Innovation in Software

As ever, my business development continues to happen in the open. I thought I’d share a couple of things that have been happening at Vagueware towers:

• I’m looking for a new office. I’ve been desk-surfing at Liquid Bronze this week and last, and whilst my home office in my new pad in Chorlton is starting to take shape, I think something city centre might be a good idea going forward. I’m looking at the usual candidates, but with Fly The Coop taking a direction based on the Science Park, I’d be interested to hear more ideas/suggestions of where to take a look.
• I have retained the services of a sales consultant. If you have never done this yourself, I advise you do (and I’m happy to let you have the details of mine – he’s freelance and understands the software sector). You might think you know what your business does and how it is perceived, but there is nothing like spending a couple of hours over coffee with a guy who understands the sector to tell you how it really is. My favourite quote from his initial report: “Paul is the brand at the moment. It will take time to establish Vagueware instead”. Too true.
• We’re going VAT registered and taking the opportunity whilst changing our accounting procedures to change our accounting platform. All the cool kids at the moment are raving about Kashflow – anybody got any experience with it or others?
• Right now there are 4 sub-contractors working on Vagueware projects, and I expect in August/September for that to rise to 6. The recruitment drive has gone spectacularly well with over 20 applicants – I want to hire them all – and it’s now just a case of getting the order book in a place to be able to commit to salaries for the long-term. I’m not hiring somebody without at least 3-6 months of their salary in the bank.
• There is discussion – don’t laugh – about me writing a book. Early days. We’ll see where it goes, but I’m really curious to find out what the advantages of a publisher actually are given most of the discussions so far have focused on how I will go out and “sell” the book. I could earn more by doing the same but publishing via Lulu. The only big advantage I can see is having “published by xxxxxx” on my CV.

It seems everybody is busy right now. I can’t remember a time when the sector as a whole was this buoyant in the UK. Talk of recession seems to be passing the bespoke/boutique sector by. I hope it’s the same with you, and if it isn’t let me know as I have work I’m directing away all the time now.

One of Vagueware’s more established clients has developed a product called CAESER to help organisations understand how their suppliers behave in terms Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

In order to try and raise CSR as a topic within the business community as a whole, the team have recently been blogging and twittering their thoughts, and an article this morning by Miana Capuano caught my eye:

Whilst unemployment in Britain rises as the nation struggles to deal with the current economic climate, it is no surprise that companies are cutting their corporate giving and charitable support. Research in the UK has shown that while donations to charities have dropped, demand for their services has grown. In such turbulent times the impetus for responsible business practice is now even greater than ever before. With a lack of funds, companies need to move away from philanthropy and explore more innovative ways of supporting their communities. By integrating CSR (corporate social responsibility) activities to core business objectives, engaging in partnerships with organisations such as other businesses, social enterprises and charities, adopting environmental strategies that save energy (and money!) and engaging in pro-bono work, it will help to ensure that responsible business practice is not swept aside in these difficult economic times.

Over the last few years I – through Vagueware – have attempted a few projects aimed at engaging with charities, social enterprises and community groups, including:

• Substantially discounted rates for charities and non-profit organisations for larger projects
• Discounted rates for local businesses, in order to increase take up of new technologies locally
• Support for community technology groups in general
• Training/Development of school kids who don’t have access to technology mentoring – a project that has stalled but “watch this space”
• Speak to a Geek. I loved doing this. I think all of us on the panel did
• Co-working groups, encouraging collaboration within the scene, etc.
• The occasional charitable contribution to community groups in need of some technology to keep going

And yet, what has it amounted to? What impact have I actually had on the local charity/non-profit sector? Offering to throw some money into a pot for a new motherboard for a community cybercafe is one thing, actually helping to run the cybercafe and turning up to do some training on technology is something quite different.

We could collectively as a community be doing a little bit more. “Software runs civilisation”, as they say, and most of you reading this blog post are in the higher priestly order of “alpha geeks”, armed with knowledge that could revolutionise a charity or non-profit for the better. We could help with social media, development of technology, general IT literacy and support, and more.

