Every developed nation seems to have a Rich List complied by a respected business magazine or major newspaper. For English speakers, New Zealand has a Rich List; Australia, too. So do the USA, Canada and Britain.  Highly skilled forensic financial analysts (i.e some journo with a minor English Lit degree and 2 years on the business pages) undertake take deep research (a quick skim of public share registries, guesstimates of property values, and wild stabs at private company valuations) to carefully develop (over a long lunch at the Queens Head & Artichoke) a ranking of the top plutocrats among us (while completely missing many with real dough).

Continuing their deeply meaningful exercise of the business journalism profession, The Times Online’s Snakes & Ladders blog has come up with what it takes to make The Sunday Times Rich List (i.e. Britain’s supposedly Richest 2000, or thereabouts):

1. Get yourself a Y chromosone (sic)- there are 1,019 men and just 96 women on the list. (Ed: so what gender are the others?)
2. Celebrate your birthday in Spring - Taurus and Gemini are the most popular star signs in the list.
3. Have a foreign birth certificate - of the top 10 richest people only three are British born.
4. Go to work - 762 of the richest 1,000 people are self-made, only 238 inherited their bank balance.
5. Get a mortgage, or two - land and property is (are) the most popular way(s) of making money.
6. Live in the South East - the majority of rich people live in London and south east England.
7. Keep on making it - if you want to get into the top 50 you will need more than a billion pounds.
8. Invest wisely - property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz has lost £650 million in the credit crunch, I’m guessing he regrets his decision to invest in supermarket chain Sainsbury’s.
9. You don’t have to (be) glamorous - yes, there are plenty of footballers and pop stars listed, but not all those listed made their money in glamorous industries: James and John Martin made £200 million from their ejector seat business, Alan Murphy made £200 million from loo rolls, Peter Salson has pocketed £175 million from coat hangers and Doreen Lofthouse has made £165 million from cough lozenges.
10. Give it away - the rich list isn’t all about keeping it to yourself. The Sunday Times Giving List gives credit for philantropic (sic) acts. Top spot goes to hedge fund manager Christopher Hohn who has recently donated £235.8 million to Aid/HIV, education and humanitarian causes.

By the way, you need at least £40 million to make the UK’s Rich 2000 list (sigh).

I’m detecting growing themes of pointlessness and concern among tech-business commentators. I summarise these themes as:

• Too many me-too new ventures offering trivial variations and extensions of social networking services, which themselves are over-hyped - ie. social networking won’t save the world.
• Too many ventures hoping to be viable by being “free” i.e. earning a living through advertising, when there is little evidence it works as a business model for anything other than a few special cases.
• Too few new solutions (and therefore too few new ventures) for the major challenges facing the world today.

Jeff Nolan at Sandhill:

… the notion that all online services need to be free and paid for with advertising; there are too many startups that are dependent on a business model that has yet to prove itself for tech companies…

… there are few bold “aha” ideas, lot’s of social “-this or -that”, and mostly a bunch of companies hoping to draft on the perceived success of a few gorillas.

One seismic change that’s only just begun is the take-up of utility computing and subscription-based business applications delivered over the internet; but even that’s at least 10 years overdue and, if we’re really being honest, just a modern version of the old online bureau services model from the 1970s - when I began my IT career!

At Read/Write/Web, Marshall Kirkpatrick answers his own question “What’s the next big thing?” with this list:

• Business models
• Filtering for information overload
• Standards and interoperability
• Outsourcing API services
• Backlash (Backlash is included in our list because there is definitely some push back)

That list looks to me more like fixing bugs and variations on current themes, rather than genuine new ideas. Umair Haque at HarvardOnline is blistering:

I’m vastly disappointed in the moral and strategic bankruptcy of today’s crop of venture investors and so-called revolutionaries.

There are huge shocks rolling across the global economic landscape… It is the obligation of radical innovators to create new value by solving these problems - or cede capital and resources to those who can and who will.

But today’s revolutionaries are sheep in wolves’ clothing. They’re lost in the economically meaningless, in the utterly trivial, in the strategically banal: mostly, they’re cutting deals with one another to try and sell more ads. That is, when they’re not too busy partying.

I’ll close by quoting Jeff Nolan again:

What’s frightening is the inability to answer the basic question “What’s next?” The Valley thrives on “The New New Thing” … and with every turn of a generation, there is an awkward moment where we’re just figuring out where we’ve been but have yet to see where we are going. Right now is that moment.

