I thought I'd bring up something out of the ordinary for a change... Mainly because I know someone specific who'll soon be able to use what I'm about to cover, but also because it's something that I see people getting wrong so often, while it's actually quite rudimentary. I constantly get a stream of CVs (call them resumés if you must) passing through my inbox, most of them terribly badly structured, some containing irrelevant information, with only a rare few focusing on bringing across what the person they're aimed at actually wants to know.

The objective of a CV is simple: to communicate as clearly as possible to a prospective employer how you may be of value to their organisation. That's it. It's not meant to be used as a vehicle for telling people what kind of a person you are, or for regurgitating everything you've done in your life up until the point you create the document (just in case something might catch the reader's eye). Instead, a good CV:

Is concise - Think Mission Impossible. Think self-destructing messages. A CV is a message which needs to tell the reader what they want to know in 1 minute or less. If it takes longer than that to scan the first time, it's too long.

Gets to the point - Trim your language to something akin to a "Getting Started" user manual. Bullet points are called exactly that because they hit things accurately. If you have to write a paragraph, keep to a maximum of 3 sentences.

Is relevant - Try not to send a generic CV to an employer if you're sending it yourself. If you absolutely have to create a generic document because a recruitment agent is sending it out on your behalf to more than one employer, tailor the document to a specific position, never to "available positions". If you're individually sending your CV to an organisation, do some research on the company, and structure your skills to fit in with what they're looking for. A prospective employee who's done their homework scores major points.

Is written in the 3rd person - This is important for two reasons. Firstly, when something sounds like an outside perspective, it's (even if just subconsciously) perceived as objective. Secondly, writing something in the 3rd person forces you to reflect on what you're really saying, which means you'll think twice about saying silly things.

Doesn't tiptoe around the tulips - State blandly how much money you want. If you don't know, do some research. In addition, although you may be hesitant at first, state clearly how much you have been earning. Employers are very easily reassured of your competence if they see proof of your track record in financial terms.

Puts the important things first - There cannot be enough emphasis on this point; you need to convince the reader within the first two sections (see below) that you're the person they're looking for, the rest of the document is just there to reaffirm that first impression.

OK? So the points above are generic guidelines. The thing is though, structure is the critical determinant (see the last point above), meaning that fitting all of the above into the correct framework is the only way to get close to guaranteeing success. Remember that you're telling a story; not a story of your life, but a story which proposes business value. This is how you do it:

Step 1: Start with an introductory paragraph which describes you as a news reader would introduce a guest. Try to stick to no more than 2 or 3 sentences. The first sentence should state what you are, the second detail what you do.

Step 2: Now that the reader knows what you are, tell them in a little more detail what you can offer them, in the form of a bulleted list of deliverable skills. The word "deliverable" is important, because employment is actually just a contract to buy something (the something being your skills). Tell the reader what you're going to give them.

Step 3: OK, so the reader now knows what they're going to get. How much is it going to cost them? State in CTC (cost to company, the total actual amount the company needs to budget for each month) what you expect in remuneration terms. Don't be shy, a seller is supposed to advertise a price, and nothing annoys people as much as walking into a shop where there are no price tags. If you're approaching a large corporate, state your salary in annual terms; for smaller businesses, monthly is best - cash flow is a factor in a small business, and your monthly salary figure is important from an expense point of view. Even though your qualifications shouldn't necessarily determine your income in the real world, degrees and diplomas create perceptions: state your highest qualification without fuss as part of this section.

Step 4: The reader now knows what you are, what you can offer them, and how much you want for these skills. Why should they believe you? Show that your skills are tested and proven by setting out your track record from your last job down to your first. Keep things in the same terms as up to now by listing the position and what you delivered. You don't need to state how much you were earning in all your previous positions, but being open about your current salary shows a willingness to trade. Remember, you're offering to trade your skills at a fair price.

Step 5: If the reader's come this far and is still interested, you've done well. Tell them a little more about yourself in the form of personal details such as your age, language proficiency, etc. Continue to stick to bullets, you're not writing an essay. After that, give an overview of your education, and add one or two key references. Really, after the first 4 steps, all these points are formalities - so focus on the facts themselves, rather than explaining them nicely.

That's it? Yes. If you've been sparingly applying your magic, you should by now have a document around 3 pages long (short). Here's an example which you can use as a template of you're so inclined.

So what's the trick throughout the process? Don't sell yourself, sell what you can do. It's as simple as that.

So while we were busy getting things ready for a new server, I casually perused the logs on our web server, specifically this site's (which I haven't checked for many moons).

Now I'm not a sucker for traffic unless it's directly related to revenue, but the following little round(ish) number brought a smile to my face:

Apparently, people do read when I per chance gather enough inspiration to write my usual mish-mash of words.

Who'd have thunk?

I value your business. Even though, at this moment in time, you probably don't think much of such a statement. I don't blame you, it's the kind of thing that's usually thrown around quite lightly. In this case however, I'm aware of the fact that you're unhappy, and it concerns me. Why? Firstly, because I don't like disappointing people, and secondly because your being unhappy affects the long-term future of my business and the people involved with it. This means that I have a responsibility that cannot be shrugged.

In matters of business, one needs to work at things just like you would in any other kind of relationship. One of the important things here is that communication needs to be open and honest. The reality is that it mostly isn't. What really needs to be said gets muddled in jargon, inefficient official language and a fear of being seen as unprofessional if any personal tone of voice (or writing) is used. This fear is quite silly really. Ridiculous, even. Being professional is not a fickle thing. True professionalism is not so shallow that it can be undermined by one or two breaks from convention. It's an underlying mentality. With that in mind, I'd like to offer an open apology.

I'm sorry that we've been slow when responding to your questions, when solving your problems, even when scheduling that initial meeting to see how we could help you. I realise that this frustrates you; and would like you to be aware that the frustration is mutual. You see, when we devised this new packaged project offering of ours, we had a hunch that we were onto something good. We thought "hey, this could work well, let's give it a go". What we didn't realise was just how positively people would react...

And so, while we're very happy with the amount of demand we're receiving from people like you, we're also very aware of our capacity to deliver. Not just to deliver, but to deliver at the level that we've become proud of and known for. It's a quality thing, and quality is not negotiable for us. Unfortunately for the capacity aspect, people with the skills required to build and deliver the specific things we're offering aren't all that readily available. We're growing our team to better serve you, but we're only able to grow it gradually - to be honest, we prefer it this way; it means we can keep a firm hold on the quality element.

So here's the thing: While we gear ourselves to be able to keep up with what you're asking of us, we'd really appreciate your understanding. When we don't call back immediately, please remind us. When we can't schedule a meeting quickly, please bear with us. When we take a day longer to resolve a technical problem, please be patient with us. We really are excited about moving towards being faster, friendlier and more accessible to you, but we need your help in getting there. Thanks for your business, we really do appreciate it!