I’m not suggesting we start to wear hair shirts and abandon our business plans in favour of forming a socialist utopia, but we can start something interesting.

There are notable existing efforts, of course. We could all put some 20% time into Circuit Riding and get a warm glow every time we get on a bus to Hulme or Cheetham Hill, but isn’t there something more we could do?

I think there is. I think you have ideas too. So I’m going to bully you into sharing your ideas.

Whilst the services idea bank has stalled a little over the last few months, I think the concept of collating and voting on ideas is perfect for brain-storming and prioritising what we could do together as a community.

I’ve kicked off a Geek Social Responsibility forum to collect ideas and votes, and seeded it with a few simple ideas of my own. For the next few weeks my 20% time will be spent in part trying to drum up interest in these ideas and getting some of them rolling.

For me there are a couple of key areas we could address:

• Increased access to technology
• Increased access to knowledge about technology (including empowering groups and individuals with the ability to create new technologies)
• Better collaboration and co-working for community and charity groups (i.e. adopting working practices we’ve pioneered as a sector)
• Substantially discounted/free access to specialist skills and knowledge for charities and communities

P.S. – one of the next areas to be addressed by the CAESER team is Equality & Diversity. I’ve mentioned on more than one occasion, how broken we are as an industry in that regard, but the industry is currently so heavily dominated by misogynistic pricks, I don’t even know where to start on that one.

When the UK went to war in earlier this decade, I gave serious consideration to signing up to the Army with the intention of becoming an officer.

Not because I’m a blood-thirsty man looking to kill Taleban foot soldiers or because I had aspirations of heroism, but because I had (and believe I still have) a set of skills that would be of use on a battlefield. I might – just might – have been able to help save a few lives in the British ranks. The main reason I didn’t is because I really have a problem with being shot at just because I’d been told to be shot at. I have “problems with authority”, as they say.

There is a desperate lack of improvisation, innovation and lateral thinking in most battlefield situations. There are some stunning examples of tactical and strategic thinking, but the current row over equipment is an example of how we must wait a number of years for a handful of helicopters to turn up in order to conduct basic troop movements.

I am pleased then, to point to an example of innovative thinking on the battlefield by a US soldier.

In Iraq, Sergeant 1st Class Martin Stadtler had nothing. He was stationed near Mosul, at a base that covers 24 square kilometers. Surrounding the base was a wall, and at intervals along that wall stood watchtowers. Those towers were improvised; they were large concrete water pipes, stood on their ends.

Inside each tower is a pair of soldiers. They’re watching for insurgents. To communicate with the home base, they had standard-issue tactical radios. Unfortunately, these radios couldn’t reach home base — the base was too big. Soldiers had to play a game of Telephone to reach the base: one tower radios the next until they are finally in range of the home base. Obviously, this would not do.

Fortunately, SFC Stadtler knew how to use open source software. Using found hardware, like a laptop pulled from the trash, and wires pulled from collapsed buildings, he was able to establish a wireless network between the towers and the home base. He was able to install freely available voice-over-ip software on this recycled hardware, which turned the computer into a wireless telephone. The soldiers were now able to communicate with each other and the home base. At no cost.

Later on he adapted his night-vision camera equipment using software “invented by a young man in Germany who wanted to watch his cat while he was away from home”, to watch out for insurgents planting bombs beyond the perimeter of the base.

Of course, the flip-side of this is that because its low cost and using commodity hardware, the technical advantage can be lost quickly to the “other side” adapting – they can have improvised night vision systems and cheap long-range secure telecommunications, too. But that’s the nature of warfare.

It just goes to show though, there is a place for innovative software solutions in even the most dusty and difficult of situations.

Disclaimer: it’s no secret I’m not a fan of Microsoft, and I know some of you are. This is just where I am at the moment, it’s not a troll but an observation. I seek constructive feedback only.

John Dvorak is possibly the crankiest man on Earth. Now he’s aiming it all at Microsoft.