Berkshire Hathaway and Mars have put together a US$22b deal to acquire Wrigley - yet another example of Warren Buffett’s adage that “the best place to be when the market falls off a cliff is waiting at the bottom with a big bag of cash“. Imagine the market power - effectively owning nearly every bit of space occupied by all that naughty stuff next to the supermarket checkout (which all kids learn is a good place to cause a scene). Cadbury and Hershey will have to move fast to counter this.

I assume (details were unclear when I wrote this) that Mars is the active partner - with BH taking a stake - meaning Mars can integrate and rationalise sales, distribution, merchandising and IT. Sounds like a smart move, and Buffett has a track record of paying good prices (good for buyer and seller) for good businesses.

Rod Oram has written an excellent overview of the challenges facing businesses in developed economies. He’s writing about New Zealand, but it could also apply to many companies in Australia, North America and Western Europe. In a nutshell, he argues that reducing bureaucracy and taxes, while improving infrastructure and education, are not enough, especially in countries with fully deployed labour. In the end, it all boils down to what businesses you invest in, and how those businesses perform and develop.

Oram’s closing paragraph says it all:

Here’s the acid test: what do you need to do in your business so you can reward yourself with at least an 80% increase in pay by 2018? When you achieve that, you will attract all the talent you need - some of it even from Australia.

I don’t think I’ve seen a single business plan or economic development proposal that, as a consequence of success over the next ten years, could afford to pay staff twice what they get today. Most plans assume no change in real terms, while some assume greater internationalisation which reduces average salaries.

If you’re in a business based on labour (no matter how professional), you’ve got a problem. If all you do is pass on someone else’s goods and services, you’ve got a problem. If you make me-too products and services, you’ve got a problem. If you’re creating smart new products and services that aren’t labour intensive, you’ve got a chance. What are you going to do with that opportunity?

It’s interesting how two major tech business developments have been received by the tech cognoscenti. Putting to one side my technical illiteracy, Google’s very limited App Engine is generally received warmly, while Microsoft’s Live Mesh is bagged as overly complex and a weak attempt to bridge the gap between in-house and internet-based applications delivery. While some of the technical arguments may be justified, I suspect a lot of the difference in reaction is as much about brand sentiment as about product excellence.

If App Engine is a success, it will be proclaimed as another blow for freedom, while if Live Mesh is a success, there will be cries that the shackles of oppression have been reforged. Yes, the tech cognoscenti do use such language.

Google is still (on the whole) the fashionable upstart who’s driving a lot of new internet endeavours, while Microsoft, itself once fashionable, is now portrayed as a rapacious corporate gouging its customers with unnecessary desktop software upgrades and poor performance. However, away from the desktop, Microsoft has gone from strength to strength in its enterprise solutions, and has a huge following in customers, product partners and implementation partners. As Live Mesh evolves into a web platform, it could have an enthusiastic uptake, despite its knockers.

Nothwithstanding that, Microsoft has got to do some serious work on rebuilding positive sentiment towards itself, while Google has to avoid its own potential brand-corrosive path.

New Zealand Trade & Enterprise has released the findings of several surveys on how overseas business people perceive NZ businesses, which present a picture of NZ business as ‘high in human values, but low in business acumen.’

The report summary is worth repeating in full:

• Business culture and values vary across countries, however global business values are shared. It is these global business values which the research showed New Zealand businesses are often lacking. This contributes to the general low awareness of New Zealand as a business partner.
• In short, New Zealand has a business culture that is perceived to be high in human values and low in business acumen.
• There is respect and admiration for the strength of New Zealand’s human values. These include:
  • an openness and directness that is unusual in international business, but which makes dealing with New Zealand businesses straightforward and agreeable
    a refreshing honesty which engenders rapid trust (although this can easily extend to naivety on New Zealand’s part)
  • resourcefulness, creativeness and flexibility – all perceived to be due to New Zealand’s geographic isolation, space and limited resources (eg. capital and government support)
  • wider cultural elements such as an harmonious relationship with Maori, respect for the land, environmental awareness, nuclear-free policy, female Prime Minister etc
    the success of the family and quality of life as the benchmark (sometimes at the expense of business success).
• New Zealand businesses can communicate in a business-like way, and there are New Zealand business success stories; but the perception is that many companies lack the hunger to be part of an international business community.
• Areas where New Zealand businesses show a lack of business acumen include:
  • low pro-activity and reluctance to follow up phone calls and/or contacts
    lack of preparation and research into a country’s culture and specific market characteristics eg. a ‘what can we sell’ approach, rather than asking ‘what does the market want?’
  • an overly-relaxed attitude towards business. “Give it a go” and “she’ll be right” are unwelcome and unsuccessful attitudes in global business
  • being unwilling to partner or collaborate to help their business go further
    a transactional approach to business and an unwillingness to establish and maintain relationships. While this issue is particularly strong in China and Japan, all five markets highlighted this as a shortcoming of New Zealand businesses.
• No country showed reluctance to do business with New Zealand, but there is a general feeling that New Zealand businesses need to come up to the mark to be taken seriously as a business partner.
• This does not mean that New Zealand should compromise its human values – they are part of the attraction of New Zealand – however it is essential that New Zealand businesses are able to demonstrate the basics of global business protocols if they are to be taken seriously.

