A colleague steered me to the Branham 300 list of Canada’s top technology companies.
The problem with lists is that they are almost immediately outdated. But I think there are more fundamental problems with this list. I’m happy to overlook whatever glitch or typo led to RDM Corp being listed as number 97 and number 101. But there are more fundamental problems that seem to infest this particular listing.
I can understand how it must be difficult to gather financial information about private companies. But there are a lot of private firms that make the list, and a fairly abbreviated list of companies that are excluded from the listing in a note on the front page. This is hardly an inventory of software firms of any measurable substance. Keep in mind that company number 250 has revenues of less than $2.5M.
In addition, there are a number of public companies that are mysteriously absent from the list. Companies that are listed on the TSE, the London Exchange, the Venture exchange. Some independent phone companies appear to be missing, despite SEDAR information that confirms internet revenues that would put them into the top 250. [It is unclear why Branham chooses to ignore wireline voice revenues, despite including, for example, Nortel’s and Aastra’s equipment sales that support voice services].
Why take the time to point out these problems? Because policy makers may try to draw conclusions based on these flawed studies. The Branham Group claims “The listing has become pre-eminent the world over as the authoritative indicator of the health of the Information Technology industry in Canada.” An article on the Branham website presents some conclusions of its own that must be challenged based on missing company information.
Since it was so easy for me to find obvious problems in the list, it makes me wonder what else may be missing, if we were to take some time digging. Maybe the right conclusion is that there is tremendous activity in ICT going on in Canada, so much activity among the medium and smaller firms that we can’t produce an accurate listing.
A flawed inventory can be a problem for initiatives such as ICT Toronto. If they start with a list such as Branham’s, that understates the current level of activity, then it will be difficult to accurately measure the efficacy of their new initiatives. We would not want bad data to take the credit in 3-5 years for new ICT activity, when all they may have actually achieved is a better census.