Feb 17 2011

Aconex director under scrutiny

It appears that defeat of a minority shareholder’s resolution to remove the Aconex chairman Martin Hosking at an EGM last month (post 1, post 2) hasn’t ended the discontent within the highest echelons of the Melbourne-based construction collaboration technology business. Questions have now been asked about the role of another member of the board, with director Michael Robinson (right) now the subject of complaints to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission and the New South Wales Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Aconex Legal Counsel James Cook is also being investigated.

“Aconex Heartbreaker…”

According to a 14 February post on the Australian legal industry gossip blog, FirmSpy, Mr Robinson is accused of a conflict of interest insofar as he acts as a director of Aconex and is also a consultant employed by law firm Allens Arthur Robinson (AAR), which advises Aconex:

“… there’s a fairly obvious potential conflict here between, on the one hand, Robinson’s fiduciary and directors’ duties to the company and, on the other, his fiduciary duties as its external legal adviser (to say nothing of his fiduciary or contractual duties to AAR as his employer or principal)….”

FirmSpy continues:

“… Aconex has allegedly received … ‘some very poor, possibly negligent to the order of tens of millions’ legal advice from AAR….”

Amid more commentary about the affair, FirmSpy then provides a copy of the EGM ‘Questions on Notice’ document which asks some detailed questions about the role of AAR not just in the EGM but in the original year-long dispute between Aconex and Hawthorn Glen that was thought resolved in May 2008 (post).

AAR: “Major Sh*t going down…”

A follow-up FirmSpy post, dated 16 February, suggests AAR people are “very freaked out” about the AAR/Aconex affair, with Tim Lester, a partner in AAR’s Perth office now the subject of a complaint to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia about allowing the alleged conflict of interest between Robinson and Aconex. And James Cook, Legal Counsel at Aconex, among others, is under investigation in Victoria. FirmSpy describes other allegedly questionable conduct by Robinson, including writing a letter on behalf of all the directors to all shareholders, advising them to vote against the resolution and support the incumbent chairman.

After reading FirmSpy’s posts, I emailed Aconex’s VP Marketing Frank Carron requesting some clarifications but the official line I got back from Aconex was an apologetic but firm, on-the-record: “We do not comment on anonymous blog posts” (a bit harsh as FirmSpy has a good track record in substantiating its revelations; meanwhile, it’s not clear if the allegations come from a disaffected AAR employee or someone with an Aconex axe to grind).

My ‘worst case’ analysis

Having recently talked to CEO Leigh Jasper and CFO Matthew Walsh about the financial health and operational efficiency of the business (post), I don’t think Aconex as a company is threatened. These latest legal issues mainly concern a non-executive director at the apex of the business, while the company’s day-to-day activities are managed by over 300 experienced managers and staff, many with strong local relationships with key customers in regional and country markets.

However, while Leigh Jasper dismissed the EGM to me as a “distraction”, if these latest legal enquiries did reach a negative conclusion then he could be losing some a fellow director(s), with the potential to disrupt Aconex’s decision-making processes, at least in the short to medium-term while a replacement(s) is sought and appointed. And such personnel changes, if they happened, could conceivably result in shifts to Aconex’s strategy. For example, from my perspective, the most notable recent move was Aconex’s concerted investment in growing a presence in the Americas market (it previously relied on creating lightly-resourced satellite operations in each new country market). And reflecting on Conject’s recent acquisition of UK-based BIW Technologies (post), could Aconex devote more energy to possible mergers or acquisitions of its own to build as dominant positions in key markets as it has in Australia and some Asian countries?

The reference in the EGM Questions document to Hawthorn Glen’s 2007-2008 legal action also raises the possibility that questions might be asked again about chairman Martin Hosking and about the role of Aconex’s founders and board members, Leigh Jasper and Rob Phillpot. The Hawthorn Glen dispute also, I believe, delayed a fund-raising round by about a year, and had a financial impact on the business (some Au$3.4m) but it was able to absorb that impact due to the high growth rates the business was then enjoying. That pre-credit crunch double-, even triple-digit growth has declined massively over the past two years, so Aconex will be hoping that this latest bickering isn’t costly to resolve.

