Nov 6 2007

Business of Software Conference (Day 1)

Last week, I had the pleasure and good fortune of attending the Business of Software conference in San Jose, California.

The lineup of speakers was truly impressive – many well-known figures from the software and blogging worlds.

Here’s a quick run-down of the speakers, and my impression of their talks. For a more detailed set of notes, check out the Business of Software blog

  • First up was Guy Kawasaki Guy is a very well-known software guy and blogger, having formerly worked at Apple. His most recent venture is the start-up Truemors. His talk was called The Art of Innovation, and was excellent. However, I had previously seen a video of Guy giving this talk at another conference, and his presentation at the Business of Software was pretty much identical. In many ways, it was more like a performance than a presentation. Nevertheless, well worth seeing live, so to speak.
  • Next was Tim Lister, he of Peopleware fame. Tim’s talk was about a set of project management patterns that he has observed from many years of practice. An interesting, but not earth shattering talk.
  • Bill Buxton was next on the agenda. The theme of his talk was how the software development process is broken (what’s new there), and that what’s missing is a preproduction stage, along the lines of that in the movie industry. Buxton’s idea is that all stakeholders should be represented in the design stage of a project, where ideas are sketched out before a line of code is written. I wasn’t aware of Buxton before the conference, but was very impressed with the talk, and the ideas behind it. I bought Buxton’s book Sketching User Experiences before I left, and am working my way through it now.
  • The fourth speaker was Erik Sink. Sink runs a small software company that develops source code management software. The theme of his talk was Marketing for Geeks, and how geeks (or software professionals) can manage the process of software marketing as well as any marketing professionals. The one downside of this talk was that Sink develops software for other software people – not for normal people. This, I have no doubt, makes it much easier to market his wares, as he’s often preaching to the converted. Nevertheless, an interesting talk with plenty of good ideas.
  • After lunch was a Software Idol slot, where four speakers gave short (15 minute) talks, and the audience had to vote for a winner. The winner (I suspect by a wide margin) was Steve Johnson of Pragmatic Marketing. Excellent talk by an excellent speaker.
  • At the 3pm coffee break, the conference organisers had arranged a breakout session. This involved a number of industry luminaries moderating topics of relevance to the conference. Usually these things are pretty lame affairs, and this one was no different, I’m afraid. I can’t say that I got very much out of this session. Thankfully, it didn’t go on too long.
  • The next presenter was Alberto Savoia of Agitar Software. Alberto’s talk was about software quality metrics, and how there is no generally accepted metric for quality in the software industry. He then presented his proposed metric called Change Risk Analysis and Predictions, aka CRAP. As you can tell from the name, the talk and the material were very light-hearted, albeit with a serious intent. Savoia was not somebody I was aware of before the conference, but I found the topic and the presentation wonderful – probably the best of the conference.
  • The last talk of day one was by Joel Spolsky, author of the very well known blog Joel on Software. Joel’s talk was about the process that he uses to hire and retain people in his company Fog Creek Software. While the talk was interesting, and well delivered, it was largely a re-presentation of much of the material he has already blogged about. Nevertheless, well worth seeing such a well known figure in action. As an aside, Spolsky is in Dublin this week. I recommend going along to one of the events, if you can make it.

Related Posts:


Aug 4 2006

Funding of technology transfer

ElectricNews is carrying an article reporting the call from two NUI Galway academics for more government funding of technology tranfer.

Cunningham and Harney argue that this process of commercialising research should be a vital component of the Government’s pledged investment of EUR3.8 billion to build a knowledge economy.

I absolutely agree. And in fact it already is. A large number of the programmes that SFI funds support industry-academia collaboration in one way or another. Two examples: the Industrial Supplement Award provides additional funding to a Principal Investigator (i.e. an SFI-funded researcher) who wishes to engage with an industrial partner for a targeted research project. Secondly, the Centres for Science, Engineering and Technology programme has industrial collaboration baked in from the start. Any project funded under this programme must have industrial collaboration at the outset, and industrial cost-share.

These two programmes are at opposite ends of the funding spectrum (with funding ranging from about €50k to up to €25 million), but there are a number of intermediate options also.

Where SFI leaves off, Enterprise Ireland picks up. A couple of EI programmes in the space include the Innovation Partnerships and the Research Commercialisation programmes.

While I agree with just about everything written in the article, I’m a little frustrated by the tone of it:

“Ireland should be attracting the best PhD students in the world and also needs to encourage the internationalisation of Irish research and researchers in worldwide centres of excellence.”

That’s exactly what we’re doing! Without exception, every SFI-funded researcher that I’ve been in contact with since I joined has a veritable “United Nations” post-grad cohort, with students drawn from around the world.

The message that I take from this is that we’re not doing enough to get our message out there, and to educate the academic community as to the opportunities and possibilities that already exist.

Related Posts: