A great boss can make you feel engaged and empowered at work, will keep you out of unnecessary office politics, and can identify and grow your strengths. But a bad boss can make the most impressive job on paper (and salary) quickly unbearable. Not only will a bad boss make you dislike at least 80% of your week, your relationships might suffer, too. A recent study conducted at Baylor University found that stress and tension caused by an abusive boss “affects the marital relationship and subsequently, the employee’s entire family.” Supervisor abuse isn’t always as blatant as a screaming temper tantrum; it can include taking personal anger out on you for no reason, dismissing your ideas in a meeting, or simply, being rude and critical of your work, while offering no constructive ways to improve it.  Whatever the exhibition of bad boss behavior, your work and personal life will suffer. Merideth Ferguson, PH.D., co-author of the study and assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at Baylor explains that “it may be that as supervisor abuse heightens tension in the relationship, the employee is less motivated or able to engage in positive interactions with the partner and other family members.”

There are many ways to try and combat the effects of a bad boss, including confronting him or her directly to work towards a productive solution, suggesting that you report to another supervisor, or soliciting the help of human resources.  But none of those tactics gurantee improvement, and quite often, they’ll lead to more stress. The best solution is to spot a bad boss—before they become yours! Here are five ways to tell whether your interviewer is a future bad boss.

1. Pronoun usage. Performance consultant John Brubakersays that the top verbal tell a boss gives is in pronoun choice and the context it is used. If your interviewer uses the term “you” in communicating negative information ( such as, “you will deal with a lot of ambiguity”), don’t expect the boss to be a mentor.  If the boss chooses the word “I” to describe the department’s success—that’s a red flag.  If the interviewer says “we” in regards to a particular challenge the team or company faced, it may indicate that he or she deflects responsibility and places blame.

2. Concern with your hobbies. There is a fine line between genuine relationship building, and fishing for information, so use your discretion on this one. If you have an overall good impression of the potential boss it may be that he or she is truly interested in the fact that you are heavily involved in charity work, and is simply getting to know you. On the other hand, the interviewer may be trying to determine whether you have too many commitments outside of work. The interviewer can’t legally ask if you are married, or have kids, so digging into your personal life can be a clever way to understand just how available you are.

3. They’re distracted. The era of email, BlackBerrys and smartphones have made it “okay” for people to develop disrespectful communication habits in the name of work. Particularly in a frenzied workplace, reading email while a person is speaking, multi-tasking on conference calls and checking the message behind that blinking BlackBerry mid-conversation has become the norm of business communications. But, regardless of his or her role in the company, the interviewer should be striving to make a good impression—which includes shutting down tech tools to give you undivided attention. If your interviewer is glancing at emails while you’re speaking, taking phone calls, or late to the interview, don’t expect a boss who will make time for you.

4. They can’t give you a straight answer. Caren Goldberg, Ph.D. is an HR professor at the Kogod School of Business at American University. She says a key “tell” is vague answers to your questions. Listen for pauses, awkwardness, or overly-generic responses when you inquire what happened to the person who held the position you are interviewing for, and/or what has created the need to hire. (For example, if you are told the person was a “bad fit,” it may indicate that the workplace doesn’t spend much time on employee-development, and blames them when things don’t work out).

You should also question turnover rates, how long people stay in given roles, and what their career path has been. All of these answers can indicate not only if the boss is one people want to work for, but whether pay is competitive, and employees are given a career growth plan.

5. They’ve got a record. Ask the potential boss how long he or she has been at the company, in the role, and where he or she worked before coming to it to get a feel for his or management style, and whether it’s what you respond to.  For example, bosses making a switch from a large corporation to a small company may lead with formality. On the other hand, entrepreneurs tend to be passionately involved in business, which can be a help or a hindrance, depending on your workstyle.

Goldberg also recommends searching the site eBossWatch, where you read reviews that former employees have given to a boss. If you’re serious about the position, she also suggests reaching to the former employee whose spot you are interviewing for, and asking for their take on the workplace. (LinkedIn makes this task easy to do). The former employee’s recount may not necessarily reflect your potential experience, but it can help you to determine whether his or her description of the job and company “jibes” with what the potential boss said.

