- Don't plan transition
- Don't communicate transition plan if you have one
- Promote non-skilled people to decision positions
- Kill initiative/ignore message (ex: kill messenger and think the problem is gone)
- Avoid long term planning (ex: use argument like business moving too fast)
- Don't put a technical team lead
- Don't do follow-up of team requests
- Don't involve HR to smooth transition
- Don't hire pro-actively
- Don't prepare a B plan
- Don't involve and/or update your team on the transition plan
- Don't give overall project responsibility to anyone
- Stay in a reactive mode
- Don't communicate info in daily meeting
- Don't ensure you have a good pulse of your team
- Give too much power to people who don't understand software process
- Like Greenspan, dream the magic hand will fix everything magically (people might not compensate for bad decisions eternally)
- Expect people to stay
- Don't make difference between maintenance & development cost
- Let non technical people take technical decisions
- Ignore problems
- Don't recognize people work in crisis
- Allow managers to not be able to evaluate technical people
- Consider Indian outsourcing can solve everything
- Think people are easily replaceable
- Don't talk about carrier evolution to your crew
Friday, May 14, 2010
Software transition: recipe for a disaster
Everyone knows that software has a life cycle and dies at some point. If your software is part of your day to day operations, you can't fail in managing its transition. If you want to reduce the probability of success of the transition, here are some rules to follow:
Monday, May 10, 2010
Tax credits (RS&DE): the new reality = good news for startups
Last month, I went to the CEIM (centre d'entreprises et d'innovation de Montréal) to see a presentation on the new reality of tax credit program in Canada starting in 2009. RS&DE tax credit for scientific research & experimental development has changed drastically. Initiate in 1986, the program claims reached 1.5 billion in 2000 and ~4 billions in 2008 at the federal level. Due to the increase of claims (20K claims 2008), non standard claims and unwritten need to reduce tax credits, an important change happened. Many companies can't send anymore non standard endless novel to lost government officials. Corporation need to send 1400 words to explain the scientific advancements, the problems/technical incertitudes/risk and the technology and scientific content. With 15% more staffs and 1400 words limit per claim, way more people can validate your claims. Knowing we are back in deficit, there will be pressure to reduce accepted claims. It will be way harder for cheaters to try to loose the reader because endless novels is no more possible (romans fleuve). Btw, CEIM offers interesting services.
It will be an harder sell for lawyers firms specialized in R&D tax credit paperwork who can't use their government bodies as easily as before to ensure their clients get their tax credits. This is a good news for startups and bad news for the ones who are making things up because it means less useless work for us, more time and more money to create real wealth.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
VC founding & StartupCamp 6
Montréal StartupCamp 6 was quite interesting. As raised during the unconf discussion, French language technology entrepreneurs seems to prefer bootstrapping their companies then looking for VC foundings (ex: FeelingSoftware/Carré Technologies/DokDok/Vizmatic/QMining/Aptats/Nexyka etc.). keynote Dave McClure presentation on how to create good pitch to investors was very good:
But what's the point of getting VC founding for software startups? They don't need much more then computers & time. With VC founding you could get 6-12 months where most of it will be re-reimbursed with R&D tax credits. Basically, they give you cash advance for an important share of your company for a ridicule risk. VC mains arguments are:
Andy Nulman Keynote presentation was interesting in the perspective of importance of a partner and the need to adapt but the mercantile conclusion was a pathetic anglo-saxon point of view: you could make more cash by doing the chicken dance then doing something interesting.
Phil Telio announcement about the new startup dedicate house notman was great for Montréal. I will definitely apply many of the stuff learned there. As an example, if you are a founder and will move to the CEO position, you better start delegating what you are better at because it will allow you to improve others skills and will make other supervision very efficient.
- Start with problem not solutions
- Look for high reaction signal (good and bad)
- Stop adding features
- Focus on customer reactions, real-time as possible
- Volume->Cost->Conversion | acquisition/activation/retention/referral/revenu...
- etc.
But what's the point of getting VC founding for software startups? They don't need much more then computers & time. With VC founding you could get 6-12 months where most of it will be re-reimbursed with R&D tax credits. Basically, they give you cash advance for an important share of your company for a ridicule risk. VC mains arguments are:
- It will allow you to be the first in the market, its bullshit, everyone knows it is the timing that is the most important.
- 10% of 15 millions is better then 100% of 1 millions...but you still will do most of the work with more stress from investors and you might get 10% of 2 millions. Most entrepreneurs start their company to take control and not getting back to a slavery mode.