In summary: nice, creative, naive and too laid back. Two words, guys and girls: SHARPEN UP!

(Spotted on NZ Angels)

Businesses sometimes stumble or even fail. It’s a risk of which every real entrepreneur is acutely aware. As I’ve written before: “By all means identify and manage your risks, but don’t be paralysed by them. If you’ve got an idea or a dream, En avant - get going!” But what do you do if you suffer a business failure. Business Pundit has some wise words for when it all goes pear-shaped:

Focus on the Positive Things that Were Accomplished
It doesn’t matter how long you were in business every business has had bright days. It could have been new contacts and partnerships. Patients for products that you know can work. Systems that you developed and implemented. Perhaps, it was the day or week you reached records sales.

Ask The Hard Questions
Why did it fail? Was it poor planning? Was there lack of knowledge of the market? Did it come down to personnel? Maybe it was the wrong sales strategy. Whatever it was, as an entrepreneur asking the hard questions will help get away from the blame game and addresses the facts, both good and bad.

Learn and Move On!
Entrepreneurs can be extremely strong-willed individuals. It’s because of that they experience success and reach their goals. However, the one thing that separates them from others, is that the fail, learn and move on. Often times it’s in the same type of business and same product: just a new approach.

Great advice. I’d add: listen to constructive criticism, and tune out the sneerers and those who demand perfect success every time, but never risk much themselves. They have little of value you need to hear. As the song says, “Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start all over again.”

While much attention has been paid to the woes of the finance industry in relation to poor quality loans, little reporting has been done on the demise of venture capital. These are the funds that invest in early stage businesses. Many funds are fully invested, but can’t get another funding round taken up by investors, so they can’t invest in new opportunities. Angel funding (friends, family and wealthy individuals) still exists for start-ups, but VC money is drying up. This means problems for two types of company:

• The smart start-up with a great product, a great team, but no money to build the business (the first round of serious venture funding).
• The proven concept, which can’t attract money to scale up (the second round of venture funding).

Apart from Xero (update: and indirectly, Fronde Anywhere), I haven’t made an early stage investment for several years.  It seems I’m not alone. You know something is seriously wrong in the venture capital business when admired global VCs (Apax, 3i and Sequoia) announce they’re shifting to private equity (buying into established businesses). The story is repeated at local levels too. Why?

• Too few successful ventures, too many duds.
• Investor flight to quality.
• The long term shift offshore of manufacturing has eroded the pool of talent for technology start-ups.
• You don’t actually need much money these days to get an online software/service business going (which means low barriers to entry and lousy on-average returns).

This is serious food for thought, if you’re a policy maker, an entrepreneur, an investor, a student, a worker, a unionist, indeed everyone; even more so, when you add in general global uncertainty.

Business Week and Boston Consulting Group have named their 2008 Top 50 Innovative Companies. While it’s easy to quibble with the detail, what’s really interesting for me is the inclusion of companies known for innovation in process, business model and customer experience. Too many people (including some government agencies spending very large sums of money on economic development initiatives) only focus on product innovation. Product innovation is useless without a business to commercialise it, and a great business can buy in product innovation. Which would you rather own shares in - Toyota or Aston Martin? (I own Toyota shares). Actually, Toyota does a lot of product innovation, too - e.g. their hybrid programme.

I just realised that it’s been a year since we started En Avant. Although the initial entries are dated March, we actually went live on 14th April 2007. So, belatedly, I want to say thank you to all those readers, commentators and linkers who have joined me on my journey of exploration into this communication medium.

Someone suggested that I do a review of that first year. Gee, blogging about blogging - YAWN! But my friend insisted that people would be interested. Hmm. OK, but don’t blame me if this bores you rigid.