Microsoft is a software company. It has been distracted too easily by the success of others in essentially unrelated fields. Here are but a few examples (and there are dozens more):

• Years ago in the pre-Internet era, AOL was the talk of the town, so Microsoft had to copy it with MSN. No money was made; no strategic advantage was gained.
• Netscape was the rage for a while, so Microsoft threw together a browser and got in that business. The browser was given away for free. No money was made; the strategy got the company in trouble with government trustbusters.
• During the early days of the Internet, new online publications appeared. Microsoft decided to become a publisher too, rolling out a slew of online properties including a computer magazine and a women’s magazine. They were all folded.

[snip another half dozen or so examples...]

This is a company that began making development tools for programmers, beginning with a programming language. Does anyone see a pattern here?

[...]

Maybe Microsoft cannot come to grips with the reason for its success. After all, Ballmer is not a computer programmer, and has never been too interested in software or computers and seems to want to run a media company.

Ballmer may get his wish by turning Microsoft into one, but I don’t think he’ll like it.

It’s true that Microsoft was taken a few twists and turns. Developing bad ideas is what Microsoft does, and have done for over 25 years. The only truly successful products they have in their stable – the products that finance the entire empire – are the Windows operating system(s) and Office. Nearly everybody expects both to take a massive hit on market share within a few years.

Hugh Macleod has, perhaps in the hope of getting Scoble’s old gig as Microsoft evangelist, tried to change the culture within from the outside with his blue monster meme. He’s had limited (but sometimes notable) success in the nearly three years since he started it, and I expect that might have been Microsoft’s last great chance: it was an excuse to change the culture into something more dynamic.

Talking to people within Microsoft there are two cultures: the old guard who want to run things as normal, and the newer breed who want to mix things up. The simple truth is senior management have seemingly let both sides down in the last decade (if not longer).

Without a fundamental culture change, and an ability to focus on core skills (rather than dancing everywhere and anywhere as Dvorak points out), means Microsoft are risking everything.

Nobody cares about Windows any more, because the applications of the future are on the web and the OS is becoming nothing more than a local file store. Nobody cares much about search beyond the engines they already use, no matter how much you try and get them to switch. Everybody hates the Zune. The development tools are over-complex, but that’s perhaps because the underlying libraries are over-complex and the bizarre insistence that an application written in Windows 3.1 should run smoothly in Vista makes developer life awkward.

So what are Microsoft’s core skills? Well, despite Visual Studio being a pig, it has a fan base. MSDN is loved by the people who love it, and as Apple realised with their ADC programme in the move to OS X, it’s those guys who are key to the future. Go and ask developers what they need to build the tools of the future and focus on it.

Apple took a gutsy move in clearing the decks with OS X and basically stopping support for System, but in the process they were able to focus the APIs to make programming for their platform much simpler, cleaner, more fun.

They targeted the very best developers on the planet, who in turn produced applications so desirable that “alpha users” wanted to buy Apple kit to run them. Go to a gathering of leading technologists, designers, writers or other alpha users today and the Windows machines will be notable by their absence (or extremely small presence). If the laptop hasn’t got an Apple logo on it, it’s odds on it’ll be running a flavour of GNU/Linux.

Microsoft need to do the same. They need to focus on the aesthetics of software, and take their base of developers and make them champions.

Then they need to think about how to help their customers become the very best customers they can be. When I sit down at a machine to work, to play, whatever, I don’t want to think about using a computer: I want to think about the job I’m doing. I want to think about how to get what I’m doing, done.

In short, Microsoft lost my business because BSD Unix and OS X allowed me to get to the pub sooner.

This needs to be the focus of the Office team: how do we make things so easy, users don’t even need to think about what they need to do for more than a few seconds before we’re helping them do it.

If the culture internally wakes up to the reality off campus that they need to change, and get senior management backing to focus on those changes, they can build a platform for the future that keeps Microsoft in the top flight for another generation. If instead they continue to stick their heads in the sand and think they can be any company they want to be, well…

Trying to shift to a monetisation strategy based on advertising in this economic climate is just pure foolishness, just as building a strategy on your competitor’s leading product is going to make you forget about making your own products the very best they can be. Microsoft’s current strategy is akin to Adobe announcing they’re going to launch a search engine: most of their base are going to ask very loudly “WTF?”