Seth is not the only one who has a carefully preserved Mercedes-Benz for sale. Thing is just, mine stood boxed for a little while longer than his... Roughly 20 years, in fact... In 1996, it had just 40somethingthousand kilometres on the clock

Interested in driving a classic car in pristine condition, lovingly maintained by only 2 owners over its entire 36 year life? Specs:

1971 Mercedes-Benz 220. Just over 220,000km, quite rare for its age. Cream with tan/black interior, has recently been serviced, runs perfectly.

How much? I'm asking R20,000, but make me an offer and we'll negotiate.

UPDATE: Sold

So, I just thought it might be cool to post a few screenshots of stuff I've been working on: varying from in-depth technical documents,  to icons and buttons, to newsletter layouts, to application interfaces, to logos, to marketing material.

All in a UX day's work I guess

    

    

    

Recently, I had a rather verbal disagreement with someone who was interested in making use of our services. Specifically, the gentleman in question wasn't happy about my intention to bill their company for travel to a first meeting (with the time spent on the meeting however not billable, as I'll explain).

To set things straight with those who questioned my logic, I decided to explain the modus operandi (actually, forget about fancy words, let's just call it "way of working") that I put forward when engaging new clients . The extract below has been slightly adapted to fit here, and also bear in mind that everything is outlined in a neat document which is provided to interested parties beforehand:

If you're interested in working with us, we'll gladly schedule an initial 1 hour meeting to discuss your requirements with you, at our offices, free of charge. If travel to your premises is preferred, travel costs are billable.

After the initial meeting, all other in-person meetings to discuss the project are billable - regardless of whether such meetings are on-site or at our offices. Phone or e-mail discussions are however free of charge, with our compliments.

OK?

Now most people immediately argue the following (which is, expectedly, roughly how it happened):

"You can't bill someone for a first meeting! You should be glad for the opportunity to get their business! Are you telling me that you don't need the work? That you've got enough work, and spending time with new clients isn't important to you? You should expect to spend money getting business - do you know how much money I spend getting new business?"

To which I politely counter-argue the following:

I'm sure that you spend money getting new business. Everyone does, myself included. However, I'm also sure that you probably account for that time/money spent in either of the following ways:

• You write it off as part of general marketing, effectively spreading the cost load across your entire business (or business unit, department, or whatever)
• You build the cost into the project, effectively billing the client for it in the end anyway (but only if they do become your client)

In both cases, someone has to pay for the time spent serenading prospective clients. With option 1, all the business's clients are effectively paying a small percentage of the cost of each new client signed up. With option 2, only the specific client is paying - but (and it's a big but) only if they actually become a client. If they don't, everyone else once again pays.

With me? Good, because there are three points I'd like to highlight.

Firstly: Allocating expenses to indirectly related areas (or clients, or employees, or whatever) is fundamentally not a sound principle. No one likes hidden costs, and by loading the cost of the first meeting into the project bill, you're effectively saying to your client: "Haha, you thought you got it for free - guess again sucker!". That, and the fact that in many cases your loyal, trustworthy clients end up paying for someone else's royal treatment expectations. Not good, don't you think?

Secondly: If you're in the business of billing for hourly skills (as opposed to producing and selling products), you literally are directly remunerated for your time, and spending time delivering skills without billing reduces your profitability directly. Doctors and lawyers are good examples - they sell their time, because they have special skills. To illustrate, I'll base my example of the ridiculousness of expecting free "serenading" from a doctor. If you were expecting the possibility of being ill in a week's time, it would certainly be very nice to be able to call a doctor in to visit you in the comfort of your home to explain the services he'd render if you were to become ill. The same would be ultra-convenient for legal services, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, most doctors (and lawyers) would simply laugh at you if you expected their time for free. Still with me?

Thirdly: Expecting a service provider (or vendor, or supplier, or any other other supply-side party) to be desperate for your business is a bit silly. It's like saying that the market is driven by demand. Which, funnily enough, many people actually believe to be true. In reality, market utopia is a balance between supply and demand. In practical terms, this means mutual agreement between a consumer and a producer to do business on terms that suit both parties. Not one, but both.

OK, so we have the principle of time as money (literally), together with the principle of mutual agreement on exchange. Both are, IMHO, equally important. However, I'm suspecting that you might have an objection... Doctors and lawyers are extreme examples of time-based billing I hear you say? Possibly, in some instances. And so, because it's all about balance (the market remember?), I think it's only fair to make a concession from the supply side - which is exactly why I believe in not charging for the first hour of a first meeting; granted that I don't have to incur a travel expense.

At this point, I'd like to make a very carefully considered statement: No one should ever do business if they feel that the value they're either offering or gaining is unreasonable. No consumer has the right to demand that he be served in a certain way, and no producer has the right to expect a consumer to consume what he's producing without question. Both have to compromise, otherwise the value sphere gets warped. Give a little, get a little, so to speak.

In my opinion, offering anything for free (or cost-loading something else to make up) is just plain bad business. When value and remuneration become disconnected, borders between priorities begin to blur. Value starts evaporating through all sorts of little cracks, and everyone starts losing out. It's a slippery slope which tricks the unwary into a state of complacency about the value they're adding, inevitably causing a loss of intent, something which I personally regard as fundamentally important. Without intent, entire systems of trade become mindless capital exchanges.

Amazingly, there's one simple thing every businessperson can do to avoid value evaporation: Never dilute what you're offering, no matter what. Easy, really.

Yep, I'm using this website as a classifieds of sort lately...

This time, we're looking for a front-end ASP.NET guy (or gal) who'll mostly be involved with the following:

• Front-end development on our products (mailMAC, blueFIRE, FlyTime)
• Front-end development on SharePoint, working with the back-end team
• Occasional Winforms design & development
• Documentation development & maintenance

Minimum requirements:

• Software development focused 3/4 year degree or something equivalent (e.g. B.Com IS, B.Sc Comp Sci, Elec Eng)
• 1-2 years ASP.NET experience, preferably with C# skill
• Thorough understanding of XHTML/CSS layers
• Understanding of web services
• Understanding of the .NET environment and related tools (Visual Studio 2005, Sourcesafe etc)
• Excellent writing/language ability
• A good eye for interfaces and usability

I guess the above sums up your typical "web developer type person", but with actual development experience, not just Flash/Photoshop/Dreamweaver.

Interested? Pop us a mail through the bSOLVe contact page.

Reading Joel's latest article reminded me of how little liking I have for the school of thought more commonly known as MBAism. Not loathing, or hate, or anything extreme like that, just a strong dislike. Why? Because I've been lucky enough to have known and brought up in discussion for some time what Joel states so eloquently:

Watching non-programmers trying to run software companies is like watching someone who doesn't know how to surf trying to surf.

"It's ok! I have great advisors standing on the shore telling me what to do!" they say, and then fall off the board, again and again. The standard cry of the MBA who believes that management is a generic function. Is Ballmer going to be another John Sculley, who nearly drove Apple into extinction because the board of directors thought that selling Pepsi was good preparation for running a computer company? The cult of the MBA likes to believe that you can run organizations that do things that you don't understand.

So simple, yet so true. Management is not a generic function. Full stop. Anyone who tells you that it is has probably never done anything more than maintain a business that someone else built, overseeing processes and models that someone else designed, earning a sliver of cream off the top of someone else's interest.

