Race to the Pole

A documentary on the BBC2; ‘On Thin Ice’ got me thinking……

After almost two weeks of intensive Polar Training in Antarctica; James Cracknell, Ben Fogle and Ed Coates set off to race from the edge of the Antarctica continent, to race over 370 nautical miles across the largest ice cap in the world to the Geographic South Pole.

The racers will face constant challenges throughout their journey: surving in temperatures as low as -50C, navigating and skiing while pulling a 70Kg. pulk, climbing up to 9300 ft. to the South Pole and through everything working together as a team.

The bottom line is that, as in sport, there are no guarantees of success but equally there is no substitute for preparation. That's why coming up with a well thought out business plan is key.
In September we will be holding the InvestorQuest Investment Challenge and we are now seeking applicants to present at the event. It will be interesting to see how many of the business propositions can articulate exactly what they do and why they might be one of the winners...

Each presenting company has the chance of winning up to £1000 of top level Intellectual Property, Accountancy, Legal and Marketing advice from four of our Sponsors (£4000 in total).

Investors look for attributes that they have seen in ventures that have generally made it in the past: clear vision and value proposition, strong management that can navigate through the blizzards to success, understanding of the competitive landscape, a feasible route to market, etc.

The aim of the Investment Challenge is to encourage people seeking early-stage funding and business support to put their ideas forward. The funds involved so far are the Viking Fund, YFM Group and Aquarius Equity Partners. If you’re interested, then check out the InvestorQuest page of our web site for more information.

Open Collaboration: Friend or Foe?

Open innovation is a hot theme at the moment. The idea is that you only know so much within your organisation and outside there is so much more knowledge if only it could be harnessed for (your?) benefit.

The more council you take the more certain you can be that your decision or approach is (the wisdom of crowds sampled by taking point measurements?) However, the more you share your ideas the more open they are to be copied or stolen. Also, your IP position can be a concern or even a sticking point for establishing a win-win situation with a third-party that is bringing something to the table. But the bottom line is that people work together when they can achieve more together than they can alone (which is why mergers take place!)

So like most good ideas there are pros and cons and like capitalism 'it may not be perfect but its better than the alternatives'. Initiative like Connect have a role to play in helping break down barriers, enable cross-silo thinking and generally help catalyse action - if the market participants want to. The region’s ability to commercialise science and technology depends on the strength of its “social business infrastructure” and an entrepreneur’s ease of access to critical resources. We want to make it easier, not harder to start a business or gain market traction.

Experienced people will be willing to give time pro-bono if they get a “return on involvement”: either altruistic satisfaction or the promise that everyone will profit from a rising tide. The development of a “culture of collaboration” that goes beyond mere networking towards a process of co-creation and information exchange that creates trust-based relationships, and so instills a sense of shared ‘ownership’ in both the risks and rewards.

Living in splendid isolation (and having absolute focus on your own bottom line) has its place, but equally there is always space for serendipity, participation and collaboration where everbody wins.

Clouded Thinking?

TeckTalk 2008 on June 17th will debate the issues surrounding 'cloud' computing. How important is it for enterprises to be able to 'hug' their data? Is day when all server machines no longer belt out heat from your own rack but sit somewhere out in cyber space, maintained and upgraded by men in white coats.

The technology promises to bring the cost of application hosting, data storage and connectivity down via 'pay as you go' services and open source tools. But have may of us have already found that's not the whole story and the vendor perspective can be "when we have them by their databases, their hearts, minds and wallets will follow".

Cloud computing brings together high performance supercomputing capabilities to the masses. Is your application taking off? The promise is that you can scale processing power as your application grows. Backups? All taken care of for you. But what about security? That probably still is the Achilles heel of the cloud - are you going to entrust your precious corporate data to some outside your firewall?

And what about the green agenda? One of the companies backed by the South Yorkshire Seedcorn Fund has a novel approach to server cooling (no not locate them at the North Pole!). Full tilt computing generates a serious amount of hot air where ever the processor is located and that needs to go somewhere.

