office/Email:
geldkantor@gmail.com
Tell: +31-68-144-8820

REF NO: NL/44267998/5110
BATCH NO: NL/9922/0855

This program is organize to promote our
Postcodesloterij award yearly, also we are very skeptical due to
unsolicited/Spam mails on the net this days, that is why the claim
process is being handled by our (advocate).

Also you are advice to
forward your batch number and ref number to the claim department for
claim process

Sincerely Yours,

Email:Cheers,
Mrs.Samantha De Witt
THE
PROMOTION COORDINATOR

They didn’t mention my name, nor did I ever play the lottery, but I feel so honoured for having been selected. It also wasn’t recognised as spam, so it must be real!!!

Booking my world-trip now…
Vincent

P.S. If you want to win the lottery too, here is the IP which this mail originated from 87.210.73.31 and the mail-adress: lupimarsicani@virgilio.it.

August 12, 2008

Were my Sennheiser headphones “made to break?”

Made to Break - Giles Slade-1.jpgI wanted to write a brief follow-up to my Eulogy from a few weeks ago. To recap: my Sennheiser PX 200 headphones died for a second time, not because anything was wrong with their original purpose—to produce great sound—but because a more marginal feature failed: the wires, that connect my mp3-player to the speakers.

I have decided that headphones, especially the more expensive kind, are a big rip-off, because, while the sound may be better per euro/dollar spent, the wires are pretty much identical with whatever model you buy. And it’s the wires that fail 95% of the time, not the USP with which headphones are usually advertised: better sound.

In my opinion, there are three solutions for this problem:

  1. consumers buy cheaper headphones and forget about the sound;
  2. manufacturers make unbreakable wires or go wireless;
  3. manufactures make wires modular.

I thought of the latter, remembering an interview, I heard years ago, with Giles Slade, author of the book “Made to break,” and believer in a great conspiracy: that, ever since the industrial economy took off, manufacturers have create products that were designed to break, because the alternative—a perfectly replaceable modular system—would diminish their profit-potential. The consequence of this philosophy is that, instead of throwing away failing components, we are forced to throw away the whole thing—whatever it is—resulting in great, big thrash-heaps all over the world. The consequence is a higher cost for the environment and for consumers.

The manufacturers’ perspective kind of makes sense. If you look at two computer-companies, IBM and Apple, the one that opened up its technology to be replaceable, was the one who is no longer a computer-company today: IBM. And those technologies that have decided to go modular—razor-blades, printer-cartridges, the iPod-ecosystem—have done so in a way that it is become monetarily painful to replace any part of that technological system. On the other hand, smart companies like Dell have proven that modularity can also create opportunities, but for assemblers more than manufacturers.

Taking it back to headphones, I (egotistically) maintain that a non-modular stance does not apply for the case of wires—though there may be arguments regarding portability. Rather, wires have long been modular for pretty much any application, ranging from mere electrical plugs to the wires that you hook up to your stereo-system. While the quality of wiring plays a real role in the quality of sound, the ultimate value that is attributed to a speaker-brand, is in the quality of the speakers themselves. Sennheiser would lose little by making wires replaceable; rather it would avoid potential PR-scandals and expensive warranty-problems.

This is of course assuming that Sennheiser isn’t one of those companies, whose products are “made to break.”

Vincent

August 8, 2008

Inflection points - The greatest fear of an academic, & I guess authors & startups too

strategic inflection points.jpgI’ve been studying up on different technology-sectors these last few weeks, also picking up on a book that *is supposed to* give an accurate image of the current state of mobile commerce (it was published in 2008). Turns out that one chapter/article I read, which listed all the current technologies of relevance in that sector (GSM, Edge, “3G,” etc., as well as SMS, SAT, WAP, etc.) only lists sources up to 2002. And the same applies to several value chains in mobile commerce, most of which were up to the early 2000s also.

Back when I was an academic, i.e. writing a thesis, the underlying fear was always that my information was outdated. Indeed, just at the time that I finished, a new report came out that I could’ve have integrated into my findings to give a more current picture. You also see this happening with books on gadgets, e.g. the Jailbroken iPhone, which is clearly no longer applicable now (not to mention that it was clear that that wasn’t going to be a long-term thing).

In terms of markets, people like Andy Grove taught me to always watch out for (aka be paranoid about) “strategic inflection points,” which can change things, rather radically. 6 years ago, when people were researching mobile tech, the iPhone wasn’t even on the agenda, and 4G was a pipe-dream (note: a good short article on that in the Economist). Now, the rules of the game may change much sooner than people think, and while I think that tech like SMS will remain the lowest-common denominator for some time, meaning that it allows for developing strategies that are span contexts and geographies, the mobile internet may displace part of that system pretty soon.

I imagine it’s quite similar with entrepreneurs starting on a trajectory of developing an idea, committing resources to it, and suddenly finding out that the rules of the game are changing. Sometimes it’s too late; you’re ready to launch and/or can’t afford another development cycle. And at other times, it may be smart to do the extra work after all, so that you are creating something that is actually relevant for today’s world.

What matters most for an academic is to have a solid theory that can be applied to any setting; what matters most for an entrepreneur is the same—to have a solid vision—as well as being prepared for strategic inflection points and able to respond to them quickly.

A short reflective piece on my sick-day.

Vincent

August 7, 2008

What is the frustration-cost of Windows?

Filed under: Apple, Architecture, Consumer electronics, Friends, Microsoft, Software, Technology, Vista, XP, innovation, open-source — Tags: , , , — Vincent van Wylick @ 8:48 am

BSOD.jpgLast night, I was called in to check on a friend’s Vista-PC, which kept showing blue screens of death, at sporadic moments. The error-codes were just a collection of numbers and letters, and a Google-search just revealed that it could be a ‘hardware or software problem.’

I’m not going to go into the problem here, but I’ll just say that we tried to run the Windows system restore disks, which crashed half-way through, in the midst of formatting the drive. Vista PCs have, as you know, not been sold with the actual installation-CDs, though I understand that this is a right right now and the owner will go to the store and ask for them. After which, I will install Vista (my first time), as well as all the apps she needs for her productive day.

I’m angered that things like this are still happening! Having been a Windows user since 3.1, the only version that I’ve never had problems with was 2000, and XP now runs fairly good too. Vista, I’ve never tried, but I understand there were some driver-related problems, much like the 64-bit version of XP.

Typically, diagnosing and repairing a system like my friends will cost several hundred euros, if not more. And that is… if the store actually knew what it was doing! The error-codes, as mentioned, don’t point to a specific problem, and they previously suggested replacing the hard-drive, which she did and which didn’t fix the problem. Right now, the way I see it, I’m going to be installing a new Vista on it, the drivers, and the software. I’ll see if that holds. If it doesn’t, I’ll assume it’s a hardware-problem, and one piece of hardware will have to be removed after the other, to diagnose the cause.

Total time used to fix: 1 hour last night, 2 hours Vista CD pick-up, 2-3 hours installation & restore. And that isn’t counting that there’s 3 people involved, some gasoline, not to mention the months of trauma that she’s been experiencing through this problem. As well as whatever store-time + hardware-replacement-costs may be involved.

But why does it have to be so hard????!!!!! It really mystifies me how much of mess the open PC-architecure, in combination a fairly open ecosystem of hardware & software, is. You literarily have no idea, if there’s a piece of dust on a RAM-stick, if there’s a faulty driver, if an app is causing the mayhem, or if the problem is a Windows-update that went wrong. And, in case you are wondering, this is a HP-machine.

So, I ask once again, what the frustration-cost of Windows is? In my estimation, it’s pretty damn high, and I already suggested to them to get a Mac. It may be 50% more expensive and non-upgradeable, but the fact that I don’t have to worry about things like BSODs, is priceless.

I should disclose that I’ve been a Mac-user for 3 years now, which was both a hardware- and software-based decision.

Vincent

August 5, 2008

David Heinemeier Hansson @ StartupSchool08

(Hi ! It’s Cecil here. A carbon copy of this post is available on Heavy Mental)

Big up to the great OMNISIO service for offering amazing video for Startup 08 conferences. Great web app, no question why Google bought this startup.

David Heinemeier Hansson is a partner at the 37Signals start-up extraordinaire.

In this presentation (A Secret to make money online) David goes through the business model and beyond that, all the basic principles that have guided 37Signals to become beyond the very successul company, a genuine example for the whole industry.

This is amazing stuff. Do yourself a favor and spend these 35 minutes with DHH, this is priceless in particular if you’re in the startup business.

On Start-up myths

How lonely I feel up here. At 37Signals, we’re not looking for VC funding, we’re profitable, we’re not hiring. I think there’s not enough talks here after all these guys (note : P. Graham, M. Arrington et al …) on how to build a profitable online business.

On Business Models

The classic conundrum : You have a

  1. great application and then
  2. ?????? (something magical happens and then)
  3. Youmake profit.

We have been doing research, experiment etc … we found out that the best option for us was to 2 - put a price on the application to make profit. It’s too simple to be true but believe me it works. It has been working for hundreds of years (…) People try to be the next Facebook or Yourbube or Myspace and become millionnaire .. and what are the odds ? On the other hand what are the odds for you to build 1M$ a service ? It takes 2000 customers paying each $US40 a month each month. You then have your million dollar company.

On target companies

We are targeting Fortune 5,000,000. There’s a ton of such companies who have many problems not currently being addressed (…) There’s a huge untapped market here.

On marketing 2.0 buzzword

But how about the network effect ? Are you going to be viral ? Are you going to infect the entire population ? Well : forget viral.

On Innovation

Good innovation comes from just solving simple problems that you’re intimately involved with. (Reminder : DHH invented RubyOnRails web development framework, so he knows a couple of things on genuine innovation)

On 37Signals Arrogance

(at the beginning) We initially thought we would call this presentation The Secret to Making. But i revised that because at 37Signals we’ve been accused how being arrogant. To preempt that we call it A secret to making money online.

(and at the end) And If it does not work, we have awesome news : blame it on us and save your ego like that : this is a full proof plan, you get always Techcrunch to write that 37Signals drove you to the deadpool.

Irreverent, arrogant, talented, funny and full of common sense : I want to marry this guy.

August 4, 2008

FriendFeed Rooms are re-enfranchising users!

I know, I know. We all went crazy about Twitter, after which we crapped on it; then Facebook; Plaxo; and now FriendFeed. This bandwagon-hopping is just as annoying to me, as I imagine it is to you.

I liked the idea of Twitter, in the sense of “streams of consciousness.” Twitter has gone downhill since then, which I largely attribute to the auto-follow *trend*—by which I don’t mean the script, per se, but rather the idea that you should follow who follows you, and vice versa. This idea is outdated in many ways, if you ask me.

FriendFeed is somewhat like Twitter, but not really. True, you can bombard yourself with noise as much as you want. Nice that you can discuss topics in depth, by threading conversations, and equally nice that you can like or hide things. Twitter doesn’t do that, it just bombards you blindly with a stream. It’s a sledgehammer.

The value-proposition of “social”?
Another downside of Twitter is the question of where the value is for a user. Is it to be confronted with a noisy stream? Perhaps for the many ADD-patients out there. To me, the value of an informational service is… information, and the value from a two-way communication-stream is targeted information, i.e. I ask a question, and someone answers, and vice versa.

For this to happen, you need to either have a lot of followers, or you need to pay attention to what your “friends” are saying. The more people you follow, well, the more likely it is you’ll miss their questions. And the more followers you have, the more likely that you’ll receive an answer… or so the theory goes.

A casestudy: a failed “crowd-sourcing” experiment
To give an example, I recently asked a question on both Twitter and FriendFeed, regarding:

Isolated FriendFeed question.jpg

Response: a big, fat 0, as I neither have many Twitter, nor FriendFeed followers. And this isn’t the first time, that’s happened. So is the answer making more “friends”? Incidentally, the no. 1 advice given online for making more Twitter-friends? Follow more people. That… can’t be the answer.

Casestudy 2: bring on the rooms!
Rooms are a very interesting phenomenon of FriendFeed’s. For one, I’m not sure if many people know about them, because there isn’t anything like an official search or directory. But also, I think the creators of FriendFeed are just really smart and light-years ahead of what us “common folk” are thinking.

Rooms allow for targeted information-streams and the value of that is most clearly illustrated by following example. I posted the same, exact question from above, in the room “Answerfeed, and here is the result:

AnswerFeed - FriendFeed.jpg

Quite a difference, no? I can also happily report that their advice worked great! :)

Implications
I reached a number of conclusions from this. For one, why am I still following all these people on FriendFeed? Initially, it was to partake in interesting conversation, and of course, following A-listers and other sympathetic voices makes sense. I’m not so sure now.

Instead, if I want a clear answer of a specific topic, I’m thinking that posting in a room is much more effective. The theory is that if a person joins a room, they have some affection for that topic and be interested in answering a question.

The other implication is that you can segment your online activity very clearly now. You can, for instance, choose not to receive room-topics in your main stream, allowing parallel usage of FriendFeed for different “places.” My third place, relaxation, could be my main stream, where I receive a myriad of topics, ranging from tech to lego. My second place, work, could instead be a specific room, which can even be closed to the outside world. A private Twitter if you will, to which you can easily stream relevant news-items.

Feel free to argue for or against the case (or FriendFeed) in the comments.