Stephanie Taylor Christensen - http://www.linkedin.com/share?viewLink=&sid=s755095096&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eforbes%2Ecom%2Fsites%2Fstephaniechristensen%2F2011%2F12%2F11%2F5-ways-to-spot-a-bad-boss-in-an-interview%2F&urlhash=fDFs&pk=nprofile-view-success&pp=&poster=3827504&uid=5552045561047166976&trk=NUS_UNIU_SHARE-title 

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Moshin_Manji

By: R “Ray” Wang
R “Ray” Wang is Principal Analyst and CEO at Constellation Research Group.
The corporate e-mail server is down, but work doesn’t grind to a halt. Everybody just switches to Gmail, Skype, or BB Chat to get around the inconvenience. For the most part, they’re using these consumer technologies at work already — often because they’re better than anything the IT department can provide.

Except at financial, defense-related, and other firms that still lock down employees’ network access for reasons of security and legal compliance, this is the new reality. Technologies available to consumers at low cost or even for free are increasingly pushing aside enterprise applications. They’re not just more familiar and more attractive to use, they’re often more reliable. Software-as-a-Service and Cloud vendors mostly deliver 99.9% uptime. In an upcoming Constellation Research survey of IT departments, preliminary results show internal reliability ranging from 97% to 99.1%.

For the next generation of knowledge workers, entering the workplace often feels like entering a computer science museum. Newly minted college grads face resistance to bringing their own devices to work, have to collaborate with ancient tools that lack basic Google Docs functionality, and face social media policies crafted by clueless legal teams without an understanding of the social psyche. That alone will add what I estimate to be a one-third productivity tax on the newly entered workforce — because workers have to hunt for information, applications inhibit collaboration, and legal requirements prevent business innovation.

Business Leaders Now Drive Technology Purchasing
For IT leaders accustomed to having control over corporate technology, this represents a huge challenge — and it’s one they’re not meeting very well. While overall corporate tech spending is up by 17 to 20% in our latest data, spending by IT departments is flat at best. It’s business leaders, not their IT colleagues, who are driving purchasing decisions. Which makes sense: business leaders are tasked with deploying technologies for strategic advantage. They must move fast to gain a competitive edge.

The big danger in this business-driven approach to technology is that it can be slapdash, leaving IT to spend all its time in clean-up mode. When IT leads the purchasing, systems remain structured, orderly, and efficient. However, businesses suffer under the weight of this standardization as market conditions change and IT can’t react fast enough.

So what’s a business supposed to do?

An Enterprise-Class Checklist for Consumerization of IT
From conversations with over 100 early adopters, we’ve found some elements that help IT teams and business leaders come to terms with the consumerization of IT. These six elements have emerged as a quick checklist for determining what kinds of consumer tech are appropriate the enterprise:

1. Simple. Solutions should embody design thinking at the outset. Technology should not require a manual. Solutions should be easy to use and self-service.
2. Scalable. Solutions should flex up and flex down as demand changes. Technology must work in a wide range of environments.
3. Safe. Organizations expect these solutions to not only integrate with ease but also not to harm existing systems or jeopardize how users perform daily work and operations. New technology must not adversely impact another proven system.
4. Secure. These solutions should pass encryption requirements, prevent data intrusion, and protect key intellectual property assets. Resources must be invested to fend off internal and external digital threats.
5. Sustainable. Consumer technologies must meet requirements for flexibility and adaptability over longer periods of time (e.g. 7 to 10 years). Platforms must allow users to extend and expand their functionality. Solutions should be extensible.
6. Sexy. Solutions must draw passion among users. Users must enjoy using the software.

