Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Outsourcing the service economy

The forces that shrank our manufacturing economy are now affecting the service industries.

Through the 1970s and 80s we accepted manufacturing industries moving jobs offshore because those jobs were done by working class, blue collar workers and the future lay in white collar, middle class service industries.

As a consequence of moving manufacturing offshore, the US, British and Australian economies became more service based. The thought in the 1980s was that while goods could be made in Taiwan, the ‘knowledge industries’ couldn’t be.

Then the Internet came along.

A panel on The Future of Outsourcing convened by the Indian Institute of Technologies Association of Australia last night discussed some of these issues.

Now the service industries are being offshored, at first it was the low skilled service jobs like call centres but it didn’t take long for higher value work – such as paralegal, medical transcription and of course IT services – to follow.

The belief that white collar jobs couldn’t be taken over by cheaper foreign labour has been proved wrong.

It isn’t just those working in the call centres or IT departments of telcos and big banks that are being affected, those small businesses in support industries like secretarial services or design are finding their clients are moving offshore too.

What’s interesting with all of this is how long the executive classes can resist being outsourced. Indian and Chinese managers work for harder for less than their US, British or Australian colleagues and in many cases are better educated.

One can only wonder how long the partners of major consulting business can hold the line as well, these guys – the vast majority are men – have done very nicely charging first world rates while increasingly paying developing world rates.

Already Indian outsourcing companies, including at least two sitting on that Sydney panel, have set up their own consulting arms that cut out the expensive middle men. Without the overheads flashy offices and big packages for entitled partners, they’ll have a pretty competitive offering.

While we can cry for the high paid management consultants and executives who are increasingly threatened by these changes, the Anglo-Saxon economies have a real problem as service industries move offshore.

In Australia, the Bureau of Statistic’s 100 Years of Change in Australian Industry tracks how the nation’s industries have changed – in the 1950s Australian manufacturing peaked just shy of 30% of the workforce, by 2000 it had shrunk to 11% while service industries were doubled from around 25% to 50% of the economy.

While it’s unlikely we’d see the service sector workforce shrink by 2/3rd over the next fifty years, there’s a good chance incomes will fall in these industries unless we start to invest in education and skills which allow Australia to stake a place in the global economy.

One of the key takeaways from the Future of Outsourcing event was that this change is happening regardless of what we think is a fair wage for our work. It’s something our government and business leaders need to start considering.

Are IT workers the new loom weavers?

Transition changes hit the technology industries once again, and many aren’t happy.

“There are IT workers who can’t put food on their table,” complained an industry representative at an outsourcing conference.

It’s true – there are hundreds of once well paid project managers, technicians and support staff staff who can’t get work in their industry as some tasks go offshore and others are supplanted by new technologies.

None of this is new, we only have to think back to the heady days of the Dot Com boom when any punk with a basic knowledge of HTML could pull down six figures a year.

Just like the loom weavers of the 17th Century who became the Luddites, the HTML coders of 1998 and the project managers of 2008 have had a short period of affluence before been overtaken by change.

It’s something that today’s hot shot coders should keep in mind, bubbles burst and technology changes.

Verified Jerks

Anonymity is the problem on the Internet, accountability is.

When you work in customer service you quickly learn that some people are just rude jerks. Depending on how bad a day you have it could be 2, 5 or 10% of the population.

For these people the Internet has been a paradise with almost anonymous forums and newsgroups allowing them to be rude and obnoxious with little risk of being held accountable for their spiteful behaviour.

One of the hopes of social media services was that forcing people into using accounts tied to their real identities would impose some self discipline among these trolls and haters,

Sadly The argument that verified identities would stop people being irresponsible is wrong.

The sad story of seemingly mature people insulting and wanting to beat up a five year old participant on a reality TV show illustrates how manners, good taste and style are beyond some people.

It’s depressing, but unsurprising that this demographic can’t figure out that ‘reality’ TV shows are anything but real. The programs are carefully edited to suit the dramatic narrative of the producers with some of the participants being portrayed as villains and others as heroes.

The little girl in question could be in a spoilt little brat, but you’d want to be careful making that judgement from what you see on TV.

Many would put the spiteful behaviour of the Facebook commentors down to being another example of social media destroying our society, but this behaviour pre-dates the web.