Vincent

August 3, 2008

Company-strategy: answering the ‘process-coding’ riddle

synchronised swimming.jpgThe way I blog is pretty much continuous; I try to relate everything—from fashion, to relevance, to mobile-commerce, to SOA, etc.—to a general theme, which I eventually hope to use as a framework of principles and values in my future activities. I guess that this to some extent answers my previous question of whether process-coding is good or bad. It is good, as long as it takes environmental variables into account that may affect its effectiveness, as well as the fact that a basic human prerogative is to exercise the freedom of will and choice.

This post will be a little academic, as I’ll be quoting from a number of sources from that field. The reason I thought of writing it was because of following paragraph, I read this morning, by Michael Porter, strategy-expert extraordinaire:

Strategy, in modern language, is a solution to the agency problem that arises because senior management cannot participate in or monitor all decisions and directly ensure the consistency of the myriad of individual actions and choices that make up a firm’s ongoing activities. If an overarching strategy is well understood throughout the organization, many actions are obviously ruled out and individuals can devise their own ways to contribute to the strategy that management would be hard pressed to replicate.” (Source)

This quote comes from a 3-part framework of firm-success, the first being a clear strategy, the second an alignment with external (industrial) conditions, and the third being the exploitation of ‘distinctive competencies.’

In other words, setting strategy is a form of ‘process-coding’ the behaviour of individuals within an organisation. This is easier said than done. According to another book I am reading, called “Valuation,” the process of reviewing the state of a larger organisation’s functions (marketing, sales, production, finance, research, etc.), in order to paint a picture of the historical and future “deployment of assets and resources” (the author’s definition of strategy), and their (expected) returns, is both a qualitative and quantitative process, which can take years to complete. I quote:

The installation of a top-to-bottom, comprehensive planning system endorsed by all members of the organization and practised by people well-educated in its use is a process that usually takes three to five years.

For smaller and younger organisations, I imagine that many of the exercises, described in the ‘E-Myth Revisited,’ will do just fine.

Last, but not least, Harvard Business Review recently published an article on ‘strategy execution,’ which is in the end the most important part of strategy—how well it is carried out. It is well-worth a read and I’ll just share the first five success-factors, out of a total of 17, with you:

Strategy Execution-1.jpg

The results came out of a 1000-company survey and are pretty telling; the more explicit the company strategy, the more explicit the role of individuals within the organisational context, the higher the success-rate of strategy execution. Meaning that no matter how hard it is to achieve just that, it is well worth the effort.

Something to think about.

Vincent

P.S. if you want to read a horror-story of how not to do it, check this out.

August 2, 2008

Is mobile commerce disruptive or incremental?

mobile lighter.jpgAnother way to phrase this is, whether mobile commerce will drastically change life as we know it or not?

Disruptive technologies, according to Christensen, lead to products that are cheaper, simpler, and, often, more convenient to use. By that definition, e-commerce could certainly be seen as a disruptive innovation over brick & mortar commerce, and to some extent, m-commerce could do the same to e-commerce. Or could it?

I look at technological disruption on three levels:

  1. Production: will people get fired/hired/retrained? Will production-methods change? etc.?
  2. Will technological behaviour change?
  3. Will societal behaviour change?

As for the first, I don’t think production will change as dramatically as it did from brick & mortar. Clearly, models like Amazon and eBay wreaked some havoc on book- and second-hand stores. But production and maintenance for an m-commerce application will likely just happen on PCs and will logically be built for both platforms (with some possible exceptions in emerging economies). With the mobile versions of browsers like Safari and Opera, changes also need to be minimal. I do see there being less reliance on keyboards, (i.e. an interface-change), just based on my own clumsy fingers, but e-commerce is not exactly word-intensive.

Regarding changes in technological behaviour, this is clearly already happen and will continue to happen. Things like the Starbucks-Apple partnership for digital music-downloads are just the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, we could be seeing more use of phone’s video- and audio-recording abilities. Imagine taking a picture of your neighbour’s clothes and doing a visual search for that sweater? And of course there could be innovations in terms of mobile payment methods, mobile logistics, rfid and barcode-scanning, etc. The possibilities are endless and only constrained by traditional businesses’ lack of imagination.

Changes in societal behaviour is one I am most excited about. The way I see it, PCs have been an immobile force in our lives for many years, forcing us (in my opinion) to think and act in left-brained ways, not to mention never leave our seats out of fear we might miss something. Now, clearly the 24/7 “crackberry” isn’t exactly the answer, but I’d like the new found freedom that mobile technology enables to lead us down a new or perhaps old path, one where I can even see room for brick & mortar again. Something like:

  1. take picture of product in store (after smelling/tasting/touching/trying it on),
  2. send picture to warehouse,
  3. warehouse ships home.