The Bottom Line
IT and business leaders need to work together and operate in parallel. If IT slows down the business capability to innovate, the company will suffer as new business models emerge and infrastructure will fail to keep up. If business moves ahead of IT in technology, then the company fails because IT will spend years cleaning up technology messes. As technologies mature, IT should take over the commoditized technologies and drive efficiencies. With new technologies, businesses should start with some basic requirements to ensure future compatibility with existing systems. We’ve yet to see many organizations succeed in building a coordinated plan, but one can expect that those who figure it out will be among tomorrow’s leaders.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/07/coming_to_terms_with_the_consu.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303499204576387511296578664.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Last summer, Mel Moomjean was unemployed and looking for a job as a sales director, but without meaning to he also applied for work as a receptionist, manicurist and fitness coach. His résumé, which highlights more than 20 years’ experience managing sales teams, even landed at the beauty salon his wife goes to. It was looking for a stylist.

Gary Bauer, the salon’s owner, thought Mr. Moomjean was joking. “I talked to his wife, and we had a good laugh about it.”

It wasn’t a joke. Mr. Moomjean had outsourced his job hunt.

For a $10 monthly fee ($40 for the first month) an automated service called MyJobHunter.com sent out more than 500 job applications in five months on Mr. Moomjean’s behalf. Within a day after a job opening hit the Web, the service scanned it for certain keywords. In Mr. Moomjean’s case, the words included “sales” and “retail.” If the listing was a match, the service would fire off a résumé to the employer without so much as showing it to the applicant.

Mr. Moomjean, who had been mostly out of work for two years, said the salon misfire was just a bit of collateral damage, a cost of his scattershot approach to finding work. “I think I was overqualified for the receptionist job,” he said facetiously.

Clients among U.S. job seekers are hoping to beat the soft job market and tedium of searching with the help of fast-growing niche outsourcing services that rely on computers and workers in India. Customers can send thousands of job applications in a flash, but spamming employers with résumés leads to some strange mishaps.

MyJobHunter is unique in its reliance on software. Customers of JobConcierge.com pay $30 a week to have their job applications sent out by workers based across the U.S. and abroad.

At JobSerf.com, candidates pay up to $98 a week for one of a team of workers in Visakhapatnam, India, to find openings and apply for jobs. Many of JobSerf’s workers join the company because their English is too rudimentary for them to work in a call center, says CEO Jay Martin.

So language difficulties do crop up. When JobSerf six years ago first tested its service with a few U.S. executive clients, its Indian workers applied on their behalf to a number of adult-entertainment companies.

“They were porn magnets,” says Mr. Martin. “They’d apply to CEO and CFO jobs at every porn outfit out there,” says Mr. Martin. The company quickly taught the workers to avoid listings with “XXX” or “adult entertainment” in their descriptions, he adds.

Even with the rules in place, applications still miss the mark. Frankie Balint, 24, of Washington, D.C., hired JobSerf last fall to apply to finance jobs and openings with nonprofit organizations involved in politics or foreign affairs. But one of his first callbacks was for a position selling playground equipment.

“I emailed the guy in charge of my search in India to set new parameters,” he said.

Ultimately, Mr. Balint’s Indian team helped him land a job at Brooklyn Bridge to Cambodia, an outfit that helps small-business owners.

The shotgun approach to applications has other drawbacks: When recruiters call candidates about a job, they often don’t realize that it is something they have applied for.

A district manager for a Krispy Kreme doughnut franchise was taken aback when she called Mr. Moomjean about his application only to learn he had no idea what she was calling about.

“He didn’t know who I was or where I got his application,” recalled Melissa Surby-Curtin, the franchise group’s district manager. “I thought ‘Oh, this isn’t a good start.’”

Mr. Moomjean explained the service to Ms. Surby-Curtin, who now says that Mr. Moomjean’s qualifications fit what they were looking for so perfectly that she didn’t mind how he initially reached out.

Despite the initial confusion, Mr. Moomjean landed the position last August—fund-raising director for the group.

While many U.S. employers have received applications from the outsourcing services, few know they even exist, says Mr. Martin. They mask the email address to make it appear the application has come straight from the applicant. Job seekers, who sometimes aren’t clear in stating their requirements, are to blame for misdirected applications, said Sanjay Dasgupta, head of the JobSerf team in Visakhapatnam. MyJobHunter officials also say their automated system is only as good as the job hunter’s search parameters.