I suspect though that Ballmer will be allowed to continue playing in the sandpit that is Microsoft, the cultures will continue to clash, and nothing useful will be produced as a result. Potentially they’re going to find themselves in the same position as GM within a few years.

Shame. Who will I moan about when Microsoft goes under?

In my post on GeekUp Revisited I closed my points with the following:

P.S. there was something else brought up last night: some of you have been pulling my accounts from Companies House. Save yourself some money, and next time just ask me, I won’t be offended and I won’t even ask you why you want them – as a member of the public you’re legally entitled to them on demand.

What does irk me slightly though, is the conversation I had suggested some of you had been discussing said accounts between yourselves and picking holes at my 2-year old accounts (2008 hasn’t been filed yet), behind my back. That just seems a bit rude. I’m sorry if I’ve offended or upset you in some way to the point of you wishing to find chinks in my armour in any way possible, but if you have something to say to me please just say it to me. I know my style can come across as arrogant and patronising to some, but I genuinely would prefer to have an open discussion with people rather than you spend time questioning an ancient business model of mine behind my back.

It was at the end of a long post, I just wanted to say “hey, come on, let’s find chinks in my armour together”, but some people got a little upset I was accusing them of something in private correspondence with me.

I’ve now had an apology from somebody who had pulled my accounts and discussed them with others. I’m not sure they were the only ones, but I don’t care. I didn’t want a witch-hunt, I wasn’t looking for somebody to blame. They apologised for any hurt felt on my part, and in future I hope we’ll have a much more open dialogue.

I’m committed to running as open a business as I can. All future recruits will see a full set of accounts (and be trained on how to read them if necessary), before being offered a job. Accounts and cashflow projections will be viewable internally, live. I’ll publish submitted accounts here at the same time they’re submitted to Companies House. I will happily discuss with anybody who wants to discuss them what they mean.

My business isn’t perfect. I’m not perfect. But we’re both getting better at what we do. It was the fact people were referring to 2007 accounts as current – and therefore potentially confusing recruits who thought the business was pulling in less cash than it is – that concerned me most. I’m 70% convinced I lost one programmer as a recruit because of the confusion circulating in the game of Chinese whispers that circulated. It’s easy to see how it happens:

Potential recruit: I’m thinking of working for Vagueware
Person A: Yeah? I pulled the accounts. Doing sod all money.
Potential recruit: What the latest accounts?
Person A: Latest ones, yeah, from Companies House. Think he’s only doing a bit of revenue really. Can’t see how he can hire!
Potential recruit: He told me he was doing £x a year!
Person A: Well, he must be lying then…

It’s not hard to see how Person A’s mistake in thinking the latest accounts from Companies House are the latest trading accounts (despite being nearly 18 months old), and how that might make the potential recruit feel Vagueware is not the company for them. That is what upset me: losing talent – precious, rare, irreplaceable talent – because of miscommunication. If everybody concerned had just asked me to explain those accounts I could have cleared it up in 30 seconds. Alas, Chinese whispers seems to have taken precedence…

As I’ve had an apology though, the subject is closed. What’s done is done, so, we’re done, let’s move on. Next time, talk to me – I really don’t mind talking about money, assets and how (not?) to run a business. In 2006 and 2007 I excelled at running a business badly. There are lessons in there I want to share, and one day will.

[Up-front Disclaimer: I didn't do Computer Science at University. I did "Software Engineering". It involved formal methods and quite a lot of Z notation. I have some pretty strong views on Software Engineering as a discipline as a result. Most of my CompSci colleagues generally do not share my beliefs.]

Johannes Ernst posted yesterday a pointer to an article from IEEE Software by Tom DeMarco, pronouncing Software Engineering as “an idea whose time has come and gone”. Tom’s argument can basically be summed up as:

[...] you need to distinguish between two drastically different kinds of projects:

• Project A will eventually cost about a million dollars and produce value of around $1.1 million
• Project B will eventually cost about a million dollars and produce value of more than $50 million

What’s immediately apparent is that control is really important for Project A but almost not at all important for Project B. This leads us to the odd conclusion that strict control is something that matters a lot on relatively useless projects and much less on useful projects. It suggests that the more you focus on control, the more likely you’re working on a project that’s striving to deliver something of relatively minor value.