Removing one the most annoying component of shopping, carrying your shopping-bags home.

Two out of three… I think that qualifies as disruptive! But this is just my opinion of course, and I’m just beginning learn about the world of m-business. Tell me how you visualise mobile technology changing (y)our lives, or perhaps not?

Vincent

July 31, 2008

The attraction of (online) fashion

fashion gets a second life.jpgHot chicks, of course! What else can I say, as a guy? And really, I always wanted to start a blogpost with “Hot chicks!” ;) No, truth be told, I’ve been looking at fashion for some time, during the writing of my, now retired, food and retail blog, and a little afterwards too. As I mentioned before, industry-research is an important part of my job-application process, online, preferably on location at similar businesses, and through my conversations with the management. I’ve visited a number of fashion-retailers also, Zara and a more very upper-class fashion-retailer, and had some thoughts about it, which I’ll share here.

Zara & H&M
Two of my “business-heroes” in this industry are Zara and H&M, who have dramatically different organisational structures, but similar objectives, and a very strong technological foundation for managing their logistical complexities, which also helped them in their online strategy, I imagine.

If fashion can be characterised by anything, it’s that intellectual property doesn’t matter. Rather it’s the company that combines creative (or creatively copied) designs together with a strong execution (across the value chain) that wins the game. Zara, a vertically and horizontally integrated fortress, is strong in constantly renewing its collections (and hardly does any marketing), while H&M, a company that’s similar to Nike or Apple, only really does the designing and the marketing, while outsourcing pretty much everything else.

You can read a few more thoughts about these two on my retail-blog.

The online fashion-game
When you think about it, a store doesn’t have to be that different from a commerce-website; you have the enticing outside part of things, which can be marketing and the shopping window, and you have the interactive inside part, which encourages you to mix and match, try and (impulse) buy. A good website will understand (or learn) the way customers think and appeal to the right drivers from the marketing and the interactive part of things.

fashion.jpg

Fashion is however a somewhat complex consumer-good. The way a piece of clothing is judged (based on my opinion) is on three levels:

  • The visual: how does it look?
  • The sensory: how does it feel?
  • and The social: what reaction do I get?

The web is getting more creative every day about the visual, e.g. you have sites like Etsy that use elaborate colour-matching techniques, of which there are several different versions elsewhere.

On the sensory-side, this should kind of be approached like you’re convincing a very sceptical person of a risky project. Everybody has been burned by some bad-fitting clothes before! On the one hand, extensive information matters, e.g. Styleshake’s size guide. On the other hand, support matters very much, e.g. Zappos‘ customer service approach, which Fidji wrote about before.

The social dimension should be something that the web is good for. On the one hand, celebrity-marketing like H&M and many other stores do, is a good enticement to get people to buy your clothes. On the other hand, what matters more to people like me is what clothes will look like in my social circle, and not everybody has Tom Cruise’s body-type (I’m twice as tall :D ). But you can definitely imagine a Hotornot- or Facebook-styled fashion-store, with some creative techniques.

To summarise
The attraction of fashion is still the hot models for me, but really, in the online domain it’s much more.

  • Fashion is a global and dynamic industry, and technology is definitely an enabler in that business.
  • The lack of IP makes the industry a somewhat easy one to enter, but also requires very strong executive skills.
  • There is still plenty of smart innovation left in addressing the right visual, sensory, and social needs of customers.

From a job-perspective, I found out that the fashion-business is not that easy to get into. You need either a related degree and/or (preferably together) relevant experience. That said, if you got a fashion-business or are thinking of starting one, preferably online, and are in need of a creative business-guy, give me a buzz! I’m always up for some brainstorming!

For the commentators:

  • what do you think are the drivers for fashion shopping?
  • What innovative e-commerce sites have you come across?
  • Where do you see fashion going, hybrid, more off-line, or more online?

Vincent

July 29, 2008

Nicest new Last.fm feature

Continuing our short(!) screenshot-series on geeky innovations… Thank you, Skitch, for making it so easy!

I was really missing a collection of my Loved Tracks in Last.fm and it looks like the new version delivered. What we need next is a way for ratings in iTunes (and more specifically my iPod) to automatically register as “loved” in Last.fm, and for that to create a TheFilter-like service of creating custom playlists that I like.

*Sigh* why does interoperability of web-to-real-world-to-web have to be so complicated?

Nicest new Last.fm feature.jpg

Vincent

My favourite Facebook-app

Relevant, useful, has a business-model. Enough said!