So on the 17th, let's hope the debate produces some clear thinking and we get demistify what cloud computing has to offer for the future and lets hope it not all vapourware! We have a great keynote speaker lined up from Oracle and a supporting panel to debate the issue: Cloud Computing - Is it all hot air or is there a silver lining? See you there.

Power, Job Titles & Oxymorons

The current controversy surrounding the power residing with the Prime Minister versus parliament and the legislature has similar parallels in business. Tensions mount when shareholders and executives having misaligned interests. Surely a lot of the problems the banks have faced are linked to this disconnect. And any system of remuneration that lacks audit or control is always asking for trouble as the politicians have found. In isolation, one can justify any reward or find good reason for a payment that wouldn't stand up to external scrutiny or a wider perspective, which is why this is so important in keeping reality real.

On the subject of power bases, I am always wary of companies that have job titles that start with the 'Deputy' or 'Assistant' which implies that the person they report to believes themselves to warrant such a supporting cast. Similarly, I am not a fan of joint roles and responsibilities, which just serves to be divisive and confusing to other staff. If you have functional heads accountable for the performance of the company in that area then that focus is beneficial and good. Everyone needs to be part of the team, but in the end someone needs to do something to move things forwards in specific areas. Even more against the grain is the 'Executive Chairman' role which is surely an oxymoron, which was a subject of a previous post 'Are Two Heads Better Than One?'.

Clucking About Geography

A recent Northern Way magazine article by Mark l'Anson highlighted that 70% of the fund management 'capacity' is clustered around London. Is it the quality of the company that drives the deal or does geography really matter? Business angels mare certainly more likely to stay closer to home, but professional fund managers really should be where the action is.

Is this a chicken and the egg problem or has the bird well and truly flown? The relative absence of VC money may actually damped demand is an argument the article puts forward. Is it the role of the RDA's to redress this imbalance and provide regional funding to need local business needs? The Northern Way have recently published its first recommendations report ' Realising the £25bn Potential: Stimulating the long term private venture capital markets in the regions'.

The report to my mind misses a key point - supply and demand - it's no use having regional fund managers in place twiddling their thumbs without activities to support and stimulate the innovation ecosystem. At the end of the day it is a fund managers responsibility to make money - not to redistribute wealth.

Activities like Connect are more orientated to helping to stimulate innovation and enterprise at the grass roots level. Putting too much focus on fund management as a means of economic regeneration without regard for the health of the ecosystem is not optimal. Fund managers are tasked with plucking good opportunities out of the ecosystem and then fattening them up. If there are not enough good opportunities, they will look elsewhere. Hence the focus of regeneration should be on creating an environment where good investment opportunities develop. I can't help believing that if the opportunities are there, the fund managers will come to harvest them.

For What It's Worth...

I will be leading a Investment Readiness Programme seminar on How To Do A Deal: Money, Valuations and Deal Structures on the 20th May. How do you value an asset? In simple terms, it is the discounted value of all future cash flows it can generate plus any comfort or benefit you might derive while owning it! But also if you think an asset will go up 20% from what someone else thinks it's worth today, then you might be seduced into buying it. Equally if you think it will be worth less tomorrow than it is today you would be hard pushed to buy it. Which is why macroeconomics and recessions cause all sorts of problems (at least in the short term). Particularly if the only cash an asset is going to generate is when you sell it (as with our fixation with houses as an 'investment' rather than as somewhere nice to live!).

There are all manner of ways of valuing a company and it it is instructive to see what each method comes up with, but in the end the value of an asset is what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Which begs the question is a company sold or bought? My experience is definitely the latter. I know investors want you to have an exit strategy, but it should be just that. Spending too much time too soon trying to sell something you haven't yet formulated can be counter productive. The key focus has to be creating value and reducing risks, both of which mean a higher valuation at whatever point this is crystalised.