Andy Nulman Keynote presentation was interesting in the perspective of importance of a partner and the need to adapt but the mercantile conclusion was a pathetic anglo-saxon point of view: you could make more cash by doing the chicken dance then doing something interesting.
Phil Telio announcement about the new startup dedicate house notman was great for Montréal. I will definitely apply many of the stuff learned there. As an example, if you are a founder and will move to the CEO position, you better start delegating what you are better at because it will allow you to improve others skills and will make other supervision very efficient.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Ubuntu remix & Asus Eee PC 1005PE 10''/250G 14hr review
Ubuntu remix is awesome. I am simply amazed. I have installed it from a usb key on my new ASUS Eee PC 1005PC and everything works perfectly, yes everything...with a small fix for the wireless interruptions:
- Wireless (see link to fix flaky + interruption)
- Bluethooth
- Sound
- flash (ex on youtube)
- hibernate
- second monitor short key
- lower intensity screen short key
- ubuntu one (storage)
- video
Buy US made by Google.com: search protectionism?
At confoo conference, I attend to "Comment faire une bonne campagne Search + Social ?" session. I have been close to fall from my chair when I learn that google.com doesn't provide the same results in the United States compare to all other countries.- Everywhere except US: google.com = search around the world
- US only: google.com = search in the US
In many fields, it is great that it is ranking closest business higher (ex: closest pizza place) but not filtering non US competitors when service doesn't need to be close by (ex: consulting services).
Knowing that the United states is the biggest promoter of the free market/open market etc., I am totally amaze to learn such a rule. Do as I Say, Not as I Do. As an example, if you don't have an address is the states and/or host our web site there, SEO (seach engine optimization) is useless to get new customers from the states (a insignificant market;), they won't find you if there are using the biggest search engine...google.
Do Oubama administration really need a buy America plan?
The first role of free trading in unrestricted access to information (i.e: économie de l'information: Joseph E. Stiglitz).
You can try it:
- What everyone outside the US see with google.com : http://www.google.com/ig?hl=
all - What US people see with google.com: http://www.google.com/ig?gl=us
Monday, March 15, 2010
Opportunities ahead to reduce impact of doctor shortage an money constraint: Machine Learning
The "Collège des médecins du Québec" is hammering us with advertisement to give Québec Government solution to find new founding to pay more our doctors and specialists. In the industry, we make more money by been more efficient, not increasing prices. It is the easy solution when others are paying. "Collège des médecins du Québec" should promote efficiency to reduce their cost, deliver better service and generate more margin to increase nurses and doctors.
As an example, radiologist are earning on average around 700 K/year and Ophthalmologist 600K/year. Yes our generalist doctor could earn more, the average is around 150K/year. As a heavy tax payer, I am suggesting using optician approach in BC, replace heavy paid optometrist by machines to do the exams. Basically, automate what need to automate and use doctor efficiently which could reduce/eliminate the shortage.
When people go to far with their salary expectation, it is time to bring them back on earth. No one accept fees increase for poorer service.
Public system and doctors studies are founded by our taxes and Health System spending represents close to 50% of Québec spending, money doesn't grow in trees. Yes, they are getting less if they were in the states, but US doesn't have a public systems, only wealthy people have access to it and it can't happen in Canada because it is publicly founded.
I have tried to help happy clinic by contacting doctors to offer smart waiting time system to make people wait less but most of them didn't care much: we are busy, people have to way, its a natural filter. They can make us waiting hours even with appointments, treat us like shit because the service offer is low. When most of us are waiting, we aren't earning money to pay them. Shame on you. Everyone is loosing at this game.
Doctor are getting greedy and are starting to see them as untouchable and are forgetting who are paying their salary.
If well packaged, Machine Learning can be use by anyone to do high level screening and provide valuable information. In 2010, doctors remain one of the only profession who doesn't use much machine to make them more efficient and are fighting to stay the bottleneck. With this crisis ahead, it might be a good opportunity for the machine learning community to get into this shielded area in the benefit of everyone, them too.
As an example, radiologist are earning on average around 700 K/year and Ophthalmologist 600K/year. Yes our generalist doctor could earn more, the average is around 150K/year. As a heavy tax payer, I am suggesting using optician approach in BC, replace heavy paid optometrist by machines to do the exams. Basically, automate what need to automate and use doctor efficiently which could reduce/eliminate the shortage.
When people go to far with their salary expectation, it is time to bring them back on earth. No one accept fees increase for poorer service.