My favourite facebook-app.jpg
(Picture links to the app in Facebook. Facebook-account required)

What’s your favourite app on Facebook (or other social networks) and why?

Vincent

July 28, 2008

Some thoughts on Services-orientated Architecture (SOA)

Lego.jpgContext: I’m currently in discussion with a number of companies that are involved with SOA-vending & -consulting. As a result, I’ve been studying up a little on this market and hope to learn more by writing about it. Note: Since I know, judging by the response to other articles on enterprise-software, this isn’t exactly the most sexy of topics, I expect the number of comments to be minimal.

Jeremy has already written about this topic (primarily in terms of Software-as-a-Service (Saas) and Software + Service (S+S)) before (here, here, and especially here), so I won’t go very deeply into it, but SOA is roughly defined as:

guidelines that allow software developers to design systems in stand-alone chunks of computer code, each specifying the critical outcomes, performance metrics, and interfaces between a discrete activity and other services.” (Src: HBR, June 2008)

If that’s a little abstract, I see it as a selling you a ticket to Lego-land, where you can play with legos all you like, those lego-blocks representing individual applications that can be used by businesses through a web (SaaS) or hybrid (Software+Service) interface, and Lego-land being the SOA-system that integrates all of them for you. This is opposed to the historical approach of buying a lego-box, which you eventually replace by another and another (side-prediction: we will eventually see Lego-world online).

SOA’s value-proposition
While traditionally it has been so that in order to compete in a technological world, you have to be technological, the idea of SOA is to remove that element, instead allowing individuals and businesses to focus on what they do best. I, personally, like that very much.

Other, more measurable advantages are that it is dramatically more cost-efficient. If you imagine that 5+ years ago, every company had to either invest into a powerful wide-area network (WAN) to be able to centralise IT-services, or replicate islands of IT-systems for each business-location, SOA removes that idea entirely, using a freely available infrastructure, the internet, and removing the need to build IT anywhere, instead paying-as-you-go for singular services that an external provider hosts and distributes. Added to this is the idea that performance now becomes accountable, in the sense that it is covered by contracts (e.g. QoS or SLA), something that was much harder to do with a permanently employed IT-staff.

With all these advantages and several more, it is no surprise that, in 2007, over 50% of mission-critical IT-projects were estimated to be SOA-based, a figure which is believed to increase to 80% in 2010 (these figures are from Gartner and may be US-only).

SOA’s hurdles
While this sounds pretty great, anytime you’re talking about system-wide change, you have to consider that this will meet resistance and involve a great many stakeholders, i.e. take a lot of time. And the question is here, who will you talk to as an SOA-vendor? Will it be the business-side of your client, as you are selling easy-to-understand lego-blocks, or will it be the technology-side, as you are selling technology? This is a serious question, so please answer it in the comments!

Added to this, a SOA-deployment is a strategic issue for your customer, meaning that your selling-proposition will also need to include the option of strategic support, aka consulting-services. This means that technology-only SOA-providers (vendors) will likely have to work with third-party consultants that pick-and-choose the best SOA-package for their client.

Related to this, the lego-like quality of SOA, which promises values like agility, flexibility, price, and reuse, and several more, all very important in this recession-prone time, also mean that someone can quite easily replace your service with someone else’s legos. Arguably this is much less the case if you provide an architectural framework and focus on building ecosystems (create lock-ins). But that is easier said than done, and as such this is a field dominated by few big players that buy up smaller ones.

Some more things, which I haven’t researched, are the degree that open source is a factor/issue here, and different revenue-models.

Grasping the paradigm-change
On the customer-side, there’s two ways of seeing this trend. On the one hand, extreme efficiencies, which also follows Nick Carr’s view that IT is no longer a competitive advantage. On the other hand, you’re giving away a lot of responsibility, which can be bad in two ways.

One, you’re giving away a lot of power to an industry, which will continue to consolidate. It’s something that may not be a problem now, but may become one.

Two, delegating a problem does not necessarily solve it. Taking the retail-industry, the biggest problem here is logistical inefficiencies, caused by delays, unnecessary replication of processes, or otherwise. Here, SOA, as long as it spans across the value-chain of manufacturers-transport-retailers-customer, is clearly a good thing. But it still requires a solid understanding of how IT does and can help your supply chain reap better results, something an independent SOA-vendor may not do as well. My opinion here is purely hypothetical, but it may be worth investigating how the masters of retail (Wal-Mart, Tesco, Carrefour, etc.) solve it. And if this is a problem, I imagine it is elsewhere too.