To my mind, the question that’s much more important than how to control a software project is, why on earth are we doing so many projects that deliver such marginal value?

Can I really be saying that it’s OK to run projects without control or with relatively little control? Almost. I’m suggesting that first we need to select projects where precise control won’t matter so much. Then we need to reduce our expectations for exactly how much we’re going to be able to control them, no matter how assiduously we apply ourselves to control.”

Frankly, I can’t believe such a narrow and misguided argument has come from the pen of Tom DeMarco.

Imagine if you will the next time I go into tender on a project.

Customer: So how much will this project cost to deliver, and how long will it take?
Me: Well, how much value is it going to add to your business?
Customer: Pardon?
Me: Is it going to add a little bit of value to your business, or a lot?
Customer: A lot, I expect.
Me: In that case, I have no idea. Let’s just roll with it and see where it goes, eh?

I’m not convinced that’ll go down well.

There are a few logical mistakes in Tom’s argument (and I can’t believe I’m having to point them out), that basically means he’s talking a great big pile of crap:

1. We can not assess the true value of software until it is shipped.

   We might be able to sense the potential value, but it’s a guess.

   I have one project on my books now with a mid-sized build budget, potential value in the hundreds of millions. Another project for a smaller build budget with a potential value of £200k-£300k. Another project with a tiny build budget that if it goes viral could be worth billions five years from now.

   Or maybe the project with the tiny build budget sinks, the medium project gets on NASDAQ in 5 years and the biggest project eeks out a living but never goes stellar.

   We simply don’t know. We can’t know. We’re guessing. There are too many variables outside of the software engineering process to be able to assess the potential value accurately.

   In essence, we have to treat all projects as being potentially of very high value, because they all are.

2. Value is potentially nearly unlimited, budgets are not.

   It might be well and dandy to say that it doesn’t matter if the budget might slip because the value is so high, but budgets are fixed.

   Thousands of software builds are being worked on right now where a 5% budget slip is potentially going to kill the project because there just isn’t more money after the budget is gone, and without being feature-complete the software is going to have near-zero value.

   Yes, incremental development is the way to do things, yes we should be able to stop and ship after each day’s work. However to fulfil the project’s objectives (and maximise its potential returnable value), we must aim to get all the features in to the final build within budget.

3. There are other factors beyond budget, schedule and value to control.

   John Glenn once quipped about being sat on the launchpad, “I felt about as good as anybody would, sitting in a capsule on top of a rocket that were both built by the lowest bidder.

   However, whilst budget was important, he shouldn’t have felt in danger: the political ramifications of a death would have meant that the people who built that rocket and capsule were going to make sure he survived.

   And some software systems are the same. What is the “value” of a nuclear power station control system? Or the control systems in a fly-by-wire aircraft? Do we care more about the financial value or the safety value? I would suggest that controlling the build – engineering the build – in these situations is critical because the safety value is very high.

   In fact, it betrays immediately the fallacy of Tom’s that only the marginal projects need tight controlling – if you’re not controlling the processes around a software build that keeps 400 souls alive at 35,000 feet, you really should be in another profession.

There is a lot of cruft in software engineering. Waterfall methodologies are now considered almost laughable. However, it’s a young discipline and we have barely begun to understand the correct way to engineer software.

Agile philosophies are taking over in development shops because it allows for less process, more communication and ultimately better software being produced at the other end.

Behaviour-Driven and Test-Driven Development methodologies are providing useful benefits to our clients in a way we could barely imagine just a couple of years ago. In certain situations, formal methods and algebraic proofs are confirming that software is “correct” and “complete” in such a way we can literally bet our lives on it.