In the 1990s we saw a similar wave of insults aimed at President Clinton’s then teenage daughter Chelsea. In many ways it was far worse in what we are seeing today in that those encouraging that behavior were the leaders of political parties and their ideological fellow travellers in the media.

The abuse of Chelsea Clinton marked the rapid decline of standards in politics that leaves many of us now sickened by the behaviour of all parties – and that of the media that treats their shenanigans seriously.

Notable about the raucous political partisanship is that most participant are happy, even proud, to be named as they debase the institutions they’ve been elected to represent.

The reason is they aren’t accountable, they know most of us are rusted on voters and the few that aren’t can be conned long enough by expensive advertising campaigns to get them elected.

Should they not get elected, they’ll be welcomed into the arms of their corporatist friends who will find them a nice sinecure on a board, committee or think tank.

The real reason people act like jerks is because they think they aren’t accountable – the politicians know they aren’t and most Facebook users figure the odds are in their favour that they’ll never be held to account for their boorish behaviour.

Anonymity is the reason for bad manners on the net, accountability is. While our society doesn’t make people accountable for cruel, rude or corrupt behaviour then these people will thrive. With or without the internet.

Hacking the hacks

Do journalists have the skills to ride the Big Data wave?

Hacks and Hackers is an informal global network of meetings discussing the intersection of technology and journalism. The inaugural Sydney Hacks and Hackers meetup recently looked at how journalists use data and showed the challenges the news media face in an age where information isn’t scarce.

The panel in Sydney were Sharona Coutts, Investigative Reporter at Global Mail; Edmund Tadros, Data Journalist at Australian Financial Review; and Courtney Hohne, Director of Communications Google Australia.

Courtney looked at some of the big data opportunities for journalists, a topic covered in the Closed Data Doors post. One of the areas she highlighted was emergency services sending out PDFs of updates during crises like bushfires and floods.

Listening to Sharona and Edmund, it was clear they were two overworked but keen young journalists who had neither the resources or the training to deal with the data flowing into their organisations.

Because journalists in modern media organisations don’t have the skills or the resources to properly understand and use raw data the public ends up with relatively trivial stories like league tables of school exam results or council building approvals – both of which are important, but are misread and used to confect outrage against incompetent public servants and duplicitous politicians.

For the public servant, school teacher or even bus driver it’s understandable they don’t want their performance measured if the measure is going to be misused and possibly jeopardize their jobs.

A deeper problem for journalism is the skills of the trade. Both Edmund and Sharona are smart young journos who will go far; but both admitted they had no training in statistic and mathematics.

Even more worrying are the older journalists, when I mentioned the lack of older and more experienced journalists to the organiser she said none would agree to come on the panel. One suspects this is because forty and fifty year old journalists have even fewer data skills than their young colleagues.

This lack of skills or understanding of data is probably one of the biggest challenges facing the media. In a world awash with data, the role of journalists is to filter the feed, interpret and explain it.

Pure reportage is being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of news and information available; the 1980s model of opinion based journalism is also failing as the audience now realise they have a voice, and better informed opinions, than the experts and columnists.

One of the notable themes that seemed to jump out of the evening was the divide between journalists and the wider community that always seems to appear when the future of journalism is discussed.

Usually this expressed in terms of those employed by major mastheads sneering at “citizen journalists” but at Hacks and Hackers it was about “geeks and journos coming together.”

In reality there is no divide – good analytic and technology skills should be as much a part of journalism as any other field in a modern economy.

The fear from the Sydney Hacks and Hackers night is that the media industry is one of the sectors that’s failing to deal with technological change.

It’s hard not to think that journalists wondering at the power of spreadsheets and pivot tables is like 18th Century blacksmiths trying to figure out how steam engines can make better horseshoes.

For an industry that is so deeply challenged by technological change, it seems the news media is still unprepared for the changes that hit nearly a decade ago.

So you think services are easy?

The differences between service, hardware and software businesses shouldn’t be understated.

ZDNet columnist Ed Bott is possibly one of Microsoft’s closest followers and among the few to defend Windows Vista, Ed though can’t be faulted for doing the hard yards including reading Microsoft’s stock market10-K filings.

In their most recent filing, Ed finds Microsoft has used the word “service” 73 times as opposed to 44 appearances last year.

A key phrase in the filing is “a growing part of our strategy involves cloud-based services used with smart client devices.”

This is consistent with the hands on previews of Windows 8 which Microsoft have been giving journalists over the last few months. Something that leaps out is the integration with online services; something that both Google and Apple have also been pushing.

What should worry investors is that moving into services isn’t easy. Service businesses are far more labour intensive and, as a consequence, far less profitable.

Despite having relatively low labour costs, cloud computing services are problematic as many sectors have been commoditised, which is the genius of Salesforce in establishing a profitable niche.

The fat margins Microsoft are used to in their core software business can’t be replicated in the cloud based markets, which is one of the reasons why customers are switching to the cloud.

Microsoft’s problem is shared by telecommunications companies who are finding their cloud offering don’t generate the same ARPUs — Annual Revenue Per User — that they’ve become accustomed to in the mobile phone market. Which means pain for executives whose KPIs are tied to historical performance.

For Microsoft, the problem is compounded by their simultaneous move into hardware with the Surface tablets. Meaning the company’s has to deal with two significantly different business models to the ones they are used to.

Again Microsoft aren’t alone in this, Google is having similar problems adjusting to the hardware market though its acquisition of Motorola Mobility.

Integrating hardware with services and manufacturing isn’t impossible, we only have to look at Apple for how a company can succeed in that space although most managements struggle with the very different demands of each sector.

During the 1980s we saw the rise of the “all business is soap” philosophy where MBAs and management consultants preached that the challenges of running a business were the same regardless of whether you sold cleaning products, soft drinks, computers or automobiles.

Those folk were wrong. Most famously the Australian media company Fairfax hired as CEO a business school professor who preached this philosophy and managed to ignore the rise of the Internet, the echoes of the failed McKinsey ideas haunt Fairfax over a decade later.

While its possible for a software company to succeed at services or hardware, the magnitude and complexity of the management challenge shouldn’t be understated. Both Google and Microsoft will be defined by how well their leaders succeed.

The Olympian quest for control

The control freakery of the Olympics marks an organisation struggling with threats.

“Blogs or tweets must be in a first-person, diary-type format and should not be in the role of a journalist,” state the International Olympic Committee’s social media guidelines.

The London Olympics Committee betrays how their ignorance of how the Internet works with an unrealistic and unenforceable linking policy.

More worryingly, an army of ‘brand police’ are scouring Britain for renegade cake decorators or knitting clubs breaching Olympic copyrights. Council trading inspectors have been redeployed from their main role of protecting the community to guarding the sponsorship values of the IOC and the world’s biggest corporations.

All of this is about control – a country that bids to host the Olympics agrees to draconian rules and regulations on free speech and commerce. Athletes too find themselves subject to harsh, and sometimes arbitrary, controls.

The purpose of these controls is to enhance the commercial value of sponsorships – this is why only McDonalds can serve fries, except with fish, at Olympic venues and only Visa credit cards can be used to buy a souvenir t-shirt.

Like all major sporting organizations, the value of Olympic rights exploded with the growth of advertising and broadcasting rights from the 1960s onwards.

We’ve reached the logical end of that growth as broadcasters struggle under the load of funding massive rights payments and advertisers find campaigns based on what worked in the 1960s or 1980s have less resonance with the debt addled consumers of the 2010s.

None of this will stop the IOC and other sports administrators from enacting iron fisted controls on participants, sponsors, spectators and any one else they can bully, but their power is waning.

Just like the Soviet Union tried to control fax machines as their economy crumbled around them, the same thing is happening with the Olympics and other big ticket sports.

Top level sports administrators are very good at currying favours from the corporate Bourbons and political princelings who love to spend other people’s money to build their own egos which will allow the facade to continue for a few more years.

Eventually though the money will run out as shareholders question the value of billion dollar sponsorships coupled with executive gold passes to the VIP marquee and taxpayers will ask why governments have money to spend on stadiums or elite sports programs when their local school, hospital and police stations are being closed.

History shows that threatened leaders tighten controls when they are threatened. We can expect the next couple of Olympics to have even more draconian rules than London’s.

Closed data doors

It’s time to reform government.

“Sydney now joins global cities including London, New York and Hong Kong that also have public transport on Google Maps” boasted Gladys Berejiklian, New South Wales minister for transport, last week that Sydney’s complex and confusing public transport system will now appear Google’s mapping service.