And don't forget price is negotiable, so make sure you hone up these skills to maximise the price you get for you get for all your hard work. And remember if you are only selling part of the company, you have to work with whoever purchases equity from you so implicitly it can't be an overwealmingly good deal. Each side has to be reasonably happy with the outcome. If either side isn't just a little unhappy at the outcome it probably is a bad deal! Balancing risk and reward is what it is all about and remember the lower the risk and greater the future value is realised quicker the more you can expect to get if you sell something today. Do the sums can quickly shed some light on whether your business plan proposals have any chance of becoming a done deal.

To register for the workshop on the 20th May, click here!

Laying Polished Pitches Perfectly

In the run up to our June Investment Forum we provide 'pitch' mentoring to presenting companies to help them hone idea into something non-specialists in their field can understand. The ability to talk about a technical subject in layman's terms is rarely what these companies have to do day in day out, but when it comes to raising investment it's crucial. This is also an invaluable opportunity for presenters to get feedback, share good practice and see the other side of presenting an understandable pitch. Often it is not until you have tried to explain what is so sparkling about a proposition that you realise it isn't polished enough!

These Company Assessment Groups (CAGs) are made up of the mentors that are assigned to each company that are drawn from our sponsors. The companies get high-quality feedback from people who have heard it all before. So when they present at the Forum, they have the best possible chance of winning over investors and raising the finance they need to make their dreams a reality. This mentoring and support is a key part of the Connect model. We also provide support to companies that may not looking to raise funding, but still want to benefit from this external input through our Springboard programme.

If you are interested in getting your business plan more polished or pitch perfect, do get in touch...

Mixing Ingredients For Success

I think it’s important to appreciate the relationship between three key ingredients in any business: enterprise, innovation and finance. An entrepreneur is a person who operates and assumes the risk for a business venture. Innovation which is the process of making improvements by introducing something new. Every successful company needs combination of these two ingredients, plus a healthy dollop of money. And they need to be mixed!

Getting these three ingredients to work together is the key to success. Each needs better understand each other’s language, motivations and values. This is doubly important in the UK where VCs and equity funders traditionally have an accountancy background compared to their more tech savvy USA counterparts.

Initiatives like the Enterprise Fellowship Scheme funded by Yorkshire Forward is a sterling example of how researchers can get some entrepreneurial DNA spiced into them without compromising their academic integrity. Having a potential commercial outcome in mind from the outset can inform the research as much as that all important journal publication. At Connect, we are increasingly involving academics on our company assessment panels to help assess technical innovations coming from the private sector.

Great companies are built by teams that bringing together money, management and ideas. You need a critical mass of these components and the infrastructure to connect them. People are the ultimate technology transfer agent and commercialisation is a ‘Contact’ sport. And organisations like Connect can provide an important mechanism for catalyzing and promoting this reaction, linking entrepreneurs and innovators with the resources they need to succeed.

Our upcoming Connect Investment Forum provides a key platform for promoting this interaction. We also provide online introductions through MyDealMaker and publish a periodic Investor Bulletin to bring companies on our radar screen to the attention of potential investors.

It's a Jungle Out There

I spoke at a recent Insider Spark event on the subject of 'What Education Can Do For Business'
In my experiences partnerships only work when both sides get something out of the relationship and ideally this happens when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, creating a virtuous circle of success.

Mary Walshaw, the founder of Connect San Diego, talks about Shared Risk and Reward, and a collective sense of ‘ownership’. Community over individual institution or company. She also talks about creating an innovation ecosystem that is more rainforest than plantation. New ideas form at the intersection between disciplines, where cross fertilization occur, serendipity plays it part and diversity thrives in some chaos.