It's becoming a common thing these days for South Africans to say "screw this, I've had it with this third-world crap, I'm heading somewhere I'm appreciated". Especially younger, white South Africans.

Most of them head towards London. Some to the US. Many to Australia. Sometimes they come back, often they don't, and become so arrogant about their right to a "first-world lifestyle" that they regularly cite how hopeless their prospects are in SA's economy - while they continue to buy expensive imported South African goods in shops abroad, and write longing poems about how they miss the great weather, rugby and braais.

"There's no way I'm going to give up earning pounds, I'd be stupid not to use this opportunity" is what one usually hears. "I can't earn even a third of what I'm currently earning if I were back in SA" is another. I usually keep quiet when I hear this…

Over the last while, I've been looking at a few interesting and very lucrative business models which make me chuckle when I consider the box within which these ex-pats think. I also per chance read a paper that CK Prahalad and Stuart Hart wrote back in 2002.

My thinking: There is a #!$@-load of money to be made in South Africa, and in Africa as a whole. More than most places in the world, if you carefully consider the unique opportunities for thinking creatively.

Africa is a huge chunk of dirt. It is inhabited by a huge number of humans. Yes, most of them are poverty-stricken and live below what is broadly considered as the "breadline". Many struggle to sustain their families. But (and it's a big but), there are also massive amounts of Africans who enter the productive economical cycle every day. Out of desperation comes ingenuity, and one need only walk down an average urban sidewalk in Africa to realise how enterprising people become when they have survival as a driving force. Market forces can be seen in their purest form, and trading becomes an art. Ingenious business models emerge out of necessity, tailored to circumstances that are unique to our continent.

Business in Africa has more potential to be exploited than you'll find in any first-world country. Why? Because it has unique challenges, and very few individuals and organisations clever enough to respond to these challenges. The market hungers for creative solutions (because traditional, "western" ones don't do the trick). And that, my friend, is what makes me smile… The fact that solutions are in short supply. The market isn't saturated. Which, if you're brave enough, means that there is more opportunity to step in and generate massive amounts of value and wealth than in mature, saturated markets.

Make no mistake, traditional thinking is not going to bring you this wealth. Africa is a market which requires a low margin, high-volume approach to things. Hundreds of millions of individuals buying low-value goods, consuming cheap services. Hundreds of millions, nonetheless. It's a market which in my humble opinion will fundamentally reward those who are able to build businesses that thrive around almost non-existent individual transaction costs. Transaction costs (whether in monetary, time, effort or human form) are the core. How does one continue to bring transaction costs down? Systems thinking. Process thinking. Automation. IT, in other words. IT in all its forms; but most importantly, in a form built for Africa.

I'm staying. I see the opportunity, and there's no way I'm giving it up for a few pounds.

Let's build Africa.

An unknown error has occurred.

Sound familiar?

I'm not here to explain Defensive Design for the Web. 37signals have already done that, after all. What I am here to do is point out how helpful it is having a mindset that doesn't expect things to go smoothly all the time. In fact, I'd like to rephrase that: Expecting the worst is probably the best you can do.

Let's start with software developers, and something I've noticed with most of them: They assume that their software works. Not because they're arrogant, but because in building and testing it (and even testers I believe sometimes fall into this trap), they do things the way the system is designed to. They live according to the rules and parameters. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it creates a not-so-obvious problem. You see, most people who end up using any system don't understand or care about the rules, or about how the system was designed. In many cases, they don't even really understand the problem the system was designed to solve in the first place. They use the system because they don't want to think about that stuff. They need the system to work for them, so that they can continue to spend their time on other things the developers haven't thought about (and thus don't want to, or need to worry about). In most cases, good systems are those that guide users with the assumption that they don't understand how things work, pro-actively expecting them not to. Simple really, but still constantly overlooked.

I've become more and more aware of how important handling exceptions to what's expected really are. Not just in software, but in business (and thus life) in general. Effective exception handling is a rare skill that not many people possess. It enables you to get things done so much more efficiently - mainly because when you expect exceptions as a rule, you're pro-actively thinking about how to do things to avoid them in the first place. When you're doing that, you tend to presume that whoever you're dealing with in any given scenario doesn't understand (or isn't aware of) what you're offering/doing/asking. If you're thinking this way, you tend to plan and bring across what's going on much clearer than you usually would, and ultimately making provision for misunderstanding as a given. Personally, I think this is good.

Too difficult a mindset to have and keep up in everyday life though?

You tell me.

So I've finished reading Atlas Shrugged, after 3 months.

You think of yourself as a capitalist? I'll leave you with one paragraph from a book that I personally regard as philosophically more significant than the bible:

Did it ever occur to you that there is no conflict of interests among men, neither in business nor in trade nor in their most personal desires - if they omit the irrational from their view of the possible and destruction from their view of the practical? There is no conflict, and no call for sacrifice, and no man is a threat to the aims of another - if men understand that reality is an absolute not to be faked, that lies do not work, that the unearned cannot be had, that the undeserved cannot be given, that the destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't. The businessman who wishes to gain a market by throttling a superior competitor, the worker who wants a share of his employer's wealth, the artist who envies a rival's higher talent - they're all wishing facts out of existence, and destruction is the only means of their wish. If they pursue it, they will not achieve a market, a fortune or immortal fame - they will merely destroy production, employment and art. A wish for the irrational is not to be achieved, whether the sacrificial victims are willing or not. But men will not cease to desire the impossible and will not lose their longing to destroy - so long as self-destruction and self-sacrifice are preached to them as the practical means of achieving the happiness of the recipients.

I my humble opinion, this one paragraph sums up the core of what business is about better than anything I've ever read before. I have plenty to say about this, but my priorities are pretty defined at the moment - slotting everything together perfectly takes time, and patience is a nice trait to have...

There's this theory that one of the best strategies business can have is to not worry about strategy as much as it should supposedly be worried about. Instead, get the right people on board, and strategy will take care of itself.

Here's my take:

Businesses are run by people - actually, businesses ARE people, if you're doing it right.

Some businesses can, however, get along without paying much attention to individuals (at ground level, at least). Look at large parts of the retail industry as an example - they can treat their ground level employees as commodities, not because they're evil corporates, but because the reality is that these employees are commodities. Nothing discriminatory, just the reality that the average packer, checkout till operator, cleaner, shop attendant or door guard doesn't have particularly special skills, vision or intelligence which makes them indispensible. In essence, there are a thousand possible replacements for every shop attendant out there, so paying meticulous attention to who you're hiring is not too big an issue (bear in mind that I'm simplifying for the sake of what I'm trying to bring across).

In our industry, however, we're not that lucky. Because we sell mid to high-end services, I guess you could say we're pretty high up in the food chain when it comes to skill consumption; and thus we just simply can't get along without pretty sharp (and thus rare) people. If we don't hire just the right people, we pay dearly.

We need smart people on board to make things happen. More importantly, we need this thing called "the attitude".