Anyway, what was I thinking of, when I started? Clearly there were some business reasons:

• Profile and positioning for the businesses I was involved with;
• Sending messages about what I hold to be important to current and potential staff, customers and business partners, in a more subtle medium than the usual preaching from the front style.

I think that worked. There was also the idea of building Brand Jim Donovan (and I’m not talking about ego-building here):

I’m trying to reach a general business leadership audience, as well as techbiz people, business commentators and other influencers. Why would you be interested? I flatter myself that I have some good ideas to share and that I can offer some useful insights, and that you’ll find some interesting dialogue. Why am I doing this? It’s called networking. It may lead to more business for the companies I am involved with, it may increase my influence, it may get me involved in some interesting new projects. Who knows? But at heart, I just love talking about this stuff. At the very least, I might do some good, learn something, and do little harm.

Did I succeed? Well, the networking certainly has happened. Through En Avant and related web activities, I’ve met some fascinating and smart people, electronically and in the flesh. I’ve enjoyed an occasional meal, cup of coffee and bottle of wine as a result. I’ve had some influence, I’m told, both on individuals and businesses, and thankfully I’ve only been slapped down once or twice. I’ve got involved in some interesting projects from new (and renewed) contacts made as a result of blogging. I’m also hoping that some more good things will emerge from ongoing discussions that started directly or in part from En Avant. So yes, I think I have succeeded.

I’m surprised that I don’t get more comments on the blog itself, but I do get lots of emails, phone calls, and face-to-face feedback. Perhaps that’s not so surprising when one considers how few people do anything much beyond simple web-browsing; less than 6% of Internet users, I understand, have news feeds and reader service. Honestly folks, it’s very simple and free.

Unsurprisingly, my biggest readership is in New Zealand (after all, it’s where I’m most known). Surprisingly to me, the USA is my next biggest “market”, but unsurprisingly again, other English-speaking countries follow, especially Britain and Australia. I also find a reasonable audience in Europe, India and China. So the advice to not be too NZ-centric seems to work.

The question I get asked most often after why is when - when do I find the time? If I’m working full-time in the real world, I’m usually disciplined - reading my feeds either first thing in the morning before heading out for the day or after dinner in the evening, which is when I usually write. I may have 2 or 3 things “in development” but usually I write on the spur of the moment, in response to something or someone I’ve read, seen, heard or met that day. I’m lucky that I can string a few sentences together quickly and coherently, so I don’t usually agonise a lot over word-crafting. I know; it shows!

O K, that’s enough. In conclusion, let me say that it’s been a lot easier, more enjoyable and more stimulating than I expected, and yes, I am going to keep doing it. Once again, I thank you for your support.

Even non-techbiz readers have probably heard of Facebook, and may be wondering what all the fuss is about. I’m not a member, so I can’t really tell you, other than to say that I turn down loads of requests to join various “social network” sites, and so do many people I know, including ones much younger than me. In my case, I don’t need the noise (I get too much stuff every day as it is) and I am not interested in the so-called networking features. I am on on business networking site LinkedIn, but only to let former colleagues, clients, etc. keep up with my current email addresses (and vice versa).

Anyway, in the style of “Here comes another bubble“, I offer you “The Facebook Anthem“. (Warning - language may offend).

When people talk about the dynamics of the manufacturing sector, they usually focus on current megatrends:

• Globalisation, offshoring and free trade
• Smart design and new materials
• Smart processes.

These are all important, but essentially they are just more efficient/effective ways of doing the same thing. There’s a quiet technological reveolution about to burst on the scene; while still very primitive, expensive and limited in application and scale, it has the potential to cause far greater change to the nature of manufacturing (and economies) than anything since the industrial revolution.

What am I talking about? A technology known as 3-dimensional printing. Think of your computer printer. Using either bubblejet or laser technology, it prints any image you want, at very low cost, and the printers themselves are cheap. 3D printers do the same thing, using droplets of materials, but overprint the previous image many times until a 3-dimensional shape is built.

New materials are a key compenent of this technology. Here are just a few examples that are already in development:

• plastics and ceramics capable of conducting electricity, for motors and circuits;
• non-stick plastics and ceramics which when printed do not adhere to the existing materials, acting as bearings;
• printable metals
• superstrong plastics and ceramics for moving parts.