In a span of 240 hours over three months last summer, JobSerf’s staff applied to 711 jobs on behalf of IT manager Colin Campbell, 34, of Cincinnati. Mr. Campbell said he got dozens of calls from potential employers. But he didn’t get his current job that way; he got it through a personal connection.

On a single day last summer, Greg Moffitt, 47, of Houston, sent out more than 100 applications via MyJobHunter. An irritated recruiter, who got his résumé three times, eventually called to ask him to stop.

“I knew that 20% of positions were a complete miss, but I’d rather have too many submissions than too few,” Mr. Moffitt said.

Clients can set search parameters as wide or as narrow as they want. And that can result in either sending out just a few applications in a day or hundreds. Occasionally, the sheer abundance of job applications some clients send can spin out of control, forcing the services to cut them off. MyJobHunter’s service was once slowed by a customer who set his parameters so wide that he applied for more than 20,000 jobs, said Lee Marc, CEO of eDirect Publishing Inc., which owns MyJobHunter.

“They’re like junkies,” said Mr. Marc, who once had a customer apply to 10,000 jobs in a week.

This past fall, JobSerf accidentally forwarded the résumé of a New York University law student to a firm he had asked them not to contact. He had wanted to handle the application for the summer associate position himself.

Although the student’s own résumé was ignored, the JobSerf application landed him a phone interview, said the student.

Syracuse, N.Y., lawyer Joseph Mancuso also received an application from the candidate and was surprised to learn that he had received an outsourced application. “I respond to every single [application] individually,” he said. “I personalize the form letters myself.”

Pitting your employer against another in a bidding war for you is often career suicide.

Research In Motion, once the most valuable company on the Toronto Stock Exchange, may look like a bargain today for a potential buyer, but analysts say investors shouldn’t bet on a takeover.

Generally speaking, job candidates are protected by human rights legislation and care should be taken to make sure that interview questions are tailored to only get information about qualifications and job requirements. The prohibited grounds vary from province to province and federally and therefore particular attention should be paid to the specific grounds applicable to the interview.  It is also very important to note that an organization can be found liable for discrimination under human rights legislation where questions relating to a prohibited ground are asked (unless they are justified on the basis of a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (“BFOR”)), even where the prohibited ground has no impact on the decision not to hire (or even hire) the candidate.  Where the candidate identifies disability-related needs as an issue in an interview, disability and accommodation measures related to the essential job duties can be discussed. Other than at an applicant’s request, interviewers should only discuss on-the-job accommodation after making a conditional offer of employment.

A recent case from the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal [Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Systématix Technologies de l'information inc., 2010 QCTDP 18] serves as a good reminder to organizations that their interviewers should avoid discussing anything that relates to a prohibited ground (absent a BFOR), even if the employee brings the issue up for discussion.  Specifically, a Quebec employer was recently ordered to pay $7,500 to an applicant because an interviewer asked questions about the applicant’s Muslim faith, even though the decision not to hire him related only to his lack of experience. In the Tribunal’s view, just bringing up the subject violated the candidate’s human rights. In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal noted that it did not matter who brought the subject up, and that proceeding with questions about a prohibited ground would cause a reasonable person to feel compelled to answer them.  The Tribunal also noted that the candidate’s willingness to answer the questions did not constitute a waiver of his rights under human rights legislation. 

Bottom line: Unless questions respecting a prohibited ground relate to a candidate’s ability to perform the essential duties of the job, they should be avoided.  It should be noted that the onus to prove the questions were related to a legitimate job requirement is high.  Employers should establish a standard interview questionnaire in order to ensure that questions asked during an interview are consistent and do not tread on prohibited grounds.  Employers should provide training to all managers or supervisors who may be part of the interview process on appropriate interview etiquette, including questions which may and may not be asked.

If you have any questions about appropriate interview questions or what may qualify as a BFOR, please contact one of our e2r Solutions^® service providers.

e2r Solutions^®

“Real Human Resources Advice in Real-Time”  

70 The Esplanade, Suite 401  |  Toronto, ON M5E 1R2  |  1.866.327.7657  |  tel 416.867.3093  |  fax 416.867.1434

Sales, Lies, and Interviews

by Eliot Burdett on December 9, 2007 in Ethics in Sales

Google Inc. will be the stalking horse bidder for Nortel Network Corp.’s patent portfolio, the last piece of lucrative business standing after the former Ottawa telecom titan went bankrupt in 2009.