The minister neglected to mention the other 400 cities that already offer this service including Perth, Adelaide and Canberra in Australia. What’s more concerning is the attitude of public servants and governments towards access to what should be freely available data.

It’s difficult to think of anything less innocuous than public transport timetables yet access to the data is carefully guarded by most Australian governments under the claim of ‘Crown Copyright’.

Underlying the idea of Crown Copyright is all the information held by governments is the property of the state – or the monarch in Australia – rather than belonging to the people. This is a great example of governments and the law living in the 18th Century which gives a modern perspective of what the US founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote their constitution in 1787.

This refusal to make data available is not the attitude of any single government, the Victorian government notoriously refused access to fire information during the tragic 2009 bushfires and Google are still negotiating to add Melbourne’s public transport information to the Maps service.

‘Open Data’ is a concept that many agencies pay lip service to, as do many politicians while they aren’t in government, but in practice information is a precious resource which should be hoarded and hidden.

In the public service itself, information is power – your position and status with an agency is directly proportional to the knowledge you possess and the contacts you can hoard. This attitude spills over into the way services are delivered, or not as the case may be.

For startup businesses, this hoarding of data hurts local industry – with transport timetables application developers have to negotiate on a case by case basis for data access meaning that only big companies with plenty of resources are able to get hold of the information.

The tragedy is government are trying to encourage smaller developers and startups. New South Wales had its Mobile Concierge program but these well meaning initiatives fall down when agencies won’t open their data.

It’s time to scrap the idea of Crown Copyright and the philosophy that all government data is the property of the public service, or the monarch of the day. Certainly there are plenty of areas where it isn’t in the public interest to release confidential information but bus timetables are not one of those areas and there are plenty of laws already in place to protect that sensitive data.

Like many things in our political and legal sectors, thinking is stuck not in the 1980s but in the 1780s. Maybe it’s time to grab our politicians and their learned lawyer friends and drag them by their horse haired wigs into the 21st Century.

Redefining affluence

Are we at the end of the Western world’s era of great prosperity

Finance writer Scott Pape always has an interesting perspective in his regular columns.

This week he talks about Melissa a mother of three who lives in the US state of Georgia who also happens to be Scott’s virtual PA.

Scott hires Melissa because she’s cheap; far cheaper than her competitors in Australia.

For the $8 an hour she earns, she gets no sick pay, no health insurance and no retirement benefits. Unless Melissa has a well paid partner and her work for Scott is just a sideline to help pay the bills, she will work until she drops.

This is the new reality for those in America, Spain, the UK and most of the West. It’s slowly becoming the reality in Australia as well despite the current hubris about the Down Under Economic Miracle.

Melissa’s job as a secretary or PA was safe and comfortable twenty years ago. Today – just like auto workers, shop assistants, accountants and even lawyers – secretaries are having to trade their secure jobs for precarious, and reduced, incomes in the globalised and casualised marketplace.

Scott makes perfectly valid points that individual drive and determination will be important in the globalised economy, but nothing changes the fact that Melissa and millions like her – including ourselves – will not have the living standards of her parents.

While we can talk about billions of Indians and Chinese improving their standard of living the new globalised world, we shouldn’t forget for a moment that living standards are declining for the most of developed world’s middle and working classes.

This decline isn’t totally due to globalisation and was probably going to happen regardless of the rise of China. The West’s prosperity was built upon the post World War II reconstruction and the credit booms of the 1980s and 2000s. Eventually the money – or the credit – had to run out.

How we as a society deal with this will define our nations and communities over the next fifty years. Our governments, business leaders and media commentators are ill prepared for the effects even if they recognise the problem.

Those most deeply affected are the businesses based on the twentieth century model of ever increasing prosperity. As our retailers are finding, this model is running out of steam.

While some expect the newly affluent Chinese and Indians to save their well padded hides, most will find Asian consumption patterns in the 21st Century will be different to US auto workers of the 1950s or English real estate agents of the 1980s.

Even financial planners like Scott are going to find things different – many financial planners thought they could get rich just skimming commissions off their clients’ portfolios which grew with the ever climbing stock and property markets. That model dropped dead in September 2008.

For those of us born and raised during the Western world’s era of great prosperity, we’re going to find we have to work a lot harder and not take affluence for granted.

Melissa and her eight dollar an hour secretarial service is the future and it’s probably Scott’s, yours and mine as well.

