Here's an extract from the interview:
Last year, Artech’s expectation was to grow 15%. What were the final figures?
2006 was a very good year for us and we expect a fairly good 2007. One way to measure it is that I am traveling more all the time. Artech grew about 22% and it has been doing so steadily. We are happy not only because of that but also because the other companies associated to Artech have also grown.
Which are these other companies?
There are companies where some Artech shareholders have stock, but there are others were we are not involved at all. For example, GXVision, which offers cable invoicing systems and which is now working for other companies that need user invoicing systems, such as telephone companies. It was also a very good year for them. Another one is the one we call “the factory”, which works only with GeneXus projects for clients from the US. In this case we expect a growth of 100% in 2007.
Does the shortage of qualified professionals and technicians with a marketing profile still worry the sector?
Marketing training is our weakest spot. Concerning technical qualifications we have zero unemployment, which is good in a way. What LATU is doing is a good example and the universities are facing the issue. We have to be careful that it does not go off center, but that is the basic situation from the strategic point of view. In the marketing area we do not have a history of good training. We are doing poorly in that and it is now one of the bottlenecks for selling software abroad. There are very few systems engineers with marketing vocation or qualifications. And whenever one pops up we look after them like the jewel of our eye. I think we have to work harder on that.
Another sensitive issue for the sector is government bids…
Luckily, this is changing. The situation is much better today than five years ago, although there are certain conditionings that have to do with a wrong concept of the technological world: “Because I do not want to take a risk I’ll choose the biggest one, because it’s the safest bet.” And that’s where I do not agree. In the technological arena the biggest is not necessarily the safest.
We have been hearing for a lot of years from the government side about the importance of the technological industry. How much of it is just discourse and how much is it reality?
I think there are two or three things today that will help a lot. One is the topic of electronic government, and an agency has been created that will manage the relationship between the government and the citizens. Uruguay was not doing well in that aspect and work has now begun on it.
Does the country have a suitable infrastructure- i.e. bandwidth – to carry it out?
As with any complex topic there are several things that have to grow at the same time.
The other government initiative that I find fabulous is the Ceibal plan, better known as the one-computer-per-child project that came out of the MIT.The government’s objective is to be able to give each school child a PC.
Do you think it is feasible?
I think it is extremely ambitious and feasible, both. Personally, I love great dreams and I hope this one can be accomplished. Of course, like any technological project, it is full of risks.
Beyond the risks, it is an initiative that can generate a controversy about the application of public funds that go to a PC instead of a plate of food...
I can’t believe how most of the people say that. First of all, not all the children in Uruguay are starving and in the second place, they are being given a tool for the long term.
How can the sector be affected by a FTA with USA?
We usually do not have an important relation with free trade agreements because software is marketed reasonably freely between countries and there is not excessive protection from the parties involved. Concerning intellectual property there is not too much trouble either, because we are creators and anything that protects us is good for us. What is complicated and argued worldwide is the issue of software patents. There are a lot of people who think software should not be patented and I am very close to that opinion.
Why shouldn’t software be patented?
Because it is so diffuse that anything could be patented. It usually ends up in large law firms that buy patents to litigate; they make money by filing suits over patents. Links: That’s why when they talk about free trade agreements I turn on a yellow light about the issue of software patents.