The sale, should it pass the muster of United States and Canadian regulatory authorities, would involve around 6,000 patents and patent applications spanning wired, wireless and digital communication technologies, Nortel stated in a release.

“This is an unprecedented opportunity to acquire one of the most extensive and compelling patent portfolios to ever come on the market,” stated George Riedel, Nortel’s chief strategy officer and president of business units. 

The bid will go through both the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware along with a request to let other “qualified bidders” submit their offers, Nortel stated. The firm aims to hold the auction in June.

When reached by OBJ, Ottawa patent portfolio firms Wi-LAN Inc. and MOSAID separately said they would not comment on whether they would submit bids.

BlackBerry maker Research In Motion, which has 900 employees in Ottawa, is also pegged as a potential bidder. The Waterloo-based firm did not immediately respond to a query from OBJ.

In a statement on its official blog, Google said that patent lawsuits, an exploding business of late, may “stifle innovation” without reform. The California search-engine firm has already been named in several patent infringement lawsuits in the past year, including from firms Gemalto, NTP Inc. and Oracle.

As such, Google is looking to acquire Nortel’s portfolio to guard against such action in the future. 

“If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a disincentive for others to sue Google, but also help us, our partners and the open source community — which is integrally involved in projects like Android and Chrome — continue to innovate,” stated Kent Walker, Google’s senior vice-president and general counsel.

“In the absence of meaningful reform, we believe it’s the best long-term solution for Google, our users and our partners.”

A few weeks ago, Microsoft Corp. picked up around 666,000 web addresses from Nortel that use the now-defunct IPv4 technology.

The $7.5-million deal will allow Microsoft to use these addresses without needing to upgrade to the new standard, IPv6.

The Ottawa tech giant, formerly known as Bell Northern Research, once made up the bulk of the Toronto Stock Exchange at the height of its powers, with a $366-billion market capitalization in 2000.

From that dizzying high, the 95,000-employee firm fell hard from the tech boom as the demand for traditional telecommunications products fell, and several accounting scandals shook Nortel’s reputation.

Nortel filed for creditor protection in January 2009 when its stock price, once trading for $1,600 a share, was at a nickel. Its stock was delisted immediately afterwards.

It has been selling off pieces of its business, as well as its former Carling Avenue property, ever since.

NORTEL SALES

Other major asset sales of Nortel in the past two years:

- March 2009: Israel’s Radware picks up Nortel’s data-switching division for $17.7 million.

- July 2009: Nortel sells its wireless assets to Ericsson for $1.13 billion, and its enterprise solutions business to Avaya Inc. for US$475 million.

- October 2009: Hitachi Corp. buys Nortel’s next-generation packet core network component assets for US$10 million.

- November 2009: Nortel sells its GSM business to Ericsson and Kapsch for US$103 million, and its optical unit to Ciena for $769 million.

- December 2010: Ericsson buys Nortel’s Chinese joint venture for US$50 million.

- February 2010: Nortel directly sells its carrier business to GENBAND for $182 million.

- April 2010: LM Ericsson buys Nortel’s share of its Korean joint venture with LG Electronics for US$242 million.

- September 2010: Swedish wireless giant Ericsson buys Nortel’s multi-switch business for US$65 million. Avaya purchases Nortel’s enterprise solutions unit for US$915 million.

- October 2010: Public Works buys the 370-acre Nortel campus for $208 million.

- March 2011: Nortel sells around 666,000 iPv4 web addresses to Microsoft for US$7.5 million.

http://www.obj.ca/Technology/2011-04-04/article-2398768/UPDATE-Google-bids-900M-for-Nortels-patent-portfolio/1

Ottawa satellite firm Telesat sits atop more than 30 Ottawa-headquartered companies listed on the Branham300, an annual measure of Canadian technology firms based on worldwide revenue.