Some may say that’s a pessimistic view of the world, but a leaner, harder economy may be the best thing could happen for us as individuals and a society.

Accounting for business change

Cloud computing is changing the accounting industry, how are the incumbents dealing with this?

Small businesses owe a lot to Craig Winkler – in 1991 he bought a obscure Mac based accounting package called Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) and built it into Australia’s leading small business accounting software.

Today Craig is a director and investor of Xero, a cloud computing service which is MYOB’s fastest growing competitor

At Xero’s Australian partner conference, Craig described how the development of business accounting software has evolved around technology opportunities.

MYOB’s massive growth happened as desktop computers became accessible to small businesses. Prior to 1990, it was rare to find a computer sitting on a business desk and they were largely confined to large financial, engineering and government organisations.

In the early 1990s computer prices dropped and as small businesses started using them, the need for desktop based office software exploded. This drove the growth of software like MYOB, Quickbooks and – most profitably of all – Microsoft Office.

Today a similar revolution is happening as computing moves onto the cloud, further reducing business costs and giving small organisations access to the same resources that only big corporations could access a decade ago.

Cloud based companies like Xero and Saasu are now threatening the incumbents like Quickbooks and MYOB who are responding with their own online products.

Tim Reed, the CEO of MYOB yesterday discussed how his business is moving to the cloud. With MYOB’s legacy of desktop based applications which they claim is used by 40% of Australia’s small to medium businesses it isn’t a straight forward process of dropping the old software and embracing the cloud.

Not that their customers are rushing to the cloud, Tim claims that a survey of their clients found that most want a ‘hybrid’ system where data is saved both on the cloud and on the desktop.

MYOB are catering for the hybrid cloud demand with a pilot program of their AccountRight Live product that adds online capabilities to their desktop software.

This is clear difference between MYOB and its cloud competitors. Xero’s founder Rod Drury maintains that those hybrid solutions are cumbersome and adds far more complexity into software. In Rod’s view, “cloud technologies are the right technologies.”

The difference between the philosophies of MYOB and Xero is reflected across the software industry – most notably this is the difference between Google and Microsoft or Apple.

Both Microsoft and Apple see cloud computing as an adjunct to their desktop, tablet and smartphone products. Data is synchronised between the cloud and the device while work is carried out on both.

Google on the other hand tries to do everything on the cloud.

Both approaches have their benefits, particularly in a world where Internet access cannot always be taken for granted which is the cloud’s biggest weakness. Although as mobile broadband becomes ubiquitous in the developed world, that disadvantage is quickly eroding.

Regardless of the differences in the philosophies, everybody agrees that cloud services are going to revolutionise small business. Both Tim Reed and Rod Drury see how the Big Data opportunities in the cloud are going to give business much more access to real time sales, banking and expense data while being able to benchmark their operations against industry performance.

As Craig Winkler described, we are on another big wave of change and there are great opportunities for the businesses that figure out how to use it.

Paul travelled to Melbourne attended the Xero Australian Partner conference courtesy of Xero. He received a private media briefing from MYOB.

Eating the Old Man’s lunch

Optus’ purchase of Eatability is ironic given Fairfax’s and Telstra’s failure with Citysearch.

Optus today announced the purchase of restaurant review site Eatability for $6 million.

Eatability is one of the services that’s destroyed the business models of both the phone directory business and that of newspapers.

Thirty years ago the Sydney Morning Herald launched its Good Living section and it became the way people went found where the good places were to eat.

Diners wanting to make a reservation at the hip eating places being reviewed in Good Living picked up the phone book.

Now they do neither, they go to web sites like Eatabilty or Yelp where they get reviews, contact details and everything else they need about the venue.

Which killed the advertising revenues that newspapers and phone directories depended upon.

The sad thing is both the newspapers and Yellow Pages could have owned this space. Citysearch was setup by Fairfax to address the online market and it was sold to Telstra when the newspaper chain struggled to make it work.

Citysearch today languishes neglected and nearly forgotten under the Sensis umbrella. Optus now owning Citysearch’s biggest local competitor which must bring a hollow laugh to those involved in the early days of Fairfax’s digital experiment.

Whether Eatability thrives under Optus remains to be seen, but it illustrates just how incumbent strengths like telephone directories are being eroded in the online world.