Now, the attitude is not easily explainable. Partly, it's responsibility. Partly, it's a production mentality. But most importantly, it's that something you can't always pinpoint: A deep-seated desire to achieve. Not just on the surface, but fundamentally. It's about kicking ass, about being focused, about digging the big picture.

Even though we have a plan, and a bigger vision, worries about strategy and "where we're going" are constantly in the back of my mind. I think they should be - if they weren't, we wouldn't be a very good business (our goals are pretty lofty, in case you were wondering). The thing is: This "get the attitude on board" theory is pretty compelling. From a long-term, step back and look at things perspective, it makes good sense.

Goal no 1: Attract the attitude.

(Credit to Rich…! For sparking "the attitude thing" some time back, and to Joel for a reminder of how it applies in the software world)

Yep, we're hiring again - this time, we're looking for a .NET developer with workflow experience and a solid track record. The following skills are required:

• A solid understanding of .NET architecture at both server and client level
• At least 2 years workflow experience
• At least 2 years MS SQL Server 2000 experience (SQL 2005 would be beneficial)
• SharePoint knowledge would also be beneficial

This is not a web developer or entry-level position, you need to have a bit of business-related coding (specifically workflow) behind you, and what we're willing to offer reflects this.

So, interested in working on the next generation of integrated Microsoft systems, can figure things out yourself, and have the experience to show?

We'd love to hear from you!

Dear James (and Peter, and Jill for that matter),

You're a client of ours. By the fact that we're both agreeing parties to a unwritten (or sometimes written) contract through which we undertake to deliver something of value to you in return for payment, I can safely say this.

In the course of doing business, we make money out of you. Profit, if we run things well. Depending on whether we treat you well, we'll continue to generate revenue from you. We wouldn't have it any other way. Actually, I'm convinced that most businesses wouldn't have it any other way. Today, however, I'd like to let you in on a secret: I get just as much a kick out of you making money with the systems we've provided you with as I do billing you for them. You heard right, I dig it deeply when you make money with our help. Every time you fire up a piece of software developed, customised, planned or implemented by us, I get excited about what you're going to do with it.

So, as we start this new business year, I'd like to wish you all the best in making money. Whether you make it selling high-end services, bringing out the taste of food, being creative, or linking people up, I hope you coin it. We'll be there to help you every step of the way. Make no mistake, we're going to charge you for it, but I've got a feeling you won't have a problem with that. Value tends to flock together, and we'll be right there in the flock, by your side, ready to help you exploit whatever it is you're grazing. Why? Because when you make money, we do too, and both of us win.

Let's get cracking.

Yours truly
Martin

I was thinking about writing about some new year's stuff, like everyone else does. Resolutions, and all that stuff. The problem is, I don't really make new year's resolutions - at least, I try not to, because I believe I should be doing whatever I should be all the time.

Sigh. I can't win, however, seeing as business does work according to years, here goes:

More walking, but not less talking. More rock-star attitude, with an understanding that it needs to be backed up by some serious skill on the drums. Better understanding of what drives value in the background, and how to make money by helping our clients make money. Less wasting time doing nothing (OK, that's a personal one). Less manual processes, more automation. Less clients who aren't profitable. A few more clients who get our vision, and a lot more ones who don't need to, because we're selling them commoditized services, enabled by an understanding that it's the best way to make a boat-load of that profit stuff for them and ourselves.

R5 mil? Why not?

Less is good. More is just as good.

I'd like to share something with you.

Every once in a while, I sit down and consider where I currently am, and how I got here. This time, I decided to make a list, and thought "hey, maybe I should share this list, someone might find it useful". And so I put together the things that I've been fortunate enough to learn about business during this last year.

A little background: About 4 years ago, three young guys fresh out of university decided to start an IT business. They did it without any funding of any kind, and with only one client. They were nuts…

I was one of those guys, and I smiled ever so slightly when I heard that we did our second seven-digit year a few days ago. I didn't smile too broadly, because it's only a start, but this is what I've learnt so far:

Lesson 1: Commodity markets are for big players

You can't build a successful business from scratch on the back of selling commodities. OK, not totally true, you can if you have access to large amounts of capital, but then you're technically a big player. Running a small business? Drop the commodities, and get into the business of specialisation in areas where you can distinguish yourself - there will be plenty of time later on to exploit large commodity markets.

We started out selling all sorts of IT stuff as a "reseller": PCs, networking infrastructure, etc etc. Then we realised that most "resellers" are actually redundant in the supply-chain, and that in an ideal market situation, they wouldn't be there, end-users would be buying directly from manufacturers (or their distributors, who can buy in bulk). Yes, you heard me: 99% of all small "IT solution providers" that focus on selling, repairing and upgrading hardware & software, installing networks etc are redundant. The only small businesses that can prosper long-term are those that specialise in areas that aren't commodity-based (like businesses that build just websites).

Lesson 2: Scalability is king

Some people struggle to make a living. Others, like doctors and lawyers, earn pretty decent incomes for themselves. Unfortunately, their incomes have ceilings. Get rid of the ceiling: if you want to accumulate true wealth, you need to distance yourself from the notion that you need to work for every cent that you earn.

Scalability, in principle, is a relative concept. Trading in products is scalable to some extent - if you hire more salespeople, you can reach more customers, churn more revenue, build capacity, and hire even more salespeople (or spend more money and smarts on reaching more customers in other ways). This kind of scalability is limited though… Sure, you reach economies of scale at some point, which enable you to earn more revenue relative to your input than you did at a previous stage, but you still need to input more. I like exponential scalability more...

Serving 10 000 customers with only a fraction more effort than it takes you to serve 10 customers? That's scalability, and one of the best ways to make serious money.

Lesson 2.1: Don't scale before you need to

Building a scalable system with the assumption that you'll only get a return on it once you have the huge numbers you're aiming for is not always wise. Here's what I suggest: Very carefully consider what will be needed at a large scale, keep it in mind, and then build a smaller version of it first. Don't over-expend if you don't need it yet.

Lesson 3: Sweat procedures, it's worth it

Open-source advocates and start-up types hate policies and procedures. They say it kills spirit, that it's part of corporate bloat. Sometimes, maybe, but it's also a crucial enabler of scalability. If you only have smart, post-graduate geniuses working for your business, you might not need procedures. Unfortunately, businesses that only have geniuses working for them aren't all that scalable. You need people to run the market-facing systems that your geniuses create for you, and those people need procedures, otherwise the business can't be efficient, and things very quickly fall apart.

As my one partner once said:

Post-optimisation is the mother of all f#$&-ups.

Pre-optimise with well-planned procedures, it's worth it.

Lesson 4: BECOME the customer

A while ago, Jennifer discussed getting closer to customers by talking to them.

Sure, not a bad idea, but it's even better actually becoming the customer for a while. I did it a few times this year, even getting into arguments with my guys about features that I wanted in our products (both the scalable and non-scalable ones). We sat down and looked at both sides, added things that were worthwhile to add, and explained to our customers why we weren't adding things that weren't.