It is not science fiction when I suggest that many household objects could be be produced by downloading a standard design, adding your own customisations, and printing it out on your home 3D-printer, while larger objects, perhaps requiring more complex materials annd processes, could be produced at local 3D print shops. Imagine the transport and packaging savings alone.

All a bit too far-fetched? Well, the technology exists, albeit very limited in its present form. Commercial 3D printers are available now, mainly for design and prototyping, due to current limitations on printable objects. There’s even an open-source model that, once built, can replicate itself. Relevant developments in materials, plastic printing, and down-loadable designs are already well underway. You can even buld a 3D chocolate printer using Lego!

The science fiction idea of a universal fabricating machine isn’t that far way. Who’s going to dominate that technology? No idea, but printer & consumable businesses already exist (e.g. HP), so they’d be contenders if they address themselves to the opportunity. Mind you, what the world economy will be like after this technology takes off is anybody’s guess.

Conventional wisdom says that big company acquisitions of other big companies are bad. There are certainly plenty of examples that failed to live up to expectations. However, just because some fail does not mean that all will fail.

In 2001, HP’s then-CEO Carly Fiorina proposed that HP acquire Compaq. Fiorina argued that the two computer giants had complementary strengths which, if combined, would enable the merged entity to do even greater things. The proposal met vociferous opposition on all sides - commentators, competitors and major shareholders. Even after the proposal was finally approved, the merger was held to be a folly, evidenced by defections of key people and customers, and 3 years of poor results. Fiorina eventually had to go. But was her strategy wrong?

Writing in The Huffington Post, Ben Rosen analyses the deal 6 years on. He is a former chairman of Compaq, who retired from that role a year before the deal was proposed; so he’s informed, but independent. Rosen hails the “merger” as a great strategic success, but opines that Fiorina lacked the skills to manage the much larger post-acquisition business. A change of leadership brought those skills in. Under Mark Hurd, the combined HP/Compaq business was able to harness its potential and deliver outstanding success:

Today, the merger is nearly six years old. And, surprise, surprise — it’s turned out to be a sensational combination, whether measured by market share, market leadership or increased shareholder value.

The share price chart says it all. 6 years on, and despite those 3 poor years, the strategy looks to have been vindicated. The lessons: even the best strategy needs great execution, and poor execution doesn’t mean the strategy was wrong.

Today’s Vista Group lunch discussion roamed free as usual (beauty pageants, chick-lit, Benny Hill’s dad and condoms all got a mention). However, I did get some thoughts from the group on the latest move by Apple to object to New York City’s trademark register application for an apple logo for its campaign to improve New Yorkers’ eco-habits. To me, the objection looks totally without merit:

1. NYC wants to use this special logo to promote green behaviour, which is a million miles from the uses of Apple’s trademark;
2. The logos are nothing like each other; and
3. The killer for me: New York City is the original Big Apple (from way before one S. Jobs appeared on the scene).

The massive branding brain power of the Vista Group concluded that there are 4 possible explanations:

• Apple really believes it has a valid objection;
• Apple’s IP lawyers are on retainer, and routinely challenge any trademark applications mentioning apples, to justify their fees;
• Apple knows its objection is groundless, but is doing it to scare off any smaller players who might consider using apples in their branding, but don’t want to pick a fight with Apple;
• Steve Jobs is the ultimate showman, and this is just another brand-building stunt.

I leave it to you to reach your own conclusions.

In honour of Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s 202nd birthday today, I’m reposting why he’s my hero:

Everyone needs a hero - not because your hero is perfect, but because he or she has some admirable qualities or achievements which can inspire you to greater things. My hero is Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

Brunel was a 19th century engineer who built the Great Western Railway, the best railway of the times. He built the Great Western, the Great Britain and the Great Eastern - the largest steamships of their age. He built great bridges and tunnels. He made things happen, and his works still stand today as examples of innovation, design, entrepreneurship and execution. In an extensive national poll accompanied by in-depth BBC TV documentaries in 2002, Brunel was voted the second greatest Briton of all time.

Brunel seems to have always been around in my early years. My parents’ families lived near the GWR at Hayes and Hounslow (the local pub was called the Great Western). I studied Computer Science at Brunel University in London. My early career in the UK was at both ends of the GWR - near Paddington Station and Bristol - and Brunel’s constructions were nearby.

Brunel’s life story is as fascinating as his work. The more I learnt about the man, the more I identified with his sense of ethics, his egalitarian elitism, his setting of grand goals (not just his works themselves, but why they were built) and his ability to achieve them.