Now I am not saying orderly process and a commercialisation pipeline do not have a part to play, but innovation is non-linear and trying to select the winners and losers at too early a stage is not necessarily useful or doable. A vibrant innovation ecosystem gives new commercial concepts and ideas a fighting chance. Yes, if they do have the right DNA to thrive then the plantation analogy takes hold and that is where real VC funding comes into play. Once something emerges from the 'forest' that looks promising, then the emphasis needs to shift towards control, replication and development with a 'plantation' mentality to leverage value. These stages of a companies development are very different and the people that revelled in the early-stage anarchy may not be best suited to raising things in straight lines to regimented schedules.

But at the Proof Of Concept and Seedcorn stage you have to accept failure is necessarily omnipresent with success. There is a tendency to want to wait until something is proven before wanting to invest in it. We all want to make managed stepwise progress that avoids the risk of failure. The fact of life is that no matter how carefully you plan, you can't avoid making mistakes as part of the journey. Being too focused on the certain winners can be counter productive to the health of the overall ecosystem.

The key question is whether this early stage funding and support is seen as being focused on maintaining the diversity and health of the innovation jungle or is it to grow good ideas in plantations?

A Debt to Equity

A new website http://www.firstfunding.org/ focused on raising debt financing from Business Angels has recently launched which is extolling the virtues of companies of this form of finance, rather than equity funding. As they note, most funding rounds for early stage businesses may incorporate a mixture of debt and equity, normally with the equity funders leveraging off the debt funding that is available from government back schemes, such as the Enterprise Capital Fund. Therefore, I am a bit bemused that the website leads on debt financing.

Making money by lending to companies the banks won't back is a tough ask without the equity element. The reality for most Business Angel deals is that the ones that fly need to pay for the ones that don't and no matter what interest rate you apply to a loan, the reality is that participation in the equity upside is required to make the numbers add up from a portfolio perspective. Our own FastInvest loan scheme seeks to do this by us agreeing with the company an appropriate equity option. Obviously not all companies we back will go on to greatness, but if some do we have a chance of getting back more than the accrued interest and capital.

There is a danger for many young businesses that they take on too much debt too early and not enough equity. Connect Yorkshire exists to help companies make the right funding choices and we offer impartial advice. Just as with the banks, making loans to companies requires that they generate sufficient cash flows to repay on the agreed schedule. The great virtue of equity is that there is usually no obligation to repay it unless there is an exit for all shareholders. Between pure debt and equity are a range of instruments to balance risk and reward. Attending our Investor Readiness Programme that gets underway on the 22nd April is a great way to get to grips with this subject. Why not register to come along and learn more about debt and equity funding!

Is Planning 20/20 Vision?

Someone once said making predictions is hard, especially about the future. So while the G20 where planning our collective futures, the 20:20 Vision event last week featured Mark Faulkner, a former colonel in the Royal Dragoon Guards, who talked about "Fighting the tactical battle whilst winning the war against the economy". So what can waging war teach us about business? Well, quite a lot actually!

'Effect Orientation' was a major theme. Your soldiers (employees) need to understand the intent and context i.e. what your goals are and what stands in your way. The 'How' is devolved down, allowing initiative within constraints. The ultimate goal is to achieve a common purpose, not necessarily just to follow due process that gets you nowhere. This allows proactive action and initiative, rather than just being reactive to the enemy (competitors).

Colonel Faulkner put forward a framework (not a process) for thinking about planning a campaign:

1. Identify the What and the Why.
2. Define what you know and don't know
3. What resources you have
4. The actions to take (which lead to effects)
5. Timeline (when to do things in a synergistic or harmonious way).
6. Monitoring
7. Control

Mike Briercliffe commented in his summation"No plan survives contact with the enemy", so the ability to be adaptive and resilient is just as important as a well thought out cunning plan! However good it is, it's going to change as you engage reality.

For those of you involved in software development this has parallels in object orientated development where the focus in on identifying decoupled activities and focus on the external impact of objects, rather than the internal workings. This also emphasises hierarchical decomposition and solving independent subproblems in parallel.