Lesson 5: Specialize, and then share

Don't be scared of letting go of things that other people are better at. Partner up, let other businesses do the things they're good at - and then focus on doing the things you're good at.

I've seen it so many times: businesses who are scared of losing income if they don't offer everything their customers want. Sure, there's always a case for complimentary services, and one should generally consider each situation, but don't be silly. If you know someone else is better at it, let them do it. We're Microsoft Partners (and I believe one of the smarter ones in the Western Cape), and we specifically point out to other partners that we're not competing with them - we show them what we do (generally, very few others are good at these things), and then mention that we gladly partner up with them when our clients need things that they're good at. Microsoft encourages this in their partner channel, and I agree with them.

Lesson 6: Rock stars get the chicks

It's one of those things. Perception rules the world, and this is only a bad thing if you don't know how to manage perception.

OneNote is 500% more kick-ass than Backpack, but Backpack gets the BusinessWeek article and rave reviews. Why? Because Jason Fried is a rock star.

Next year, watch out for a new band in the world of the Information Worker and scalable web services. Rock on.

And, finally,

Lesson 7: Commitment commands respect

People are strange things. They easily get caught up in hype, emotion & social habits. Businesses are built on people. Thus they're vulnerable to the instabilities of people, but also to the strengths of these same people.

Leadership can't be taught. It evolves. Management theory makes up 2% of what's needed to create and maintain vision and motivation within an organization. The rest is determined by gut feel, experience, and commitment. Commitment in the form of a never-say-die attitude, in exemplary dedication to the task at hand, in practical things like forsaking sleep for 24 hours to resolve a crisis, in taking a pay cut, in truly caring about a better future enough to drop everything else to make it happen.

Respect - earn it through commitment.

That's it. 2006 is going to be a sweet year.

Web design is an easy thing. Actually, graphic design (broadly speaking) in general is a pretty easy thing - compared to, for example, missile guidance system development - which is why most designers try to make it seem difficult. Hell, they don't just make it seem difficult, they actually make it difficult (for themselves, inevitably).

Settle down, I'm not throwing mud pies at web designers. At least not the ones that kick my ass without any contest.

Instead, I thought about an interesting concept yesterday:

High-impact design

Hear me out: It's design that forgets about the details, breaks things down to the core, and keeps it at that. Because of this lack of complexity, it's design that can be planned, executed and implemented within a fraction of conventional timeframes. The effect is that it becomes design which is much more viable economically - it's profitable.

The new blueFIRE site is my attempt at high-impact design, and what got me thinking about the concept. I conceptualised, planned and put together the site in 3.5 days, using extremely simple CSS and as little coding as I could. Yes, the Flash took up most of the time, but it adds to the impact.

Quite frankly, I think that most designers spend too much time tweaking details on projects with positively finite lifespans. I mean, c'mon, most webpages (if they're relevant) shouldn't last longer than 2 years. Spending an inordinate amount of time on short-lifespan stuff just doesn't make sense. Sure, I appreciate beauty as much as the next person, but it doesn't always make sense economically. If it does (such as with extremely high traffic sites), then by all means spend the extra time - however, how many of us build an MLB.com every day?

Free your resources, free your time - when you can, design high-impact.

Last week, I posted an entry about a home for sale in Knysna . Partly because it's being put on the market by my family (so selling it would be nice), partly because I think it's a really cool house, and partly because I was curious to see how posting a blog entry which was essentially a "classified" ad would do in search rankings and such.

This morning, I got a referral from Blogger - Cool, I thought, and then I decided to check it out…

Turns out that searching for "Knysna" returns the top result on Blogger, Google's blog search, and the FlickR photoset I posted turns op tops on Technorati.

Anyone for some XML tagging goodness? Yes please

Simon showed me this little snippet from "Small Capital, a practical guide for small business owners", one of the countless periodical guides kindly provided to us by Microsoft (it's sponsored by them, MWeb, RealBusiness and Standard Bank).

According to the National Sales Executive Association in the US:

• 2% of sales are made on first contact
• 3% of sales are made on second contact
• 5% of sales are made on third contact
• 10% of sales are made on fourth contact
• 80% of sales are made on the fifth to twelfth contact

Wow. Never give up, never surrender!

I thought now would be an appropriate time to clear up a definition. Coin it, even, if I may be so bold.

I got a bit of flack (and a few smirks) when I gave myself the title "Presentation Layer Architect". It sounds pretty pretentious, I admit. Marketing-drone-like, even. I realised afterwards that I probably need to clarify it, because it's actually carefully thought through, believe it or not… So here goes:

Currently, in the technology world, we're experiencing a large-scale move towards convergence. Some of this convergence is taking place at the interface level (think PDA-cellphone-camera-videorecorder-musicplayer-gaming-consoles - be realistic, that's what they are - and then think about how outrageous they would have been considered ten years ago). Some of this convergence is taking place at the processing layer. These days, it's easier for accounting packages to talk to CRM and HR systems than ever before. Other parts of this convergence are taking place at application level. Think about how powerful a much criticised (by those who don't get it, not us) tool like Microsoft Outlook has become as a wide-reaching information organiser. Think about how you take for granted the fact that you can just copy and paste a few tables of a spreadsheet into your word processor.

All this convergence is driven by an increasing understanding of the need for (and power of) standards. Standards that enable a large variety of people to know what kind of information/tool they're working with, how it will respond, and that they can be confident that the next person will most probably also be able to understand. That's what standards are about, partly.

Interoperability between applications, documents, platforms, devices and media types. Which is where I'd like to step in and introduce myself…

Hello, my name is Martin, and I'm here to offer my services in helping you uniformly represent information (heck, even knowledge) across all of the above.

With Sharepoint V3 and Office 12 on their way as the factors that got me off my lazy ass to write this post, I'd like to give you a glimpse into the future. It's not too far away, really.

Imagine:

You open up a word processor, the blank page you see before you automatically configured to your preference of layout, font style & size, and colours. As you start typing, you talk to your device (hey, it could be a PC, a phone/PDA whatever) and let it know that you're busy creating sales literature for a new product your company is launching. The document adapts, recognizing specific keywords in each paragraph, and tagging the paragraph accordingly. As you type, you make voice-notes, giving a few clues to the thinking behind each section.

With me?

OK, once you've finished typing your document, you look at the collaboration pane on your screen, and notice that one of your team members (who is responsible for all the technical specifications) is also online. You instant-message her in video mode, quickly discuss the requirements, and check your document in with her (actually, you hand it to the collaboration system, it knows that she's the next responsible person) and she starts working at adding in the required diagrams and figures. While she's doing that, her word processor tags the content she's adding as technical.

All the while, as the document is passing along the editing process, it is being tracked by the version control agent, and stored in a central database in the various forms it takes.

After your colleague finishes adding her content, she passes the document back to you. You double-check it, and approve it for publishing. And this is where it gets interesting…

As you hit the "publish" button, your document is stored in published state in an organization-wide (and shareable with the world if necessary) database. Thing is, it's not just a document, but a compilation of text, images, graphs and tables (not forgetting the audio & video), all tagged and readable by programs designed to take content, interpret its specific purpose within context, and represent it in a way which is meaningful to the context.