Public system and doctors studies are founded by our taxes and Health System spending represents close to 50% of Québec spending, money doesn't grow in trees. Yes, they are getting less if they were in the states, but US doesn't have a public systems, only wealthy people have access to it and it can't happen in Canada because it is publicly founded.
I have tried to help happy clinic by contacting doctors to offer smart waiting time system to make people wait less but most of them didn't care much: we are busy, people have to way, its a natural filter. They can make us waiting hours even with appointments, treat us like shit because the service offer is low. When most of us are waiting, we aren't earning money to pay them. Shame on you. Everyone is loosing at this game.
Doctor are getting greedy and are starting to see them as untouchable and are forgetting who are paying their salary.
If well packaged, Machine Learning can be use by anyone to do high level screening and provide valuable information. In 2010, doctors remain one of the only profession who doesn't use much machine to make them more efficient and are fighting to stay the bottleneck. With this crisis ahead, it might be a good opportunity for the machine learning community to get into this shielded area in the benefit of everyone, them too.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Why you Shouldn't Accept VC money earlier than you thought: Story about Venture Capital and an Outdated Decision Maker revised
I met Gary Haran at confoo and stalled on one of his post:
It might be advantageous to accept VC money earlier than you thought.
I have auto-censure one of my post about VC but it need to be republish to ensure entrepreneurs understand the possible deep consequences of such a decision. The post Anatomy of a failed software project initiate my thought of un-censure it because we don't talk enough about bad experiences to not offend people or been seen as too negative but its reality and we should have realistic expectation. With Amazon EC2, google app engine, rackspace hosting and so on, it is becoming way less costly to bring new technologies to the market. Most software company don't need big founding anymore and have just more reason to avoid VCs.
I strongly recommend boostrapping your company with consulting and/or R&D credits, INRS programs etc.
So here is the revised version on the post I have pushed Apr 29, 2009 12:32 AM and removed.
Once my boss, which was one of the founders of the company that I was working for, told be: Avoid as much as you can VC, it should stay your last resort. I haven't realized the deep importance of this after some American sharks VCs took control of our company and enforce their ultra capitalism short term vision. GM is a good example of short term vision but, that's another interesting story.
Venture Capital represents high risk investments and their only gold is to get the highest return on investment in the shortess time period. That's fair, you simply have to know the rules.
Entrepreneurs build and invest, VC rape everything that is possible. At that time, they replaced the top management with their Californian super stars or ... remaining turnips (j'exagère un peu). One of their last super star, when I was there which I will refer to "Le Chasseur", came to take the highest position of the technical side of the business. At that time, I was working on new technology and this old cowboy grandpa came to tell me that we weren't doing real research. According to him, real research was what he was doing 25 years ago with his wired and transistors. I simply told him that our group of 3 (i.e: including manager) weren't pretending doing research but simply doing applied research and definitely not pure research as his thousand of coworkers were doing in the old monopolistic US company he was referring to. This guy had made lot of money in the good years of the Internet and was annoying me with his stories, I should have told him to go and say it to his little sons and daughters and simple retire and let us work. His only salary could have let us build a much better team to continue innovating in technology which was our core business. Without any support from him, even working against us, we still have manage to release a complete new technology (i.e.: prototype + knowledge transfer to prod+ prod support) that is bringing quite lot of income to the company. Charlie, most important point is to bring technology to the market, nothing else matter...I have succeed even if he desperately try to make us fail to justify moving advance stuff to California.
Those clowns (i.e: I know, I am over generalizing) were just sucking all financial resources of our company. Been still a share older, I was relieve to hear that "Le Chasseur" has finally been fired in a reorganization. If you need reorganization to do cleanup in a private company, your level of politic game should be quite high... and politics leads to corruption and mediocrity in such an organization. We could have become a great company but it might remains an average one, I don't think I deserve that after such investments but money leads. According to old colleagues, the latest reorganization was efficient.
I think that the concentration of smart people is higher in CA then in Montreal, but we definitely fall on some bad apples.
Key decisions can't stand in incompetent hands, soon or later the guillotine will come. If you made money and reach your level of incompetency, please let the others take the lead. If you haven't make money, just reorient your carrier. We don't care about your ego, the fact that your are the initial founder etc. what is important is the company success and everyone will benefit from it.
You might have better story and or points of view about VC but what I saw wasn't great:
I hope that I will never in my live work again for a company that will be taken over by VC. If you need VC, you might already been badly organized to need desesperatly money from them. I would definitely like to hear good stories about VC where they achieve their gold...at least.