Tom admits himself he’s not on the front-line of software development these days. Perhaps his metric-centric universe is correctly condemned, but most of us aren’t using those methods anyway. We’re looking at perhaps a few numbers instead: test coverage, remaining days in budget/schedule, remaining features to be implemented. We’ve moved on. Perhaps he just doesn’t get what we’re doing in dev shops these days.

And we’re still learning new techniques, new ways of doing less process, more quality software. Software Engineering is definitely not something that has “come and gone”: it has barely got its foot in the door.

Towards the end though, Tom does make one point I can’t agree with more:

Consistency and predictibility are still desirable, but they haven’t ever been the most important things. For the past 40 years, for example, we’ve tortured ourselves over our inability to finish a software project on time and on budget. But as I hinted earlier, this never should have been the supreme goal. The more important goal is transformation, creating software that changes the world or that transforms a company or how it does business.

This reminded me of a talk given by Ted Nelson at OpenTech 2005 where at one point he almost screamed:

I didn’t get into computers to automate trivial crap! I got into it to change the World!

Didn’t we all? But I think we can do it without having to just free-ride our way along with our fingers crossed, hoping we don’t run out of money.

Last night was GeekUp Manchester night, and as a one-off the geeks combined forces with Manchester Digital and Northern Digitals to have a “Bastille Day BBQ” at Atlas on Deansgate.

I haven’t been to GeekUp in a while, and I’d heard that attendance was dwindling down to almost Manchester BSD UG levels (which is now half a dozen mates having a few drinks in the Briton’s Protection).

Last night – with 250+ members of the local industry looking to let their hair down – was quite a different affair.

In fact, it had the air of something much bigger and interesting than anything I’d seen in the city since the days of my department at MMU running Wired City (recently resurrected, but I can’t find an authoritative URL for it), and was kind of like all the social events across the city combined, run by some of the people behind Big Chips, all with more beer and food. It was also surprisingly upbeat, with everybody busy and nobody complaining about the economic slow-down – in fact, some of the discussion was about how to get hours down to a manageable level so as to take weekends off.

I ended discussing something last night with Dan Hardiker of Adaptavist that I realised I hadn’t really stated publicly yet: I don’t need to lead or direct something in order to participate in it

I am a man who likes to be in charge of my future. I do not react well to being directed into anything, and resist attempts at management if I consider it futile or inefficient (I was a pain in the backside for some of my teachers at school).

My community involvement in the last few years has as a result been mostly trying to lead things. BarCamp Manchester, helping where I could with GeekUp, pushing along co-working and other collaboration opportunities, cheering on NWDC and all of its participants… and more.

I’ve enjoyed my part in all of that, and I’ve met some incredible people in the process. However, a couple of months ago I informed the other directors of Fly The Coop that I intend to stand down as chairman at the next AGM. I do not intend to run another BarCamp. If somebody wants to run a co-working day or HackSpace I’ll show my face and take part if workload permits, but for now I have no plans to lead or direct anything other than my own businesses (I’m currently director of four, soon to be three, then back to four again probably), and to focus on helping my customers.

It took me six months in the wilderness to understand it, but now I have, I think I can be of more value to the community as somebody in the cheap seats, participating. I hope you’ll agree.

I also discussed the fact that word-of-mouth is the very best sales channel available.

I’ve been doing some serious sales work in the last couple of months. I have mined the Official Journal of the European Union for public sector opportunities, I’ve done cold-calls, I’ve done networking events, I’ve really pushed the boat out in order to secure the cashflow to hire the three full-time staff I want to in the next couple of months (more about those guys soon, I hope!). I got the odd tickle, but nothing solid so far.

Virtually every single sale I’ve landed on the order books in the last couple of months has come from somebody, somewhere, being in discussion with a client and saying something along the lines of “I think we need Paul Robinson for this one…”, and bringing me into the project. Six months from now, I hope to have a team who everybody who knows it wants involved in more projects.

Reputation is everything. I have no idea where I got mine from as 95% of my work is behind the scenes and under NDA involving back-end processes and intranet functionality, but I’m grateful for it anyway.