Imagine, if you will, that James in engineering is automatically notified of the new document by the collaboration system. He needs to produce a demonstration model of the product, and is only interested in the drawings. As he opens up the document, the content is interpreted by his user profile, and he gets a high-resolution blueprint view, with the specification tables necessary to do his job.

Pete in marketing opens up the same document 15 minutes later; the system knows that he prefers a slideshow view of new-product documents, with the main selling points bulleted, and a few demonstration photographs conveniently set up in a gallery.

When Sarah in new business development retrieves the document, she sees projected sales figures and other relevant metrics highlighted, without any of the technical stuff that James was so interested in.

All this translation and representation of content is powered by what I'd like to refer to as the Presentation Layer. It consists of technologies like XML, CSS, XSLT and CAML (Collaborative Application Markup Language, it's pretty new). It's stuff that gets me really, really excited when I think about what's possible, and it's the technical area in which my professional efforts are going to be focused in the next few years.

So there you go - that's my game, now keep the smirks for when you see people reading YOU magazine. Time to Rock 'n Roll!

As usual, Scrivs has a few pretty good points over at Whitespace.

Specifically, in his latest post, he emphasises "sticking with it".

When I read that, I thought "that's exactly what I've been thinking about". It sounds like a simple principle when you first read it. Pretty much "whatever, that's obvious". But that's just the thing: it isn't always obvious in the heat of the moment…

When we started about 4 years ago, we had a million ideas. We thought they were all amazing. Sure, we didn't know how to implement all of them, but were damn sure going to anyway. We tried a few. One or two showed promise, but then we started needing money as soon as something we thought was going to be great began to need more time without necessarily bringing in the dough. So we jumped to another idea, thinking "wait, this looks better, this is where the real cash is going to be!" And so it went on.

Fast forward to today. You could say we're past the pure survival stage. We have clients and opportunities. Lots of them. Almost all of them can bring in money. And that's where the trick comes in: Choosing the right ones. We could probably try to do everything, and we could hire a million extra people to handle everything. We'd have fat revenues. But: we'd just be big, but not necessarily smart, which is why we're pushing into specific directions that we see Knowledge Technology (IT is sooo 1999) moving into. And we're going to stick with these - maybe adjusting them slightly, because it's inevitable - but sticking with them nonetheless.

I'm not saying you should abandon new ideas and just keep on doing only things you're comfortable with. Not in the least. In fact, I'm very big on trying to spend weekends learning something totally new. What I am saying is: learn the right new things.

You asked us if we could provide you with a level of service just a notch above our standard support contracts. We said "sure, with pleasure". We agreed on what the deliverables would be, and we were both happy - it's simple, you were giving us more business than usual, and we appreciate that.

Every time you ask us to do something for you, we get right on it, and we try our best to sort things out as soon as possible. Because you're really nice people, we thoroughly enjoy working with you. With smiles all around, you always understand when we hit snags, and we're honest with you when we do.

I wish all of our clients could be like you (and most are) - not because we make more money that way, but because I love it when everyone's happy. I love it so much that I've become obsessed with keeping people happy, and if I can't, I'd rather end the relationship than carry on in a strained, unpleasant way. I believe in the personal part of business relationships, and I'll keep on pushing this philosophy. When both parties in a relationship do things above and beyond what's expected, things can only be pleasant.

Thank you, very sincerely, for your business. We'll keep on doing what it takes to make sure you're always satisfied, just because of who you are.

The fact that you've sent us wonderful bottles of wine (on 3 occasions) hasn't influenced these few paragraphs at all....

You absolutely, positively rock!!

Business lesson of the week:If your brand is worth anything, you won't need to refer to it as a brand.

Maybe it's just nitpicking from my side, but it annoys the hell out of me to hear businesses going on about how wonderful their "brands" are - in their marketing material.

Sure, talk about the brand when you're working on marketing strategy, or when you're discussing it's value or future direction with other businesspeople. Just please, for crying out loud, NEVER tell the consumer how you're aligning your brand to their interests.

We're positioning our brand to give you maximum satisfaction - we're sure you agree that the core values of driven, dynamic youth which our brand projects lines up perfectly with your ambition as an up-and-coming consumer.

or, a South African ad showing up lately:

This advert is brought to you by Brand Power. Brand Power, helping you buy better.

Puhleees. I mean, c'mon, what the hell are you saying? Your product's better because it's branded? I'm your target market? So I'm going to make you money? Or are the other numbers (they were individuals once upon a time) in the group which I fall going to make you more money?

Tell me I'm a friend. Tell me you'd like to give me what I want, and that you appreciate my business. Even tell me how excited you are about this cool new stuff you've got for me.

Just, please, shhh about your brand already!

You asked me if I could do something for you in a rush. I was busy, but you were in a pinch, so I helped you out with pleasure. I gave you an indication of the cost, which we agreed on. I gave you recommendations against what you wanted, and explained why it couldn't be done perfectly - conditions outside of anyone's control make it very difficult. I also told you that I would do it as best as it could be done, which I did.

I completed the task we agreed on, you changed your mind. You gave me a completely new set of parameters, which I adapted to, but against which I recommended. You complained about the rushed timeline, and about how important it was. I understood, and called in one of my colleagues to help ensure that what you requested was done as quickly as possible. We worked until past midnight, getting everything done properly.

After six months, you still haven't paid us. You complain that we're a rip-off, that we charged you double for a certain portion of the work. Yes, that's correct, we did charge you double, because we did double work - not because of a mistake on our side, but because you changed your mind.

Here's the thing: We're very, very good at what we do. I have no qualms in saying that. Our clients are loyal, and we love doing business with them. On many occasions, we bust our balls for them, because we know that they appreciate it. When I recommend something, as an expert, please trust me. Don't complain about deadlines, and then forget to keep up your end when I've already committed way-past-after-hours. I'll be honest… You're one of those unprofitable clients I very happily fire, but I want our money. If I felt that myself and my partners were in the wrong in any way, I'd happily come to an agreement. But we're not, so please give us our money. Then, after that, hit the road.

:: Update :: After some eyebrow-raising, and because I'll always be reasonable, I removed "f*** off" from the end of the post, and replaced it with "hit the road". I'll stand by my belief in business honesty, but I also have to consider my business partners. There you go.

:: Update 2 :: (28/01) Debt settled, thank you very much.

Rich…! over at Hello World recently posted an entry on how ridiculous it is that someone could pronounce branding to be dead

Whether it matters or not, I have an opinion - If branding were dead, the world would be close to social-economic failure.

How can I say this? Simple… Branding is just personal contact formalized. If you were me, and you stopped to think about what a brand actually is, you might come up with the following:

Brands are quite simply organisational projections of personalities. How do you identify and remember a person when you meet them? By serial number? Nope. By name? Possibly, but there are many people with the same names. By what they do? Sometimes, but that’s only a sub-classification… By the colour of their shirt? Could be, but it can become iffy… Instead, ultimately, you remember someone because of their unique characteristics, otherwise referred to as their personality

A product or company, however legally and strategically constructed, is made up of people. It serves people. It was conceptualised, planned and brought to life by people. Not lifeless robots, but real, breathing people. People have emotions. Organizations and products do not.