This weblog is titled after his personal motto ‘En Avant’ - which means “Get Going’. Anyone who knows my leadership style knows that I want to get things going, get started, start delivering value. It will come as no surprise that my private companies (Isambard Ltd and Isambard Investments Ltd) are named after him. I have a small but growing collection of Brunel books, pictures, DVDs and souvenirs. My car number plate is ISAMBD (which has most personalised-plate translators completely stumped).

I even have a life-size banner photograph of the great little man hanging on my study wall - the only place allowed by my family! Top hat, 3-piece suit, cigar, and muddy boots - what an icon!

OK. This looks huge. Google has launched its App Engine, what is known technically as “platform as a service” or PaaS - a development and hosting offering for online services. I’m not technically qualified to say whether it’s any good, but even I can see it’s fairly limited (at least for now). However, given it’s effectively free (unless you get really big), I expect lots of start-ups will look very seriously at this. I’ll watch what more informed commentators have to say with interest.

Disclosure: I own Google shares.

The big news of the moment is that New Zealand and China have signed a free trade agreement. The NZ market would be lost in the roundings of most Chinese exports, and NZ is already tariff-free for most Chinese goods, so what’s in it for China? A huge precedent, that’s what. This is China’s first FTA with a developed nation and will attract world-wide attention. It proves to the rest of the world that China can and will cut a fair deal if the circumstances are right. China cuts out a lot of noise in future negotiations. The deal with New Zealand will act as a clean template for future deals with more powerful nations, which might otherwise become entangled by petty domestic politics, tortuous negotiations, delays, and “special arrangements” - the bane of such deals. China can now point to its NZ agreement and say “that’s the model we’re happy to accept, so let’s get on with it”.

A few Kiwi naysayers are predicting NZ job losses. They’re missing the point. Notwithstanding that NZ has a labour shortage and needs to free up scarce labour for more valuable activities, most Chinese goods already have tariff-free access, and most import-driven restructuring has already happened.

New Zealand gains tariff-free access for most goods and service categories (except forest products and professional services, which leaves something on the table for future developments). That’s good news for NZ commodities, food, beverages, and high value specialist manufactures. And for a while, New Zealand will enjoy a window of opportunity while it is a star international trading partner, which should enable a lot of Chinese doors to be opened and friendly deals to be done, before the bigger players get their FTA deals in place.

Some people mistakenly think China buys cheap. My experience is different. Chinese customers buy the best when they understand and want the value proposition (be it a hard-nosed business case, or an emotional one such as status). My old firm Deltec did a lot of business in China, thanks to a great product, smart marketing, and a savvy local distributor (an ex-employee). We held our price for 3 years, while competitors without our Teletilt technology fought fierce price wars. We’d probably have done even more business if an FTA deal was in place then.

This agreement is a good one for both countries - clean, tidy, fair and both sides get what they really want out of it. Everyone else will be rushing for a deal with China now. Kiwis would be advised to make hay while the sun shines.

Nothing to do with business, but good fun. Try it at Shadowfire.

I’m saddened by the news that Compudigm has gone into receivership. It was my first passive venture investment (albeit a small one) after the successful sale of Deltec. The main funder in that round was Infratil, through its shortlived technology investment fund, but I was able to participate because I knew Compudigm CFO Mukesh Ghordan. There was some talk of me going onto the board, but it came to nothing in the end, so I just observed from the sidelines, so to speak.

From what I surmise, Compudigm, after an early flurry of success, was unable to build up demand for its data visualisation software in any markets beyond casinos. Living off support fees and the occasional licence and implementation, it entered “the land of the living dead”. Other things went wrong, until the writing was on the wall last year, when it sold the casino market rights to a gaming systems specialist. I voted for the sale, knowing it was a last ditch attempt to keep Compudigm alive.

Venture capitalists often say that they expect to lose most of their investments, but make good money from the one or two in ten that really succeed. Unfortunately for Compudigm’s investors and staff, that ratio held true. But at least they tried. When politicians, journalists and the public berate businesses for lack of growth and profit, remind them of the risks and the difficulties. Most of them wouldn’t bet their homes and reputations on a business venture that might not succeed. The Compudigm founders did, and for that, at least, they should be applauded.

Remember the rule about angel and venture investing: if you aren’t prepared to lose the lot and smile about it, then don’t invest.

Update: Peter Griffin has written about the demise of Compudigm, including the departure of founder Andrew Cardno.  I know very few details, excep