One attendee commented that this theme might be incorporated into our Investment Readiness Programme. I couldn't agree more! Everyone in business is waging a war on uncertainty and making decisions with limited information. In any campaign, effect orientation (what difference an activity or action makes) is the key.

Another key point was in resource limited situations, you don't simply respond by spreading your jam uniformly thin, but focus resources where they can make most impact. Companies that are responding to the recession by simply freezing wages or cutting marketing budgets may end up surviving the battle but lost the war.

Are Two Heads Better Than One?

The controversy surrounding Sir Stuart Green's stewardship of Marks & Spenser by combining the Chief Executive and Chairman role has resurfaced once again with shareholders up in arms that so much power resides with one man. They are right to be agrieved that anyone, however good, believes they alone can be relied upon to deliver superior returns for shareholders.

Any good CEO needs a good chairman - the two roles are different and necessary. Even small SMEs can benefit from the perspective an external chairman or mentor can bring to the company. It is widely recognised that a CEO can perform even better with a sounding board for his or her ideas. I would be with Sir Stuart in resisting having an executive chairman on board. Anyone full time in the role is simply going to get in the way operationally and loses that all important external perspective.

Similarly, I am not a fan of joint roles and responsibilities, which just serves to be divisive and confusing to other staff. If you have functional heads accountable for the performance of the company in that area then that focus is beneficial and good. Everyone needs to be part of the team, but in the end someone needs to do something to move things forwards in specific areas. I do hope that Sir Stuart is a good delegator because doing the work of two people (as soon as you can afford not to) ain't a smart move in business, however good you are.

Taking The Plunge In A Recession

Some top tips if you are thinking of starting your own business:

1. Do not be put off by the downturn. Many companies will be reconsidering their cost base and you may be able to offer a more cost-effective solution. Adversity stimulates change.
   
2. Don't leave your job too soon. Develop your new project at weekends, in the evening or in your lunch break for as long as you can. You need to keep the cash coming in and when you make the leap, make sure you are not going to run out of it.


3. Do not take on overheads. Fancy offices and expense accounts can wait. Be ruthless about keeping fixed costs low.


4. Do not spend money on shotgun advertising. PR and targeted advertising is a much better bet for a young company.


5. Do not engage expensive professional advisers too soon. Learn the basics yourself and tap into free advice available from the likes of Business Link and Connect Yorkshire!


6. Do not rely on bank debt exclusively (chance would be a fine thing). You need a range of sources of finance. Equity, leasing, invoice discounting, customer discounts to pay upfront (or even before you can ship anything to them if you can).


7. Do not be too ambitious, too soon. By all means dream, but set achievable goals and realistic targets. You need to get to base camp before trying to reach the summit of your ambitions.


8. Know your customer. Every product needs tweeking once the first customers get their grubby hands on it - don't expect to get it right first time nomatter how hard you try.


9. Know your market sell into it well. No matter how good you think you are, you need to beat a path to the customers door and not the other way around.


10. Keep going. You have to be in the game to win it.
    

To find out more about getting fit for finance and developing your business idea, come to our upcoming Investment Readiness seminars.

Reflections On The Enterprise Show

Having spent a day at the Enterprise Show it reminds me of the need to have an alignment from encouraging entrepreneurs to providing the right start up advice, access to finance, and networks to inspire enterprise and growth ambition. The right business support made available at the right time, especially so at the early stage, is essential for innovation to flourish. Most importantly, innovation requires strong and effective business networks. The evidence is that building a successful business is a contact sport and partnerships, teamwork and community are essential.

Physical closeness is undoubtedly important. Silicon Valley and the Cambridge cluster, the rise of the high-tech community around Boston and San Diego all have things in common, not least the active involvement a dominant research-led university. Yorkshire is blessed with not one but at least five world class academic institutions which not surprisingly tend to vie with each other for superiority which with this catalysing focus in mind is not necessarily entirely a good thing. Good networks and geographic focus can help to foster commercialisation and growth.