This is important to shareholders, as I hear some are wondering about how and when Aconex is going to deliver on its promises of growth.

Aconex’s Capital Raising document (produced in March 2007 and widely distributed among potential investors) anticipated a dip in profit growth after the fund-raising round as it invested in the business in the expectation of accelerated growth and higher profits in subsequent years (forecasting Au$146m revenues and net profits of Au$45m by 2009-2010). Since the September 2008 equity injection by Francisco Partners (post), Aconex has been investing in its product and in expanding into new markets such as the Americas, but the expected dip was compounded by the global financial crisis which wrecked its revenue and profit growth projections. The 2008-2009 results showed the company barely achieved single figure growth, and the latest published results (see Accounting for Aconex) are similar, showing the business achieved revenues of Au$39.855m last year and a Au$2.772m profit – less than half the revenue levels anticipated for two years after the capital raising, and a fraction of the anticipated profit.

Of course, the global financial crisis has forced all businesses to reassess their strategies and forecasts, and Aconex has been no exception. As the global slowdown hit some regions harder than others, focus has been switched away from some countries previously identified as growth opportunities (notably, but not only, Dubai), but the recent improvements in bookings in Australasia, Asia and the Americas will not immediately feed through to revenues, and the business is continuing to burn cash (cash was down from Au$25.9 to Au$22.1m last year), particularly as it continues investing in its US-based operation.

The AAR affair may be a bit of a side-show, a “distraction” as Leigh Jasper described it (‘storm in a teacup’ springs to mind too), but if it leads to boardroom change, I am sure any incoming board member will be facing tough questions from some shareholders about how the business is going to deliver the promised returns on their investments in Aconex.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/02/aconex-director-under-scrutiny/

Feb 17 2011

Five things that no ‘collaboration’ vendor gets completely right

Following a conversation that started via Twitter, I asked an experienced document controller to write a guest blog post about her top five wish-list for construction collaboration technologies. It seems none of the existing vendors get it right on every point….

I am a document controller with around nine years’ experience and have used most of the systems out there, but have yet to find one system or vendor that does everything well. While the number of things I could complain about with ‘collaboration’ systems starts with the name itself, I have limited myself to five points just to keep it simple.

1. Uploading

Let’s take the super-quick drag and drop of Asite. Add the pre-assigned distribution lists of 4Projects and completely ban child folders. When I have 125 documents with DWGs to issue I want it to be quick and easy. Don’t make it difficult.

Oh, and uploading using an Excel/CSV sheet should be based on Teambinder’s XL-Upload – one thing this odd little system has got very, very right.

2. Folder Structures

The never-ending folder structures are fine if you never use anything but Windows Explorer but for the person uploading they can slowly drive you out of your mind.

Don’t have them. If your search isn’t able to find it, then the search feature is useless. Follow BIW’s example and have Drawings, Reports, Schedules etc. If the numbering system is any good it will tell us where it is; in fact, let’s just make the Avanti numbering convention (see also BS1192) mandatory so there is no room for confusion when designers move from project to project.

3. Search Facilities

Search facilities on all the current systems are atrocious with only the most basic of search filters (I should start a campaign “Bring Back the Exclude Button”!). Bring back Hummingbird while we’re at it – the early 2000s Bovis Lend Lease system was amazing with excellent search features but instead of rebuilding with this as the base it was cast aside for a system [BIW] with an inferior search facility.

4. Quality Assurance

I am sure I’m not the only document controller who has to sit twiddling my thumbs while I wait for the 500th commented document to print/download/save. It’s boring but necessary work that some people think can be avoided by purchasing an archive at the end of the project. Sorry to burst your bubble, Asite, but every hard drive I’ve checked has failed to save much of the information needed. How about a nice button that downloads drawings with redlining and – this really is dreamland – a sheet that has all the written comments on? These could be named something like this:

  • (68)001_cmts.pdf
  • (68)001_red.pdf
  • etc.