How do we make a product or organization memorable? In other words, how do we give a product recognisability? Simple, we give it a personality. That’s all brands are, really.

Branding can’t be dead, unless we’ve all become lifeless robots.

Interested person: So, what do you do?

IT dude: I’m the managing director of an IT company, it’s called Information Technology Solutions.

Interested person: Really?

IT dude: Yes, we sell IT solutions to SMEs.

Interested person: OK, let me give you a call on Monday. My company might need some server hardware and support!

(Interested person walks over to Dave – let’s just call him Dave)

Interested person: So, what do you do?

Dave: I design and build high-end websites.

Interested person: OK, so what company do you work for?

Dave: I don’t, I work on my own.

Interested person: So you’re a consultant?

Dave: Not really, I just do specialised work.

Interested person to herself: “Hmm, let’s move on to someone who’s professional…”

Interested person: I have to speak to my colleague over there. We’ll chat again!

(Interested person becomes uninterested person. Dave walks over to IT dude)

Dave: So, which specific areas do you guys specialise in?

IT dude: Well, it’s just me actually. I do all general IT related stuff.

Dave: Riiight…

And that’s a story which plays itself out many times, every single day, across the globe. A “company” is equated with professionalism. How on earth could an individual be? I mean, he doesn’t even have a secretary…

I suppose it’s not a specific, definable problem, it’s just something that’s evolved over time. We’ve created conventions, which is fine, because it lends a bit of stability in sometimes uncertain conditions. The problem is that we’ve become so dependent on them that anything out of the ordinary just freaks us out. A tattoo on his arm? Whoa, stay the hell away! Don’t let anyone like that near our beloved clients!

So, the questions are:

• Does my suit make me professional?
• Does having an office make me professional?
• Does having a registered company make me professional?
• Does wearing a beanie when its cold, and riding a mountain bike when my car’s in for repair make me unprofessional?

Nope, sorry.

In the world of individual experts, Google takes all.

Being a supposed professional, I have to communicate with quite a varied range of people on a regular basis. In this day and age, a large part of this communication occurs via e-mail, for obvious reasons. Many companies (and individuals) I’ll never actually meet, and e-mail is the only channel we use to interact. In efficiency terms, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because most of them I don’t need to meet. However, inevitably, this sole medium forms the basis of my perception of them and their business, which can be either good or bad…

Take the average e-mail from the average corporate person: It’s bound to contain the following phrases:

• with regards to
• regarding
• as relating to
• so as to
• regards (or kind regards, if they're trying to come across as nice)

Nothing wrong so far, if these phrases are used in context, and sparingly, as they’re supposed to…

Unfortunately, most people don’t pay much attention to this fact – with the effect that e-mails end up becoming a twisted soup of corporate “nicety terms” (for lack of a better description). Everything becomes “with regards to”, instead of “about”, and “regards” is generally accepted to be a standard item in e-mail signatures/footers.

It’s nothing out of the ordinary for a mail to end up like this:

I recently listed a post by Erin Kissane in my Library of Interesting Stuff on how jargon makes us dumb. This is something along the same lines: In my humble opinion, tone of voice is important, even in something as underestimated as an e-mail. Consider what you’re saying, and whether it could be said without using corporate-speak (which the directors of the corporations don’t use anyway).

Simplify, and you’ll get your point across much more effectively. Heck, you might even put a smile on my face :p

Peace out!

I don’t know if it’s only me, but I often think about the state of our largely capitalist, Western society. More specifically, I think about how it all fits together, and why it all fits together. I’m constantly amazed that the whole thing hasn’t yet imploded (or exploded, depending on your perspective)…

I’ve read hundreds of local and global business case studies academically, practically discussed endless hypothetical scenarios, and thought long and hard about how the supposed invisible value chain manages to link things up. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes I think (or know) that I’m missing something. Occasionally, I just have to shake my head, or nod and smile. Value chains work because they contain value – it’s that simple. Now, I’d be the first to admit that there can be no universal definition of value. The world is just too diverse a place for that, with too many beliefs, experiences, and objectives. But in this soup of value systems, we’ve managed to scoop out certain things with relatively universal appeal, which have become well enough known and understood to form markets. People trade things they need, and the monetary value placed on these things is determined by the invisible hand of the market. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. Obviously it doesn’t always…

In a simplified market, one of the determining factors of value is quality. Generally speaking, we’ve become used to the idea that a high quality product or service costs more. Sometimes the extent to which it costs more is determined by how good it is. Sometimes it’s determined by supply and demand. Realistically, there are a million factors at play, and these are just two of them working together to come up with some end price. Either way, I’m not here to discuss price theory, but to raise the point of quality as a determining factor in price. I naïvely like to believe that quality costs, and that by raising the quality of what I produce, I can raise the price (in a very simplistic, perfectly controlled world, where demand for my product will inevitably rise). Put even more simply: To earn more, I have to become better at what I do. I have to become a true pro.

I’m getting closer to the point of this post, because I think that a continuous obsession with quality is very important. It separates the men from the boys, or the ladies from the girls (especially for you, Eris ). If you’re better at what you do than those around you, people will notice, and you’ll be preferred. It doesn’t just work that way in business, it’s life. Continuing this theme, I think that it’s only natural (and sometimes appropriate) to occasionally remind people of why you should be preferred. As long as you can back it up it’s fine – if not, you’re creating an inefficient link in the value chain. Granted, it’ll probably be temporary, as the market will eventually replace you, but you’ll stuff up the chain for a while…

My point? If you’re not professional, or really good, don’t claim to be. Sure, people who aren’t professional (or good at what they do) are probably oblivious to this, but it still manages to irk me when they proclaim stupid things. Take the example of Netucation. I received spam from them tonight, but because they’re South African I didn’t can the mail immediately (spam very rarely originates locally; our con-artists rather deal in the real world it seems).

Firstly, the HTML mail I received from them was really badly designed. It was WAY too wide for mail client display, had a Dial Direct banner ad down the left pane, some redundant (and invisible) CGI form, and a bunch of meta tags. Closer inspection revealed that it had been created with FrontPage, and I suspect that they simply took a webpage and mailed it. To cap it off, it also contained a (non-functional) Google ad. The header read “Providing your Small Business with profitable Internet Marketing solutions & effective strategies to attract customers to your Website....”.

Being curious, I had to check it out and be attracted as a customer to this website… On the home page, one of the main headings is “Make Money on the Internet”. Being a designer myself, I was interested in “What We Do”, and so I proceeded to read what they had to say. An extract from the “Website Hosting” page:

“Hosting with Lunarpages for only $7.95 (approx R53) per month!! If you're paying more then R100 per month for your webs hosting then it's crazy! In South Africa your average ISP charges to much for hosting of websites. Choose on of the following packages that suit your web hosting needs.”

Great, these guys really seem to know their stuff, paying attention to their speling and all...