The Enterprise show is a good example of a key element that fills one of the gaping holes in provision - which is help for the general public to get their business idea off the ground. This is also the space where Connect primarily operates. It will be interesting to see whether the new innovation voucher scheme leads to more engagement between the general public and the universities in pursuing enterprise and innovation. They have thirteen in the region to choose from...

Is Research Opinionated?

Coming from a scientific background, my idea of research is to have a question, then collect evidence to inform it. The opinion formed or conclusions is the real crux of any research project and the ability to analyse and organise information to further the understanding of a subject - by whatever small amount - is what really matters.

Is a bunch of statistics and facts however well laid out a sufficient body of work to be classed as research? A recent piece of market research for one of our companies consisted of over 100 pages of information primarily extracted from Mintel reports. Similarly, I recently read a commissioned report that purported to be a piece of research, but again was just a collection of pertinent facts relating to a particular market and geography.

While no doubt this information is highly relevant and informative to certain readers, I question whether this should be called research. Or am I just being too protective of the phrase?

Two Banks of a Technology Pond

The British persona tends to be self-deprecating and reserved when it comes to trumpeting our successes and rather backwards at coming forwards when it comes to converting innovation and research into commercial reality, particularly when compared to our US counterparts.

There is a tendency in the UK to wait until something is proven before investing in it, whereas the USA has more of an appetite for risk. Americans will try something new, if it works they embrace it and believe more, if it doesn't they purse another opportunity. This non-deterministic approach contracts sharply with our tendency in the UK to want to make managed stepwise progress that avoids the risk of failure. The fact of life is that no matter how carefully you plan, you can't avoid some false starts and the need to backtrack and admit making mistakes are all part of the journey.

Having lived and worked on both sides of the pond, my experience is that its the balance between three essential elements of tech success: IP, management and money. And the stigma attached to failure. In the USA there are more tech entrepreneurs prepared to back early stage ideas that VCs or bankers (right so!) wouldn't take even a first look at. This business angel involvement at proof of concept enables new ideas to get one foot out of the lab and onto the radar screen of serious funders with some management DNA already spliced in. Similarly American VCs employ (or are started up) by more tech-savvy people, rather than being top heavy with lawyers and accountants (not that these skills aren't important!). American VC tend then to step in an put serious money into fewer companies that are in better shape to progress than those in the UK enabling a more of a seamless transition from idea to commercialisation

So maybe we need a little more joined-up thinking that combines money, enterprise, innovation and management...

New Year Predictions

OK here goes:

Connect Yorkshire helps even more companies get investment ready and pitch for investment through its flagship investment forums, investment challenges and business plan competitions.

The rest of the UK increasingly embrace the Connect model and new initiatives are rolled out in London and the North East.

A UK wide online platform that brings together entrepreneurs with the resources to they need to succeed is launched that complements and extends our regionally focused 'on the ground' activities.

Yorkshire Forward announces a region-wide investment fund as a follow on for Partnership Investment Finance and the South Yorkshire Investment Fund that incorporates a much needed seedcorn element.

The Business Support Simplification agenda leads to more joined-up thinking with regard to investment readiness support and access to finance across the piste.

Connect promotes its flagship 'Springboard' initiative to help early-stage propositions get their business plans into shape - even if they are not necessarily wishing to raise external finance.

Cloud computing and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) gains increasing traction in the market and we all start buying PCs with smaller hard disk drives.

One can but dream...Happy New Year!

It's Good To Be A Little Bad or Mad

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great."

- Mark Twain

A lot of entrepreneurs worry about people stealing their bright ideas. In my experience, ideas are easy - its execution that's hard. And even if your idea is brilliant, the best ones aren't necessarily so. Any really good new idea will seem either bad or mad to most people; otherwise someone in China will already be doing it. Your idea needs to be almost good and it helps if the world around you helps turn your fad into a fashion. Look at all the money going into green energy - its even got its own name 'CleanTech'. Most funders are driven by consensus, not just within their firms, but within their community. Surely that's exactly how the credit bubble happened - everyone was doing it, so it must be a good idea. Not.