As such, I need to be more public about the work I’m doing, provide a better public profile of my clients and what I do for them, and go to a lot more events where I try and find partners for future projects. The Internet might be making geography irrelevant for a lot of work, but it doesn’t make relationships any less important – in fact, in a World where there are thousands of development teams a click away, a team you can trust is becoming more valuable than ever.

And lastly, I discussed for a while Vagueware’s plans for the future and if I’m going mad.

I concede that from the outside, my behaviour must look quite odd. A couple of years of scrabbling away, a year of landing a whole bunch of contracts in one go (one of which became very intensive for a while and so the sales cycle seized completely), all punctuated by random bursts of community activity, and then a half-year of what seems to be freelancer-grind, culminating in… a recruitment drive and an announcement that suddenly this company is about to get medium-sized quite quickly.

Some people think I’ve struck gold, others seem to be confused still as to what it is Vagueware does, and others don’t get the idea that managing true R&D innovation is difficult and can’t just be done the same way you build a regular e-commerce platform. Some ask about Kagtum, others want to know about the idea bank. It all seems a bit of a mess, and many people seem confused. If I’m honest, I’m still clarifying some of the details myself.

This is all entirely my fault. It’s not that the direction isn’t clear, it’s that is not clearly communicated. Over the next month the website will get an overhaul to make it clear:

• What Vagueware does, and who it does it for
• What Vagueware intends to do in future
• Why you should give a damn given I’m just that bald guy at the social stuff that talks a lot

I actually feel as if I’m letting some of you down at times, but last night it became clear why until recently growth was so hard to come by: it’s difficult to get leads if people don’t know what you do.

So, my bad. Sorry.

Last night overall was pretty great and I definitely think we should do larger events like that more often. The diversity and depth of the sector in this city is one of its strengths and last night left me considering long and hard whether I really want to move away next year (more on that some other time).

We tend to silo ourselves far too much – designers only hang out with designers, developers with developers, and so on. It is only by mixing it up we can find the best opportunities for collaboration and go forward together.

We should be abandoning titles we assign ourselves and start to think about how to help each other more. And that means more events like last night.

Well done to the organisers, and here’s to the next one.

P.S. there was something else brought up last night: some of you have been pulling my accounts from Companies House. Save yourself some money, and next time just ask me, I won’t be offended and I won’t even ask you why you want them – as a member of the public you’re legally entitled to them on demand.

What does irk me slightly though, is the conversation I had suggested some of you had been discussing said accounts between yourselves and picking holes at my 2-year old accounts (2008 hasn’t been filed yet), behind my back. That just seems a bit rude. I’m sorry if I’ve offended or upset you in some way to the point of you wishing to find chinks in my armour in any way possible, but if you have something to say to me please just say it to me. I know my style can come across as arrogant and patronising to some, but I genuinely would prefer to have an open discussion with people rather than you spend time questioning an ancient business model of mine behind my back.

See you all again soon at the next GeekUp or other similar event.

Actually, Vagueware Ltd technically hasn’t. Whilst the registered office remains the same, and we remain working in Manchester, our correspondence address has had a tweak to:

13 Crossland Road
Manchester
M21 9DU

Please send any correspondence to us at this new address from now on. Sending correspondence to the old address means it may not be received after the end of this month.

About 3 years ago a prospective client came to Vagueware and said he wanted to build an online dating site. Not a bad business decision given that the niche is now closing in on $1 billion in revenues per year, and with more than 20 million paying customers visiting a dating site every month.

However, where there’s money, there’s competition. My client asked me to go around all the sites I could find with different models and evaluate them. He paid for the accounts and some of my time, I gave him a report.

I actually got a girlfriend for a while out of that experience. If you’re ever offered a similar gig and you’re single, take it! I still don’t know if I was meant to declare her on my  taxes…

Anyway, a few conversations over the last few months have prompted me to re-think my analysis of the sector at the time. Not least, one of my ex-colleagues is behind the scenes at Smeet Me which allows for singles (or couples) who know each other in real life to flirt anonymously in order to see if there is chemistry there.

It’s a really interesting take on online dating. Typically if you like somebody in real life, you already know something about them but you just don’t know whether to risk asking them out – something smeetme could potentially help offset.

The games are quite simple tasks designed to promote the flirtatiousness of the situation: you set a series of challenges such as making a video or audio clip, providing an extract of a favourite poem or book, pointing to a video online that makes you laugh, take a quiz, etc. And as the recipient completes each stage they get a reward: a picture or video, an invitation to an event or even a gift.

The same underlying engine could be used by marketeers for viral ad campaigns where you want to promote interactivity, but I love the idea that they decided to try it with the dating scene first. The ability to print out unique codes onto business cards and hand them out in clubs could allow for it to go viral, quite quickly.

This all assumes of course, you’ve met somebody and have the ability to ask them to play your game. However, how do you go about meeting people in the first place if you’re a social pariah?

Traditionally online dating has had the flaw people may be lying about who they are or what they are. Sites that have basic profile information – in my analysis – were ultimately going to lead to a lot of resentment because they made it so easy for people to misrepresent themselves. These sites make up the bulk of online dating sites, including many of the branded sites that are almost certainly being driven by WhiteLabelDating.com or one of their competitors.

There are however a couple of sites that did things a little differently, and made it virtually impossible to pretend to be something you aren’t.

The first is OK Cupid, which is 100% free but does take some time to get into. To be frank, give yourself an hour or two to build up a profile in there. The wonderful thing is though, the simple mathematics of how it works means it becomes uncannily good at matching people up. I spent several months hanging out with a girl from “OKC” (as its fans like to call it), and within half an hour of our first meeting it was obvious that our sense of humour clicked, our values were similar, and that we were two people who liked each other.

For me, on finding OKC and evaluating it, it was game over.  I told my client to give up unless he was going to reinvent it. The only flaw in the model is that right now it’s way too US-centric.

Since then though, a few other models have sprung up, with perhaps the most interesting being eHarmony and their “personality profiling” system. It seems rather over-burdening to go through dozens of questions, but the result is relatively accurate from what I’ve seen. It suggested I, for example, normally take care of other people, am curious, “sometimes steady, sometimes responsive”, flexible and sometimes outgoing and reserved at other times. Quite vague stuff really, but it’s not how many people would perceive me unless they’d known me for a while.

One other notable site in the “traditional” market is My Single Friend which is heavily promoted as being owned by Sarah Beeney who has spent much of the last decade convincing people to risk their entire savings on property development. Hmmm.

The great thing about MSF is that because its friends who are providing the review, you know the person you’re seeing probably isn’t a stalker and slasher. Sure, they could have created a free webmail account and written their own review, but in 99% of cases you’ll spot that a mile off. The only downside is if you asked me to write up a review of you on there, would I really point out you seem to belch an awful lot, and quite frankly you get a bit over-whelming after a couple of drinks? Probably not. It’s all upside, but at least it’s honest and perceived upside there.

The rest of the sites out there, to be honest, should be given a bit of a wide berth. Yes, there are exceptions. I know people who have found somebody on other sites, but they seem few and far between given the number of people paying to use them. As we say in geek circles, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary), but good luck with whoever you go with.

And seriously, if there is somebody you like out there in real life, think about setting up a game in Smeet Me and trying it out – there are a couple of games in there that aren’t too challenging, and right now it’s quirky and fresh enough that people will think you’re interesting and on the cutting edge of online stuff.

Simon Owens dropped me a line to point out that when Huffington post linked to him, his traffic rose dramatically

In other words, I was right the other day when I pointed out that links are currency.

This played on my subconscious a little more than normal, having read the story about Murdoch in this month’s Wired UK magazine. I am becoming increasingly certain of something that would have sounded ridiculous a year ago and might still sound insane. However, you may quote me on it:

News Corp will file for bankruptcy/bankruptcy protection within five years. Probably less.

Putting content behind a pay wall is an action designed to kill audience. Without audience, they will fail. And if News Corp can fail, so can anybody else who has a similar business model and cost structure.

All is not lost however. I think I’m starting to see how the next breed of media organisations will emerge and take over from the old guard has let down society. More on that later in the week.