Such neat lists of files in a folder would really make me smile. My complaint about QA might seem strange but that is the whole point of these systems. Sure it’s nice to send documents half way across the world in seconds, or to be actively commenting on a drawing through a super-trendy interactive whiteboard but, at the end of the day, all these systems exist to stop someone being sued.

5. Training

Discreetly, I asked colleagues what complaints they had about the systems and – ignoring pleas to just go back to paper and pencil – most had issues that could easily be resolved by adequate training. This isn’t necessarily a vendor issue, though; it has much to do with how user companies manage system training.

We all know how it goes. Peter reluctantly goes off to a training session and comes back all enthused. He has a quick one-to-one with Paul who then teaches Sarah who passes her knowledge onto Mark. Meanwhile, Peter has been offered a shiny new job with the Dark Side and suddenly no-one in the office has actually had any formal training. Nobody wants to suggest they should go because, after all, they’re really busy, they have enough knowledge for what they need to do and, in any event, someone would have to pay. The software vendor offers but nobody wants to pay their rates.

I honestly believe nobody in my office has been taught how to use any of these systems by the actual vendors concerned. One or two may have been taught second-hand by someone who was taught by the vendor. Most have been taught by me. … And I make it up as I go along!

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/02/five-things-that-no-collaboration-vendor-gets-completely-right/

Feb 17 2011

Accounting for Aconex

The recent boardroom bickering at Melbourne, Australia-based construction collaboration technology vendor Aconex prompted me to take a look at its recent financial performance, just in case there were financially-inspired reasons behind the apparent shareholder unrest. While the pre-credit crunch double-digit growth figures are no longer being achieved, it appears the international spread of Aconex’s operations is helping it weather localised difficulties in markets described as “challenging” or “tough”.

Modest growth and return to profitability

According to its latest annual report and accounts, compared to 2009 (post), in the year to 30 June 2010 the consolidated Aconex group generated operating revenue of Au$39.855m (approximately £25m at current exchange rates) up 2.2% from restated revenues of Au$38.977m in 2009. This is the second successive year that the figures have been restated – this time due to “a correction of prior period errors that … have caused a restatement of the deferred revenue, class A preference shares and net loss for the comparative period”.

The consolidated group made a profit (EBITDA) of Au$2.772m (or £1.75m), an improvement on the AU$2.356m (£1.5m) loss given in 2009.

The dramatic growth of Aconex’s early years has been impacted by the recent global financial downturn in some of Aconex’s key markets. This is clear from the graphic of Aconex’s order book (below), but the company is claiming something of a recovery over the past year. However, the numbers have been restated and are down on what was claimed for previous years (in 2009 Aconex said its order book was worth Au$49.3m, down from Au$62m in 2008).

Interview

Via a telephone conference call conducted at Aconex’s London office just before its 28 January EGM, I talked to Aconex CEO Leigh Jasper and CFO Matthew Walsh about the results and other recent developments.

According to Leigh, highlights in 2009-2010 included strong growth in Aconex’s home market of Australia and “the American business has been growing well”, but there were “challenging” Middle Eastern markets where the number of project starts was down on previous years. The signs of growth detected in the early summer of 2009 continued, but the high double-digit growth of earlier in the decade was over as a result of the difficult economic conditions in some of Aconex’s markets, where there were fewer projects being started. FY10 bookings were up on previous years, Leigh said, but the impact was yet to be seen on revenues but should start flow through in the current and subsequent financial years.

Regarding the restatement of figures, Matthew Walsh said the company needed to reconsider how it treated the equity injection by Francisco Partners (post). Revenue recognition was very conservative; the business was more focused on cash flow than on the P&L in the short term. Talking about investment in establishing the company’s US operation and in product development, Matthew was confident this would feed into growth in due course.

Recent growth

During 2009-2010 the business saw the benefits of earlier product development work, particularly in respect of its workflow module, its supplier documents and tendering modules. Since the year end, the new user interface had been welcomed by Aconex customers, and had contributed to an efficiency improvement in handling calls to Aconex’s support team, and the Document Control Essentials programme was also helping embed good industry practice among users (the first UK course will be in London in late March, I was told).