Consolidated revenues for Telesat in 2010 were $821 million, up four per cent or $34 million from 2009.

Considering foreign exchange fluctations, the increase was more like eight per cent, Telesat said when releasing the results in early March.

The firm is in reported takeover discussions that could culminate in new ownership in a matter of weeks. It currently is jointly owned by majority United States economic interests and majority Canadian voting interests.

Many of the firms in the top 20 of Branham’s list have or had significant presences in Ottawa, including RIM (which took top rank overall), BCE, Rogers Communications, Telus, MDA, OpenText and Nortel Networks.

Although Nortel is insolvent, the firm has been engaging in billions of dollars in asset sales in past years, still pushing its revenues up to the 14th rank overall on the Branham300.

Just yesterday, Nortel announced Google was the stalking-horse bidder for its last major asset – patents – for $900 million.

“It’s been a slow decline for Nortel, one of Canada’s most well know technology companies,” stated Darren Anderson, the research co-ordinator for Branham300.

“While Nortel only has skeleton operations remaining, they continued to generate sales in 2010 and as such remained on the Branham300 listing. While 2010 may be the last year that Nortel lands on the Branham300, there is no question that its influence on the tech community in Ottawa and throughout Canada will live on for years to come.”

Branham, a consulting firm, stated the technology industry as a whole had “modest” growth in 2010, with the top 250 companies seeing $73.93 billion in revenue, a nearly four-per-cent increase over $71.32 billion in 2009, but still down from $75.97 billion in 2008.

The complete list of Ottawa-headquartered firms:

- Telesat (13)

- Mitel (19)

- Calian Technologies (32)

- Zarlink Semiconductor (34)

- DragonWave (38)

- Bridgewater Systems (49)

- March Networks (53)

- Eagle Professional Resources (54)

- MOSAID Technologies (63)

- Maplesoft Group (65)

- Agda Group Consultants (65)

- Wi-LAN (89)

- Veritaaq Technology House (104)

- Nitro IT Business Solutions (115)

- CORADIX Technology Consulting (122)

- International Datacasting (132)

- Iridian Spectral Technologies (149)

- ExitCertified (151)

- 4Point (158)

- OSI Geospatial (159)

- Espial Group (178)

- Cistel (182)

- TRM Technologies Inc. (197)

- PIKA Technologies (204) – tied

- C-COM Satellite Systems (206)

- ThinkWrap Solutions (229)

- PrecisionERP (233)

- Fidus Systems (237)

- non-linear creations (242)

- In-Touch Survey Systems (250)

- Advanced Software Concepts (259)

- DataKinetics (271)

- TASKE Technology (276)

- TECSIS (279)

- The KTL Group (297)

Branham also published several other lists isolating specific industries.

Top 25 Canadian ICT Multinational Companies

- General Dynamics Canada (11)

- Alcatel-Lucent Canada (12)

- CSC (20)

Top 25 Canadian ICT Up and Comers

Gazaro (Ottawa)

Top 25 Canadian Software Companies

- Mitel (2)

- Bridgewater Systems (6)

Top 25 Canadian ICT Professional Services Companies

- Calian Technologies (9)

- Eagle Professional Resources (17)

- Adga Group Consultants (20)

- Maplesoft Group (technology division) (20)

Top 25 Canadian ICT Hardware and Infrastructure 

Companies

- Zarlink Semiconductor (13)

- DragonWave (15)

- March Networks (20)

- MOSAID Technologies (24)

Top 10 Canadian ICT Security Companies

- Cistel (9)

- TRM Technologies Inc. (10)

Top 10 Canadian Wireless Solutions Companies

- DragonWave (3)

- Bridgewater Systems (5)

Top 10 Canadian xSP Companies

- Telesat (6)

Top 10 Canadian ICT Staffing Companies

- Calian Technologies (2)

- Eagle Professional Resources (5)

- Maplesoft Group (technology division) (6)

- Veritaaq Technology House (8)

Top 20 Movers & Shakers

- Maplesoft Group (technology division) (2)

- DragonWave (5)

- Iridian Spectral Technologies (9)

- PrecisionERP (16)

http://www.obj.ca/Technology/2011-04-05/article-2401810/Telesat-tops-Ottawa-firms-on-Branham300/1

What could possibly be the worst mistake you could make when it comes to your resume?