Yes I had a painful indirect experience with VC and an outdated decision maker but I knew that startups environment aren't easy. I learned better the rules and the game by playing it. I wish they will find a way to make money because success bring success and Montreal deserve more of them, there is so much talent here. I have emphasis on one bad decision maker but the CEO and the CFO were interesting character...but you need one bad apple drop by your VC to fuck your company and they will get most of the benefits.
As mentioned in Samual Bouchard blog, we need way more private founding alternatives but were aren't yet there.
It might be advantageous to accept VC money earlier than you thought.
I have auto-censure one of my post about VC but it need to be republish to ensure entrepreneurs understand the possible deep consequences of such a decision. The post Anatomy of a failed software project initiate my thought of un-censure it because we don't talk enough about bad experiences to not offend people or been seen as too negative but its reality and we should have realistic expectation. With Amazon EC2, google app engine, rackspace hosting and so on, it is becoming way less costly to bring new technologies to the market. Most software company don't need big founding anymore and have just more reason to avoid VCs.
I strongly recommend boostrapping your company with consulting and/or R&D credits, INRS programs etc.
So here is the revised version on the post I have pushed Apr 29, 2009 12:32 AM and removed.
Once my boss, which was one of the founders of the company that I was working for, told be: Avoid as much as you can VC, it should stay your last resort. I haven't realized the deep importance of this after some American sharks VCs took control of our company and enforce their ultra capitalism short term vision. GM is a good example of short term vision but, that's another interesting story.
Venture Capital represents high risk investments and their only gold is to get the highest return on investment in the shortess time period. That's fair, you simply have to know the rules.
Entrepreneurs build and invest, VC rape everything that is possible. At that time, they replaced the top management with their Californian super stars or ... remaining turnips (j'exagère un peu). One of their last super star, when I was there which I will refer to "Le Chasseur", came to take the highest position of the technical side of the business. At that time, I was working on new technology and this old cowboy grandpa came to tell me that we weren't doing real research. According to him, real research was what he was doing 25 years ago with his wired and transistors. I simply told him that our group of 3 (i.e: including manager) weren't pretending doing research but simply doing applied research and definitely not pure research as his thousand of coworkers were doing in the old monopolistic US company he was referring to. This guy had made lot of money in the good years of the Internet and was annoying me with his stories, I should have told him to go and say it to his little sons and daughters and simple retire and let us work. His only salary could have let us build a much better team to continue innovating in technology which was our core business. Without any support from him, even working against us, we still have manage to release a complete new technology (i.e.: prototype + knowledge transfer to prod+ prod support) that is bringing quite lot of income to the company. Charlie, most important point is to bring technology to the market, nothing else matter...I have succeed even if he desperately try to make us fail to justify moving advance stuff to California.
Those clowns (i.e: I know, I am over generalizing) were just sucking all financial resources of our company. Been still a share older, I was relieve to hear that "Le Chasseur" has finally been fired in a reorganization. If you need reorganization to do cleanup in a private company, your level of politic game should be quite high... and politics leads to corruption and mediocrity in such an organization. We could have become a great company but it might remains an average one, I don't think I deserve that after such investments but money leads. According to old colleagues, the latest reorganization was efficient.
I think that the concentration of smart people is higher in CA then in Montreal, but we definitely fall on some bad apples.
Key decisions can't stand in incompetent hands, soon or later the guillotine will come. If you made money and reach your level of incompetency, please let the others take the lead. If you haven't make money, just reorient your carrier. We don't care about your ego, the fact that your are the initial founder etc. what is important is the company success and everyone will benefit from it.
You might have better story and or points of view about VC but what I saw wasn't great:
- They stop/restrain investment in innovation
- They drop some incompetents clowns (over generalized to make the point)
- They suck all money to pays their clowns
- They made your shares less valuable
- They drawn massive amount of money on building products that had no real value and on non core technology
- They create a real wall between decision makers and the workforces
- They invest a lot in fake partnerships
- They love yes mans
- They feel way smarter (especially CA vs Mtl)
I hope that I will never in my live work again for a company that will be taken over by VC. If you need VC, you might already been badly organized to need desesperatly money from them. I would definitely like to hear good stories about VC where they achieve their gold...at least.
Yes I had a painful indirect experience with VC and an outdated decision maker but I knew that startups environment aren't easy. I learned better the rules and the game by playing it. I wish they will find a way to make money because success bring success and Montreal deserve more of them, there is so much talent here. I have emphasis on one bad decision maker but the CEO and the CFO were interesting character...but you need one bad apple drop by your VC to fuck your company and they will get most of the benefits.
As mentioned in Samual Bouchard blog, we need way more private founding alternatives but were aren't yet there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)