The SOA playing field
This post is getting a little long, so I’ll briefly go into this. Following Forrester-graphs show the players in the integrating corner of things (consultants) and, on the right, the vendors (also note the time-difference (the second one is Q4 2007) and region). You can find the originals here and here.

SOA.jpg

Clearly this industry is very layered, with some offering the complete package, including strategic assistance, and others providing either the SOA or a part of it (SaaS or similar). There is a lot of movement in this field with players buying each other out or moving into related industries, either on the hardware or software-side.

Final thoughts
Because I’m not a soft-/web-ware guy, I’m still very much undecided whether to head in the software-only direction myself, though I see much merit for an integrated business-consulting + software-deployment approach, and I also prefer selling Lego-blocks to rubber-trees. Feel free to convince me of your points of view. :)

All of this was initial thinking of course, and as such I’m happy to hear if you have anything to add or if I made some obvious mistakes. Again, considering the relative unsexiness of this area, I don’t expect too much :)

Vincent

July 23, 2008

Is the internet recession-proof?

1930 recession.jpgPremise: A while ago, Fred Wilson, a (possibly biased) tech-investor, wrote that he was bullish on the tech-industry. Recently, the New York Times reports that e-commerce is up because people want to travel less (fuel costs). And previous stories reported on the migration of advertising revenues from traditional media to online media.

A note: I don’t know that there will be a recession. I know that the real-estate bust in the US is a pretty big deal, and that banks from Europe and Asia have been pretty heavily invested in that supposed goldmine. And any fall-out in the US, i.e. banks shutting down or otherwise, will likely have global repercussions on the banking-sector, and affect other industries also.

With that out of the way, three problems/phenomena I associate with these times are:

  • A lack of accountability in investments (e.g. currently real estate and previously startups & Enron), also accompanied by emotions like fear & greed.
  • Rising input-costs (the market should normally adjust for that, but the explosive growth in demand from emerging countries + the lack of an alternative for, in this case, fuel, make this a pretty big uncertainty)
  • Changing paradigms, such as the rise of webware, the (expected) fall of hardware-prices, the possible fall of software-sales, the continuing displacement of brick & mortar business models, businesses being forced to go & think green, and much, much more.

So, there’s probably a few more symptoms (throw them out in the comments!), but it seems to me that the internet is pretty well placed to deal with some of these problems.

Let’s start with accountability. The strength of the web is that everything on it is digital and, in theory, nearly (*) everything can be measured (*: I am quite sceptical about the measurability of video & audio, though arguable the serious data is still in text). Added to this, there are technology-shifts, like digital television, mobile computing, and E-Ink, which make it easier to have a wider reach as a data-gatherer, not to mention that business are increasingly placing their data online, again facilitating data-exchange in partnerships. This should make it easier for businesses to base their expense on actual data, the same for investors and advertisers. Together with the consequences of the last internet-bust, I think that everyone is pretty careful to base their decisions on information, not hopes and dreams (well, I’m still sceptical about Twitter).

Next, rising input prices. Having blogged on the topic of food and retail for about a year, I’ve obviously had to follow this trend/reality quite a bit. The NYTimes heading I linked to above summarises my feelings quite well, customers are looking at the opportunity cost of fuel (as well as the cost of being green) and alternatives like e-commerce may seem much more attractive. In the long-term, people like James Howard Kunstler are calling for more and more “locality,” i.e. that people will be willing to migrate less for work and, I guess, shopping, which opens up opportunities for e-commerce and ways of working across a distance.

Finally (?), changing paradigms. Well, whatever the new world looks like, a pretty warm place is reserved for the web. Web-apps and -services are maturing, offering more and better features, and providing individuals and businesses with a comfortable ecosystem to operate in. The OLPC, the Asus EEE, and other cheaper systems (when Dell comes in, it will be mass), may be less powerful, but they will be optimised to use the web most of all. Societally, it may eventually become the logical choice for the mainstream to spend less than $500 for a laptop, in which case hardware-makers and, possibly, software-makers will suffer. But the web won’t. Similarly, while I don’t yet see brick & mortar disappearing, it is clear that eventually 99% of B&M businesses will have to have an online presence. About the world going green, I can’t sell everything, perhaps someone else can give the answer to that.

Is the internet recession-proof? My guess is as good as the next guy. But, more efficient use of computing, datamining, search, advertising, e-commerce, and logistics are all technologies I am extremely bullish on these coming years.

What do you think?

Vincent

July 22, 2008

Making applying for jobs fun

trained_monkey.gifThe key to a fulfilling career is, I believe, not so much about choosing the right job, it’s about finding pleasure in the job that you are doing. Applying for jobs is a job, not a particularly well-paying one, but a job that can be extremely fulfilling nevertheless.