More than 100 staff have been let go from Internet fax and communications services provider Protus’s local office since the Ottawa company announced its $213-million acquisition by Hollywood rival j2 Global Communications three months ago, a company official confirmed.

Steve Adams, Protus’s vice-president and general manager, said about 130 or 140 people are currently employed in the Ottawa operations. That’s down significantly from the 300-employee figure recorded in Protus’s latest Ottawa Technology magazine listing.

“When the initial announcement was made, there were layoffs, but that’s behind us now,” said Mr. Adams. “It’s a stable environment here and we’re hiring now; we have open positions in (customer) support and technical areas.”

The news adds detail to an e-mail acquired in early December, in which Protus’s then-CEO, Joseph Nour, wrote to employees that there would be an “immediate reduction” of overall head count.

Mr. Adams stressed that j2 has shown “real commitment” to the Ottawa area and to its e-mail marketing business Campaigner, which Protus acquired in 2008.

According to Mr. Adams, j2 is “keeping all the functions necessary” to run and support Campaigner in town – including sales, marketing, engineering and development, operations and customer support – although he confirmed the accounting department is migrating to j2’s California head office and there is no longer a legal team in Ottawa.

Meanwhile, the MyFax virtual faxing service – which brought in about 81 per cent of Protus’s total revenues in the 12 months leading to Oct. 31, 2010, compared to approximately 11 per cent for Campaigner – will also continue to survive.

“MyFax is a very strong product and a very strong brand, and j2 continues to invest in it and support it,” said Mr. Adams, who pointed out that j2 operates a number of brands in the Internet faxing space, including its own eFax offering.

MyFax and eFax were the subjects of a five-year battle between Protus and j2, with the latter accusing the local firm of infringing on its Internet faxing patents and of sending junk faxes to j2 customers.

Several other competitors in the fax-to-e-mail industry were also involved in j2 lawsuits, including San Francisco-based CallWave Inc. and Miami’s Venali Inc. However, CallWave settled its patent infringement lawsuit with j2 in 2007, with j2 buying its rival’s Internet fax assets in 2009. And like Protus, Venali was acquired by j2 in September 2010 as part of a buying spree that brought a total of eight companies under the j2 umbrella.

Despite the overlap between j2’s various e-faxing brands as a result of the acquisitions, j2 spokesperson Bill Threlkeld noted in an e-mail to OBJ that “MyFax will run as it always has from its Ottawa base” for the foreseeable future.

“Over time, components of the service may migrate to other j2 facilities for efficiency, just as some of j2’s other operations may migrate to Ottawa for efficiency,” he wrote, adding that Protus’s call centre in Ottawa has already begun to take calls for other j2 brands.

The one thing that remains uncertain is the fate of Protus’s my1voice virtual phone service, which Mr. Adams said is “not yet determined.” The business made up three per cent of Protus’s total sales at the time of the j2 acquisition.

“My1voice is important to j2 but … there is some product overlap,” he said.

Protus’s strong presence in the Ottawa tech scene and its second-place position in the Internet faxing industry made the company an attractive target for j2. MyFax reached 500,000 subscribers in 2010, although it trailed behind eFax’s 11 million users.

—

THE ‘FAX’ ABOUT PROTUS

1997: Protus is founded.

May 2004: Protus introduces Internet-based virtual fax service.

August 2005: j2 Global Communications launches patent lawsuit against Protus.

February 2006: j2 accuses Protus and competitor Venali of sending unsolicited faxes to j2 customers.

2007-2009: Protus wins OBJ’s Employees’ Choice Award, recognizing a high level of job satisfaction among staff.

December 2007: Protus announces that j2 patent suit has been dismissed with prejudice in the central district of California.

June 2008: Protus acquires Campaigner and launches my1voice virtual PBX phone service. j2 files another patent infringement lawsuit against Protus and two other companies in the eastern district of Texas.

February 2009: j2 acquires Callwave’s Internet fax assets.