Old men have to start moving quickly if they don’t want upstarts eating their lunch.

Creating a fresh view for online commerce

Andable provides a platform for time pressed creative entrepreneurs to sell their work.

When you’re running a part time business and holding down a full time job, selling is difficult and its hard to find the time to setup websites.

Online marketplace Andable provides an outlet for creatives and those entrepreneurs juggling full time jobs. The site’s mission is to be “an online marketplace where you can discover extraordinary things to buy and sell.”

The problem for those passionate entrepreneurs busy making things is they don’t have time – and often lack the skills – to sell their works. Co-founders Rupal Simian and Melissa Dean decided they would set up an online marketplace to help those businesses.

Central to Andable’s service is the ability for these small businesses to tell their stories. Most of the service’s merchants are part time businesspeople who hold down full time jobs.

Andable’s name comes from compressing “willing and able” and the site lets micro businesses list their products for free with a 5% commission from sales. Payments are handled through PayPal who they work closely with.

For sellers to qualify for a listing, they have to meet at least one of Annabel’s FRESH criteria; Fairtrade, Reused, Eco-friendly, Supporting local business or Handmade.

An interesting thing about Andable is how 10% of the sale goes into a Kiva microfinancing project. After six months that loan is repaid – Kiva boasts a 99% repayment rate – the 10% is rebated to the merchant.

Since the service’s launch in July, two investments have been made with Mel and Rupal looking at completing 600 loans by the end of their first year’s trading.

A month into operation, Andable has close to 200 shops including ranging from hand crafted jewellery, vintage lightboxes and hipster homewares. Sellers are based around the world from Germany and Indonesia through to Byron Bay and Fremantle.

What’s interesting about Andable is how we’re seeing different online marketplaces appearing to cater for different markets. For businesses, this means it’s becoming easier to get your products to market.

The challenge is to get attention in a marketplace that’s saturated with advertising and information. Platforms like Pinterest, eBay and Andable are ways motivated customers can find businesses.

Being Steve Jobs

Imitating Steve Jobs is not a recipe for success

Wired Magazine asks is Steve Jobs’ story a cautionary or inspirational tale for entrepreneurs and managers.

It’s always worrying when any one individual is cited as being the role model for business leaders – over the years we’ve seen Jack Welsh, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and dozens of others lauded as being the perfect CEO.

None has probably lauded more than Steve Jobs, in many ways rightly so given the way he way he steered his business back from disaster and by the time of his death had made Apple the leader in a range of technologies that barely existed a decade earlier.

Despite Steve Jobs’ successes there’s no doubt he was a very difficult man – the stories of his bullying and striking fear into Apple’s staff are legendary and no-one has chosen to contradict them. For many people, he was impossible to work with.

George Bernard Shaw once wrote “the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

No-one would have ever claimed Steve Jobs was a reasonable man.

Steve Jobs was unique – as is Apple, Microsoft, IBM, News Limited, Nestle, Joe’s Pizza Bar and the local plumbing supply shop. Every business is unique and different in it’s own way

For some of those businesses, a manager being an unreasonable asshole like Steve Jobs could be a recipe for success although disaster is probably more likely.

Disaster was the result for most manager and businesses in the 1990s who blindly copied the then eulogized Jack Welsh’s Six Sigma strategies or “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap’s slash and burn philosophies without appreciating the subtle differences between their organisations and GE or Scott Paper.

In business – as in life – there’s no “right way” or “wrong way” and thinking in a “yes” or “no” mindset, doesn’t work in a nuanced, complex world.

The Wired article on Steve Jobs itself falls into this binary thinking in asking readers if they are an “acolyte” or “rejector” of Steve Jobs’ methods. In reality, few people would totally reject every aspect of Jobs’ behaviour but few of us would be capable of totally imitating his behaviour.

Perversely, aping Steve Jobs is probably a career limiting move for managers. As Adam Hartung writes in Forbes Magazine, Steve Jobs couldn’t find a job today and someone with his quest for perfection would struggle with the bureaucracy of a corporation or government agency.

Like our businesses, each of us is unique and here’s a bit of Steve Jobs in all of us – at the same time most of us would also be repelled by many of Steve Jobs’ characteristics.

Simply copying someone else is neglecting our own strengths and acquiring someone else’s weaknesses. Surely it makes more sense to work to our abilities.