Regarding more recent performance, I was told the second quarter (October-December) of 2010 was “our best quarter since before the global downturn” in terms of bookings. Strong performances were recorded in Australia and the US, with Asia “close to its best”, but the Middle East remained a “weak spot” and Europe/Africa was also “a bit weak”. Regarding the latter, Aconex had signed deals in Italy, but the UK “was a bit tough for everybody” (2010 results for Aconex UK or Aconex Europe are not yet available) and Dubai was “very tough”, with fewer new projects starting. Aconex’s global spread, Leigh said, helped the business weather difficult conditions in one market by switching resources to other regions which were more buoyant. Staffing levels (c. 360 people) remained broadly in line with previous years’ figures, largely due to being able to relocate people, with a “handful of redundancies” in the Middle East as a result of switching people away from Dubai to Abu Dhabi.

A US IPO or an Australian IPO?

We also discussed whether a potential future initial public offering, IPO, might take place in the US or Australia. Leigh (right) admitted he was spending an increasing amount of time in the US, partly as a result of the business’s focus on growing its market in the Americas. While he didn’t see Aconex moving out of the Australian market (the majority of Aconex’s people are still based in Melbourne), he did say the US investment community had a better understanding of, and experience of, technology businesses, especially Software-as-a-Service companies, particularly in their informed view of SaaS deferred revenue models.

Technology trends

We talked about trends in markets, particularly in their use of the Aconex system to manage workflows (Australian project requests for information, RFIs, apparently get dealt with twice as fast as RFIs in the Middle East), and in the use of building information models (use of BIM via Aconex more than tripled in a year, and the size of the models has been increasing at 50% year on year). While BIM was often associated with big US projects, it was wrong to think the US was ahead; Leigh still felt the UK and Australian markets were significantly ahead of the US in terms of their adoption of collaboration platforms (this is likely to be a topic that I will return to in future posts).

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/02/accounting-for-aconex/

Feb 15 2011

ICT4Construction, 25 March 2011

I will be talking about “The state of construction collaboration – and where do we go from here”, and am now also chairing the ICT4Construction conference on Document & Knowledge Management Technology, at Central Hall, Westminster, London on Friday 25 March 2011.

Organiser Recep Saffet has brought together speakers from a range of vendors (many of whom have featured in this blog), including:

I am somewhat apprehensive about chairing this event, not least because I lamented how little debate was created at the previous ICT4Collaboration event last October (post), but I suppose this is my chance to try and stimulate some discussion. I also hope vendor representatives don’t just pitch their products, services and clients. (And at £79.95, it’s great value for money.)

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/02/ict4construction-25-march-2011/

Feb 14 2011

Some thoughts on the Be2Award for AEC collaboration

As previously mentioned, I recently organised what I believe were the world’s first social media awards expressly for the built environment (ie: architecture, engineering, construction, FM, property, etc); the winners of the 2011 Be2Awards were announced at an event during London Social Media Week on Wednesday 9 February. As also noted, one of the categories was focused on Best AEC collaboration application, and after a lot of lobbying among their various user groups, BIW Technologies won the HP-sponsored award, ahead of UK-based rivals 4Projects and Asite.

The Be2Awards programme was condensed into less than six weeks, and, instead of a judges panel, relied upon online voting from the “crowd”. Initially some shortlisted candidates were a little reticent about mobilising their supporters to vote, but most eventually began appealing to their followers through email, Twitter, blog posts, etc. This transparent process helped avoid (m)any accusations of the results being a “fix”, but it did mean that some front-runners were people, businesses or applications with large user-bases rather than ones that had actively cultivated a loyal social following and/or were active in social media circles.

BIW has only used social media to a limited extent, for instance, whereas several of its category rivals were applications with stronger social media credentials, either incorporating Web 2.0 tools and techniques into their technologies, or using social media to market or support their systems. But, in either case, AEC market adoption of social media channels isn’t so advanced yet that it can challenge the email exhortations of well-used solution providers delivering tools to a conservative market.