April 2009: Protus named one of OBJ‘s Fastest Growing Companies.

February 2010: Protus announces it has defeated j2 patents in Europe and the United States.

September 2010: j2 buys Venali.

December 2010: Protus acquired by j2.

http://www.obj.ca/Technology/2011-03-22/article-2353255/Protus%26rsquo%3Bs-Ottawa-staff-levelled-in-wake-of-j2-takeover/1

2480 Lancaster Rd.

Description: Elevator installation and maintenance

Buyer: PWGSC

$3,628,568

Altis Human Resources (Ottawa) Inc. and Excel Human Resources Inc., in joint venture

102 Bank St.

Description: Informatices professional services

Buyer: PWGSC

$2,570,750

Maplesoft Consulting Inc.

408 Churchill Ave.

Description: Informatices professional services

Buyer: PWGSC

$2,570,750

Advanced Chippewa Technologies Inc.

84 Valley Ridge St.

Description: ADP input-output and storage devices

Buyer: DND

$1,852,032

IBM Canada Ltd.

340 Albert St.

Description: ETL software solution

Buyer: RCMP

$1,417,505

Otis Canada Inc.

2480 Lancaster Rd.

Description: Elevator installation and maintenance

Buyer: PWGSC

$1,219,044

Valcom Consulting Group Inc.

85 Albert St.

Description: Naval architecture

Buyer: DND

$1,041,227

IPSS Inc.

150 Isabella St.

Description: ADP software

Buyer: DND

$862,289

Interis Consulting Inc.

275 Slater St.

Description: Human resource services, business consulting/change management, project management services (supply arrangement TSPS)

Buyer: PWGSC

$705,600

Systems for Research Corp.

300 Earl Grey Dr.

Description: Optical instruments, test equipment, components and accessories

Buyer: Natural Resources Canada

$632,630

Advanced Chippewa Technologies Inc.

84 Valley Ridge St.

Description: ADP input-output and storage devices

Buyer: Citizenship and Immigration Canada

$460,164

Canadian Space Services Ltd.

2336 Craig’s Side Rd.

Description: Radar equipment, except airborne

Buyer: DND

$390,991

DBA Akran Marketing

2000 Thurston Dr.

Description: Flags and pennants

Buyer: Canadian Heritage

$324,847

Integrated Network Security Alliance 2005 Inc.

2725 Queensview Dr.

Description: ADP input-output and storage devices

Buyer: Treasury Board of Canada

$286,253

Motorola Canada Ltd.

360 Albert St.

Description: Radio and television communications equipment, airborne

Buyer: RCMP

$282,742

IBM Canada Ltd.

340 Albert St.

Description: ADP input-output and storage devices

Buyer: HRSDC

$188,170

Stoneworks Technologies Inc.

2212 Gladwin Cres.

Description: ADP input-output and storage devices

Buyer: Natural Resources Canada

$187,023

Bell Canada

160 Elgin St.

Description: Communications security equipment and components

Buyer: DND

$186,006

Dalian Enterprises Inc.

151 Slater St.

Description: ADP input-output and storage devices

Buyer: Correctional Service of Canada

$179,433

DLS Technology Corp.

1376 Bank St.

Description: ADP software

Buyer: Treasury Board of Canada

$155,664

Intergraph Canada Ltd.

1600 Carling Ave.

Description: Cameras, still picture

Buyer: DND

$146,207

Johnson Controls L.P.

30 Edgewater St.

Description: Building automated control systems

Buyer: PWGSC

$126,665

Maxys Staffing & Consulting

173 Dalhousie St.

Description: Professional services

Buyer: Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada

$123,396

S.i. Systems Inc.

130 Slater St.

Description: Professional services

Buyer: Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada

$112,383

CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc.

275 Slater St.

Description: Professional services

Buyer: Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada

$100,000

Veritaaq Technology House

2327 St. Laurent Blvd.

Description: Professional services

Buyer: Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada

$100,000

http://www.obj.ca/Local/For%20the%20Record/2011-03-17/article-2336470/Federal-contracts-Feb-27March-5/1