And being too clever ain't necessarily a good idea either. My claim to fame is that my Ph.D was part of a research project that won E.J. Corey his Nobel Prize. That research itself never generated anything that was directly commercial. However, the spin-offs that were successful were infinitely less ambitious in their goals, but solved real-world problems in an explainable way. It’s a great case study of how a small change of perspective and focus on an addressable market opened up a commercial opportunity – and why trying to be too smart is not always a good idea in the real world!

So when the next small-minded person tells you what you are trying to do is bad or mad, breath a sigh of relief that maybe you on the path to greatness! Someone right now is probably telling the next Google why what they are doing isn't such a bright idea. And he probably works for a bank!

Bonfires, Dry Stone Walls, Clouds, Inches & Death Computing

Colin Beveridge spoke at the 20/20 Vision event organised by Sandford Technology/Virtronix on Fighting the Trillion Dollar Bonfire (effective information systems for the 21st Century). His conclusion seemed to be that system integration is the way forwards. I have to agree. Most IS systems seems like good old Yorkshire stone walls - they require immense intricacy to put them together and great skill to build, then they fall down after a while because there's nothing but air and friction holding them together. What we need is some 'cement' to hold the functional bricks together and facilitate process, workflow, data sharing and increased productivity. Yorkshire Forward seem to have woken up to the fact that each 'brick in the wall' they fund is replicating data and not sharing it effectively with each other. They are introducing a CRM that all agencies can tap into, leverage and generally use. Great idea! I have been saying this for three year's and every other agency seemed to wave the data protection act at me as to why we can't share information more!!!

The death of the corporate datacentre seemed to also be on the vendor agenda with all our data being entrusted to third parties (like this blog and my emails). Ian Weatherhog and Mike Briercliffe waxed lyrically about how the PC was the root of all evil when it came to data security (he also spoke at our recent TechTalk event). I can remember far enough back when I accessed the old cloud i.e. our corporate IT server from a remote PC and the data could be viewed, but not manipulated. We used to say all this valuable data was "an inch from the desktop" and spent ten years going that final inch and start turning data into information, albeit with security and integrity compromised. Now we seem to be poised to unify the competing factions with the eventual promise of network computing and Larry Ellison's vision of thin clients that all they do is the final rendering.

I suppose it's only a matter of time before we all have enough certainty that "till death us do part" our data is safe and backed up in the cloud and not deleted when our credit card expires. Now that's what I call security.

Snow Report

‘Solutions for Business – funded by government’ is a package of business support to help companies start, grow and succeed. The launch event was fittingly held last Friday in a casino! Simon Hill from Yorkshire Forward explained how they have streamlined thousands of public-funded support products into a package of thirty. My take on it was that they have identified a set of product categories under which individual solutions would fit, which is not exactly the same thing! Like the fact that multiple inheritance in object-oriented systems is technically feasible, but not a good idea in practise, going forwards hybrid products that fit under two categories would disappear, which is perfectly sensible.

But let's remember this is just a conceptualisation of reality that dices and slices things to offer a palatable solution that hides complexity, maximised cohesion and minimises coupling (see my Keep it Simple Stupid post). For example, lets take business mentoring - it is valuable before and after investment but has been and probably will continue to be separated into investor readiness support and 'money with management'. And there's nothing wrong with that, but in another conceptualisation it could be brought together, but that would require closer coordination between organisations like Connect and the investment funds.

We all want things to appear as simple as possible, but as with systems biology, life introduces complexity as the thing evolves. That's not to say we shouldn't group together things - that's what an organ is. Eskimo's have twenty words for 'snow', because it's an important concept to them. Try telling them they don't need the other nineteen.