It is really a combination of two activities: consulting and sales. Or, to put it another way, it’s information-rich selling, i.e. you collect a lot of information about the market (the company & surroundings) and sell a complex product (yourself). Since both the ability to transform complex information into simple, understandable terms, and the ability to sell just about anything (even your monkey-self) are probably the most desired qualities on the job-market today, applying for jobs is an excellent training, which everyone should look forward too.

Following are a couple of the skills you learn in this job:

  • Strategic positioning: this is the basic activity. Job-hunting is an activity that moves in concentric circles. In the centre, there’s you, your strengths & weaknesses, your niche. Then comes the company and how you fit into it. Finally comes the strategic landscape of the company and what its priorities are there. Positioning is, according to my basic marketing book, about communicating 4 C’s (Clarity, Confidence, Continuity, Competitiveness), matched to the needs of your customer.
  • General market-research: finding interesting companies is like finding a needle in a haystack. Well, not really. But it does require using all the mediums available to you to get to that sale. And you may want to segment the market and focus on specific types of companies.
  • Strategic market-research: it’s a jungle out there, and the more awareness you show for the company’s strategic (competitive, current & future) landscape, the more she will trust you to do a good job. And, as a side-benefit, you’ll find out what other companies you may want to target if this one doesn’t bite.
  • Functional market-research: your company/customer will be looking for specific features in you, and you have to position yourself according to what is required. The functional job-description = feature requirements.
  • Targeted advertising: You CV and application letter are like a brochure about yourself. You’ll be competing with tons of other “products” and you have to speak the language of your customer.
  • The pitch: your “marketing-brochure” may get you a foot in the door, but that’s only 30% of it. You need to present yourself to your customer, the way he would present himself to his customers. If those are a tough sell, he will be a tough sell, and vice versa.
  • The negotiation: after finding your target, marketing to it, and pitching it, you’ll need to get a good deal too. That is a whole other science into itself.

Seriously, if this wasn’t a non-paying gig, I think I’d be doing this for some time. Learning a lot here. ;) I’ll go as far as to say that if you were either a sales/marketing person or an entrepreneur, you’d be doing some pretty similar things.

But beware! You shouldn”t use job-applications as an excuse to get your foot into the door to sell products & services from other companies! That’s like calling someone during dinner-time, because you know they’ll be home, and trying to sell them insurance. It’s Just Not Done!

Vincent
(I’ll write more about tech tomorrow, I promise)

Addendum: I predict, I won’t get too many comments on this one. Maybe it’s an age thing; 5 years ago, I would’ve felt differently about this process. But these days, pretty much any interview I go to ends up being a pretty interesting conversation about how to run a company, and the process beforehand, the homework, is pretty versatile too. Just thought, I’d add that. :)

July 17, 2008

Beating the market-leader, PowerPoint?

skitched-20080717-222202.jpgSo here’s a good problem to throw out to the group. It doesn’t matter if you’re an individual or a business, at some point in your life you probably had to pitch something or other, and very likely you used PowerPoint or one of its clones. But imagine you had a consultancy and you had to make a strong impression on a client. You know that all the other consultancies would be using PowerPoint and you wanted to do something different; you wanted to differentiate yourself. How would you do it?

I’m going to make it slightly more ambitious:

Imagine you had to build a competing product to PowerPoint. Knowing the parameters of the application—it’s easy to create content, it’s a standard so everyone can use it, it’s portable, cross-platform, visually strong, and cheap—what could a competing product look like to you?

The way, I’m thinking about this is as follows. An obvious way to differentiate yourself, is to be louder than other people. But that brings some problems in terms of sustainability. You could use multiple speakers and act out something, but this requires you to always bring more people to a presentation (as well as train them), which is not always feasible. You could create something in code or on video, again requiring significant time, expertise, and resources to make this happen, and it might not be very portable. Etc. etc.

No, if you wanted to compete with PowerPoint, the market-leader, you would have to appeal to the same economic sentiments, which lead people to choose that software in the first place: portable, easy to create content, cheap, etc.

So…

  • what would you do?
  • what do you do?
  • or what have you seen done?

Really curious what you come up with! ;)

Premise: this was a small part of an exercise, I had to do as part of an application-procedure today. It was pretty fun, my solution was pretty creative, though no one was really thinking about the sustainable part, about actually building a product. But it made me wonder… what if? Go crazy!

Vincent

P.S. I know about Presentation Zen. I just barely have enough energy to type this post, let alone read a website.

July 15, 2008

The (pre-) entrepreneurial process