As (I think) the first built environment awards programme openly decided on this basis, it will be interesting to see if “size is everything” next time – particularly for the application categories. For example, even if a vendor or its application doesn’t have a huge following, it could have an intensely loyal, even fanatical, following – perhaps nurtured by successful engagement and dialogue through social media channels – that outguns larger rivals who take their users for granted. Perhaps next year’s contests will see more shortlisted candidates and more winners who have developed a long-term rapport with their users, followers, friends and fans?

PS: Best AEC use of Twitter

Apart from footnotes to my blog posts, I did no lobbying of my followers on Twitter, and I was flattered to discover that I managed to gather 20% of the poll for Best AEC user of Twitter, narrowly beating the nearest of my nine very worthy rivals in this category. Many thanks to everyone who voted for me – and I will wear my badge with pride.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/02/some-thoughts-on-the-be2award-for-aec-collaboration/

Feb 01 2011

Revisiting the NEC battleground

About six weeks ago, I noted (NEC3 Licensed Content partners announced) how quick off the mark construction collaboration technology vendor 4Projects was to announce its new role as an NEC3 Licensed Content Partner, which it followed by a concerted campaign on Twitter, LinkedIn and its blog (indeed, 4Projects has nominated its PR campaign for a Be2Award – post). By contrast, fellow content partner BIW Technologies has waited until well after the Christmas construction break to issue its own news release, which highlights adoption of its NEC capability by some customers: Promanex, The Clarkson Alliance and Mace.

However, the NEC’s decision to license two partners does not mean that the NEC contract administration battleground is now between just two companies. BIW and 4Projects may have the advantage of official endorsement by NEC, and will be able to integrate NEC3 operational detail and guidance into their applications, but alternatives remain. The NEC Licensed Content Partner process was contested by several other firms; NEC specialists such as MPS and Sypro (post), and workflow or vendor document modules delivered by rival collaboration technology vendors such as Asite, Sword-CTSpace and Aconex, will help project teams manage their NEC processes (indeed, I wrote about contract management as the new ‘extranet’ battleground in October 2008).

Let’s face it, over the past decade industry experience in deploying the NEC suite of contracts has grown, and the collaboration vendors have both seen an opportunity and have been pressed by their customers and professional end-users to support NEC workflows.

Potentially, continued adoption of the NEC3 contract, with its rigorous control and reporting requirements regarding issue and response to notices, could also help promote the use of online tools, even on projects or among consultants, contractors and suppliers which hitherto have had little or no exposure to such platforms. For example, UK-based web news service Construction Enquirer has today reported that Sypro is to teach supply chain organisations across Yorkshire about NEC compliance.

YORbuild is a series of collaborative construction frameworks for the procurement of new build, refurbishment and design/build construction works for the Yorkshire and Humber region’s 22 local authorities and other regionally based public sector bodies, including third sector organisations. It has appointed local firm Sypro to train trade contractors in use of the NEC contract, and YORbuild will use the firm’s specialist software to run contracts.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/02/revisiting-the-nec-battleground/

Jan 30 2011

Aconex boardroom coup averted

The apparent shareholder dissent at Melbourne, Australia-based construction collaboration technology vendor Aconex has been quelled it seems, at least for the time being (see Boardroom bickering back on the Aconex agenda, 18 January).

Having had several conversations recently with Aconex contacts (in preparation for another blog post, forthcoming), I have learned that the EGM resolution to replace Martin Hosking as director and therefore chairman was defeated on 28 January. The board’s support for Mr Hosking was echoed by shareholders: 88% of shares were voted against and 12% in favour of the resolution. CEO Leigh Jasper said:

“The vote points to overwhelming shareholder support for the current board composition and for Martin Hosking’s record in leading the board. The directors regularly assess the makeup of the board to ensure that it is appropriate to the company’s needs and will continue to do so. In the meantime, the board and management team will maintain their focus on our clients and on growing the successful and profitable business that serves the long-term interests of all of our stakeholders.”

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/01/aconex-boardroom-coup-averted/

Jan 27 2011

Be2Awards update: Best AEC collaboration application shortlist

I wrote a couple of weeks ago (Want to win “Best AEC collaboration application” at the Be2Awards?) about the built environment social media awards, the 2011 Be2Awards, that I am helping organise. Online nominations for the awards closed at the end of last week, and online voting across the 16 categories started on Monday 24 January, attracting over 4,000 visits to the site in the first three days!

As far as this blog is concerned, the main interest is in the best AEC collaboration application shortlist, which comprises eight firms (five UK, two Australian, and one from Finland), all of which have featured in ExtranetEvolution at one time or another:

  • Asite: www.asite.com – The nominations say “global solution”, “flexible”, etc and talk about its drag and drop development tool, its mobile application and Navigator (a synchronisation tool). Moreover, Asite “is also committed to engaging with its user-base via its Community website, twitter feeds and Facebook page”.
  • Woobius: www.woobius.com – The nominations say “it allows us to transfer information efficiently [while] creating highly reliable and accurate records of who our information has been sent to” and “The team are active users of social tools to explain and assist users and to promote Woobius – see their YouTube Channel, for example”.
  • StickyWorld: www.stickyworld.com – The nominations say “it helps people clarify their communications about digital content, using virtual sticky notes placed in context next to or over the content” and “fantastic team, thinkers outside the box, always helpful, and really hope their ventures into education and young people reap rewards”.
  • 4Projects: www.4projects.com – The nominations say: “it enables users to take control; manage, standardise, automate and optimise processes, communication and documentation”, and “4Projects have … been active on LinkedIn for a while now and in the summer of 2010 added Twitter and blogging to their arsenal.”
  • Aconex: www.aconex.com – The nominations say: “Aconex enables project members to access, distribute, track and archive their data in real time, using one secure, central platform”, and Aconex has adopted web 2.0 best practice, including an Ideas Central feature, Twitter, blogs, YouTube and user forums.
  • Incite Keystone: www.incite.com – The nomination says: “Incite Keystone provides solutions designed to reduce project risk and associated costs, whilst increasing efficiency and effectiveness within project teams”, and “Incite Keystone embodies many of the attributes of Web 2.0 … and has also tapped into the power of social media as a tool for engaging with our user base.”
  • Howzee: www.howzee.info – The nomination says: Howzee.Info has been used in construction projects as an effective collaboration and communication tool, for re-plumbing, facade renovations and maintenance.
  • BIW Technologies: www.biwtech.com – The nomination says ISG found BIW helps “our projects complete on time and on budget, operating with minimised risk along the way. User feedback talks about faster delivery of tender packages, good training and time savings.

Additionally, 4Projects, Howzee, Incite, StickyWorld and Woobius all feature in shortlists for other categories, and Asite is sponsoring the best online community, network or application category. The online voting process will close at midnight GMT on 7 February 2011, with the announcements of winners to be made at the Building Centre in London on the afternoon of Wednesday 9 February, as part of a conference on construction, business and technology called ConstrucTALKs (Register to attend here).

[Incidentally, I have been nominated for an award in the best use of Twitter category – so if you follow me and have found my Tweets useful, please vote. :-) ]

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/01/be2awards-update-best-aec-collaboration-application-shortlist/

Jan 27 2011

PR: Protecting reputation

Online, businesses need to respond promptly and professionally if they are being misrepresented

More than once when I was heading PR at BIW Technologies, I had to assert the company’s position in the face of misleading claims by competitors, but the process was sometimes very slow. We were reacting to printed claims in trade magazines, and had to react by writing letters to the publications’ editors (perhaps repeating our view via a news release on the BIW website) and waiting for the correction to appear, sometimes weeks later.

Today, particularly as construction IT often struggles to claim any column inches in our main UK industry journals, vendors are increasingly reliant upon their own websites and on social media channels to project their messages. But the need to protect one’s online reputation remains, and the process can now deliver quicker results. For example, I noticed this Twitter exchange between two UK construction collaboration technology vendors recently.

On 13 January 2011, 4Projects, through its @TheSaaSHandbook Twitter account, announced:

“Kier Selects 4Projects in competitive pitch for an exclusive 3 year deal. Check out the news story at http://bit.ly/eFrQr0“

Following the link, I read a 4Projects news release which included the following paragraph:

“After assessing the core functionality of each contender, 4Projects won a competitive pitch and is now providing services to Kier across the whole of the UK.”

4Projects repeated the claim five days later, but rival vendor Asite disputed the detail. On 24 January, CTO Nathan Doughty (@NRDoughty) twittered once, twice then thrice:

“In a press release @TheSaaSHandbook says they won a deal with Kier in “competitive pitch” with @Asite – not true – we weren’t involved.”

“I spoke to Clare Watson @TheSaaSHandbook (4Projects) about an hour ago – she’s agreed to retract statement in press release re @Asite”

“For the record – Kier is a long-standing @Asite customer – to me Stuart calls @Asite the “platinum option” and “the others” bronze…”

@TheSaaSHandbook responded:

“@nrdoughty @Asite. Kier had approved the release, but have removed mention of competative pitch, if you were not involved at that stage.”

“Kier selects 4Projects as exclusive long term provider of collaboration software http://bit.ly/eFrQr0.”

The news release paragraph (with the changes in bold) now reads:

“After assessing the core functionality of a number of providers, 4Projects was selected and is now providing services to Kier across the whole of the UK.”

Of course, the original news release was widely disseminated and some websites are still displaying the old version (it’s on the NOF Energy site, for example), and not everybody who saw that initial wording will be aware that it was later altered.

When I talk about social media to clients and at industry events, I stress that its now impossible to have complete control over your company “message”, that every online contribution will leave an indelible fingerprint somewhere on the web, and that businesses need to remain vigilant and react promptly and professionally if they feel their online reputation might be compromised.

This 4Projects/Asite exchange was something of a ‘storm in a tea-cup’, but bearing in mind that there are people (like me!) monitoring their online activities (and potentially blogging about them!) and that the conversation was in public through social media, both sides seem to have come up with an admirably amicable resolution.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/01/pr-protecting-reputation/

Jan 21 2011

That Bricsnet embezzlement case….

Embezzlement allegations against former Bricsnet CEO Ethan Farid Jinian will be discussed in a San Francisco court next month.

Following an email from a reader, I notice that it’s well over a year since I last wrote about the indictment in California of former Bricsnet CEO Ethan Farid Jinian on embezzlement charges (see November 2009 post). And it is almost exactly 12 months since the Jinian case was colourfully described in a San Francisco magazine.

According to a 6 January 2010 SFWeekly article by Matt Smith, Jinian was subsequently released on US$500,000 bail and his attorney Doug Schwartz sounded confident his client would be exonerated. “It’s just a civil business dispute concerning how much salary he was entitled to, how he was paid, and the methods and forms this salary was paid,” he said.

The article suggests “Jinian may very well be found not guilty of the charges against him,” but the picture painted of Jinian’s business career is not a pretty one, and Bricsnet’s portrayal hints at lax management:

“Bricsnet was mostly virtual: Only a third of the 30-person staff actually showed up at the San Francisco office, while the rest worked remotely. Its main investors, meanwhile, were in Spain, making it even harder to monitor employees.

“Like many technology companies of the 2000s, Bricsnet was desperate to re-invent itself. It had useful software, but hadn’t manage to turn it into a thriving business….

“That precariousness made underlings all the more willing to believe in this unusual business seer. And Jinian “always tried to portray a vision for finding a new path,” said one technology executive who didn’t want to be named.”

Smith says federal  prosecutors are focused on what is described as a two-year scheme to defraud Bricsnet of £1m. Jinian is alleged to have directed employees “to cut him numerous checks, based on the idea that he was owed salary in addition to his annual salary”. The indictment (PDF here) details 14 payments totalling $236,000 in 2008.

Whether this was embezzlement or a simple misunderstanding over pay may be determined at a trial, and I have just learned that a motion hearing has been scheduled for Thursday 3 February 2011 before Judge James Larson in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Permanent link to this article: http://extranetevolution.com/2011/01/that-bricsnet-embezzlement-case/

Load more