"Web Design” was next:

“We can provide you with low-cost website design. We use Microsoft Frontpage to design all websites. You can do it yourself if know what you want. We can assist you in putting your website on the Internet. All you have to do is send us as much information as possible. You must be clear what you want to achieve with your website as a website with no clear purpose is like having non at all.”

Wow, I can do it myself?! But, I’d still need them for direction and stuff:

"we can help you develop an online strategy to suite your needs”

I thought Microsoft Office was a suite? At this stage, I was actually getting pissed off. I mean, sure, there are millions of sites like this one out there, with everyone claiming to be an expert. But c'mon. 

If you’re a provider of affordable services, point it out, by all means. I’ll even encourage and try to help you. But never, ever criticize those higher up in the value chain. They’re more expensive than you for a reason. I don’t slate large agencies (including the one we share the building with) for being expensive, because I understand the chain. It’s simple economics.

To Netucation : You suck, cheapskates!

I recently posted a short essay entitled I have a dream. In it, I painted a colourful picture of a very real future (real I think at least, within a not-too-distant timeframe). After reading it twice though, I realised that this dream might be a bit vague. Sure, it seems nice even if you don’t really know what I’m referring to, but I felt that it needed a bit more clarification. To make it interesting, I decided to show how Microsoft Office System already offers possibilities beyond what most people are aware of. Of late, I’ve been very interested in alternative (Open Source) ways of doing things, and have been seduced by the sexy technicality of it. Funnily enough, when I decided to use some Microsoft software intensively again, I felt a bit stupid for emphasizing the means above the end. The explanation is as follows:/

The dream talks about people sharing ideas, emotions and experiences, constantly. The reality I was referring to is that of interactive, instantaneous communication enabled by electronic networks. MSN Messenger and similar tools are a good example.

I also used the phrase “The thoughts in my mind create inspiration for another”, implying that whatever I’m currently doing should immediately be shareable, without fuss. What I’m really getting it is that it shouldn’t be any hassle or effort whatsoever. My Gran should be able to do it, with just basic computer skills. Enter something like OneNote – way ahead, and way underrated... I mean, c’mon, whenever I get an idea for some arrangement, I can draw a diagram in OneNote, and paste a webpage onto it. Within two clicks, I can then drag-and-drop it into an Outlook Meeting to refer to later, or mail it to this blog if I want to. Kick-ass stuff

At one point, I mentioned the fabric of collaboration, and this is what I meant: Truly effective efforts are often made possibly by well-coordinated teamwork, and Microsoft leads the world again. Take a look at SharePoint Team Services (or Sharepoint Portal Server if you’re so inclined). Without hyping the stuff too much, there is no easier way for people to share documents and workspaces. In simple terms, if you work on documents as a team, SharePoint (even in basic Team Services guise) is truly amazing stuff. Why? Because, once again, it’s easy as pie. I just open our intranet homepage (which, by the way, basically works out of the box with Windows Server 2003), and post a fix to some technical problem I’ve solved, for the the benefit of my colleagues. Need to work on a collective proposal? Check a document out, send it around for review (with comment boxes by each reviewer), check it back in when you’re finished, and view the version history at any time...

At this point I’m actually getting excited about everything that’s possible with just the MS Office System. The little bit I’ve mentioned here doesn’t even touch the surface of what’s possible (think drawing live CRM data into a PowerPoint presentation to show to the board).

I’ve been so caught up in web standards and open source stuff lately that I’ve sort of forgotten how easy Microsoft makes things. It’s not about what the capabilities are - we can after all develop software to do pretty much anything we want it to, within reasonable time and cost scopes. Rather, it’s about how technology helps the world do things more efficiently and effectively. Microsoft makes things easy, and that is why they are on top, and will remain on top for some time to come. It’s as simple as that.

My point in summary? Ease-of-use is THE critical deciding factor in technology, in my humble opinion. I breathe IT and understand complexity, and it even matters to me.

Microsoft has a nice summary description of what they’re doing to make sharing easier up at “at work: discover ways to work smarter

I am sometimes amazed by the relative values people attach to things. Case in point: corporate websites.

I recently had spent a serious few hours thinking about value in the form of perception. It’s one of those intangible “things” people have always (and will always) struggle to label with a concrete value. In the corporate world (where businesses are owned by those who don’t have a clue what these businesses are really about), ROI is king. It’s all about investment, and how much you can get back. People often couldn’t care less whether the business they’re investing in actually has a future, or more importantly, whether it actually adds value. Sure, the market (and its invisible hand) is supposed to correct things over time, but it’s still only about the money.

The question becomes: how do you quantify perception of the business, and more importantly, positive perception. People try, and that’s when “goodwill” starts popping up in balance sheets and annual reports. It’s however largely guessed, and often by people much less intelligent (but more qualified financially) than you or I – and with that I’m not negatively accusing anyone (or presuming your intelligence as a reader…).

Still, without even getting to the measurement part, another question could be: how do you create this goodwill?

Does it make any difference whether a prospective client/investor/other stakeholder’s first impression of the business is positive? If the business comes across as professional during the initial contact, does it create value? Even better still, hah, does it create shareholder value?

You might have deduced that I’m referring to websites as first points of contact. In many cases, they are. Many people do their first phase of information-gathering on the web, and this percentage will probably only increase in future. Which makes the web an increasingly important medium with which to create positive first impressions. Maybe it’s just me (the obsessive perfectionist that I am), who gives a damn about clean and functional presentation. Maybe only I care that colours are pleasing to the eye, that concepts are brought across effectively through paragraph structuring, and that grammar style and tone communicates the business/individual’s message to me in the best possible way. Hey, I could be delusional…

Sometimes I think I am. Like when I get people complaining that my services are expensive. Realistically, and comparatively, they’re not at all. But that’s the perception, because people often don’t understand the difference that attention to detail makes. It takes time, but it shows. I’m willing to go out on a limb and guess that the most important web visitors (and the most intelligent) notice attention to detail, and that it impresses them. Chances are they accordingly associate this with the business, and that’s where the value is created (however vague and possibly weak this value chain link might be). If they decide to do business because of the positive impression, the value’s clearly there. But not measurably…

People like measurability and tangibility – take the vehicle market as an example. The amounts people (and South Africans specifically) spend on new personal automobiles never ceases to amuse me. It’s often pointed out, but is inevitably accepted as normal again after a while. A new Mercedes Benz C-Class or Audi A4 does not, in my humble opinion, warrant a R350 000 price tag. No matter how safe/luxurious/fast it is. Sure, looked at in digestible monthly payments, it doesn’t seem that expensive, and that’s exactly the point – people don’t perceive them as high-end vehicles. They’re just cars that young executives should/can drive, right?

How much wealth can a new mid-range luxury German automobile generate for you? None. It is wealth? Nope, sorry, it’s actually just an expense, and will inevitably be worth nothing eventually. How much does it cost? OK, how much does that precision website cost again? Only R16 000?

My point? It’s a tough battle to fight, convincing the world that real value can exist in intangible forms. I for one believe it can, and will continue to believe so.