Beyond news, I was curious and concerned why there is sudden wave of attacks on Indians in Australia?
After all, Indians are living as expatriates across the globe.
Why Australia?
So why are Indians being attacked in Australia only? The fact that Australia is among the better countries in terms of law and order and general public safety increases the concern.
Why now?
Indians are living in Australia for few decades, so why attacks are in news now?
I tried to search but couldn’t find any non partisan analysis beyond rhetoric or obvious headlines. Then I tried to get in touch with few Aussies from all three groups who matter: Indians living in Australia, Other nationalities living in Australia and native Aussies, to get a better and unbiased perspective on this issue...
What better way to structure the observation of Tipping point of attacks on Indians in Australia than using Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point approach…
Tipping Points are the levels at which momentum of change becomes unstoppable. According to Gladwell, three reasons for tipping point are
Law of the Few
Stickiness Factor
Power of Context
Law of the Few:
Indian students are studying in Australia for decades but there was sudden surge in student’s number since last few years (2004 onwards). From 2004 to 2009 student intake has increased many folds approx. 400- 500% times. 20,000 Indian students in 2004 to 100,000 students in 2009 (I couldn’t verify these figures but essence of the point is valid).
Earlier (Pre 2004) Indian students, coming to Australia, were mainly from upper class (scions of politicians, bureaucrats, business families, corporate executives, rich landowners). These students main motivation to come to Australia was to enjoy life. After all quality of life in Australia was much better than that in India and in some of other global education options. Also it was easier to get admission in Australia and the fee was comparatively less for the same comparable courses in US and UK. These students, from well-to-do families, could self sustain themselves and didn’t need to go overboard with part time lower end jobs for survival.
After 2004, majority of additional student intake started coming from growing Indian middle class. These middle class students have to often take part time jobs to survive in Australia. Thus, suddenly one could see Indian students in lower end part time jobs everywhere (Hotels, Restaurants, Taxi drivers, janitors, Ticket collectors, event management etc).
When I visited Melbourne in May 2009, I was surprised to see Indian students working in all sorts of jobs. Overseas students are allowed to work only 20 hours a week. Often Indian students work beyond this limit and even settle to work on low wages. This gives employers all the more reason to hire Indian students than Aussies.
These jobs were typically for Aussie kids. Thus suddenly, the perception became that Indian students are everywhere eating away Aussie kids’ jobs and going forward they will stay in Australia and take their future employment prospects also.
Interestingly, the changes in composition of Indian diaspora in Australia are captured in Indian Bollywood movies during last 10 years.
“Dil Chahta Hai” in 2000 showed Indians in Aussies from upper classes who were enjoying life in Australia …but in later movies like “Salam Namaste” (2005), “Bachna ae Haseeno”(2008) actresses were shown as Indian students from middle class working in part time jobs.
There are other nationalities also present in Australia but they are more like earlier Indian students form upper class and not seen aspiring or working in part time jobs.
Stickiness:
Well this was not short term phenomena as Indians students’ intake in Australia increased year after year.
Aussie government suddenly realized Education is their one of the largest foreign exchange earner ($15 billion or so) and found increasing Indian middle class has latent demand for Aussie education.
That explains the road shows of Aussie universities in even Tier 2 cities in India (even Indian marketers have limited success in taping potential in these cities)
What could have been short term phenomena became permanent and even increasing every year.
The Indian students’ intake (who was striving for part time jobs) started rising much more than the Aussie GDP from 2005 onwards so tipping point had to come.
Power of Context:
That explains Why now? And Why Australia?
Why now?
In global recession, when present and future both looks uncertain, the grievance towards working Indian students was extended and generalized to include all Indians …
And on top of that, whole world hear news that Indian growth rate in recessions is good. So general Aussie perception may be that Indians are growing in India, Indians are growing in Australia and screwing their kids present and future
Why Australia?
Australia has vast land area and spread out houses and suburbs.
Unlike US, where there are troubled minority dominated suburbs earlier, Australia has been by and large trouble free.
So probably Australia police personnel to area ratio must be among lowest in the world. (I couldn’t get the exact figure).
Hence, probability of hitting Indian students by agitated Aussie kids in a corner suburb area is higher in current economic situations. Also preventing these increasing incidents is much more difficult in Australia than in any other country because of low Police Personnel to Area ratio.
It is not only the policing but also the vastness of land area that is making general administration difficult now (Even forest fires take days to get detected in Australia)
In Australia, the jobs that Indian students have taken up are wanted by Aussie teens. This situation is different in other countries where immigrants e.g. High End IT jobs in US (in which US does not have enough specialized man power) or lower End Maid jobs in Malaysia (no man power available hence maids are imported from Indonesia and Philippines)
Irony of Australia
Immigrants can be strengths as shown by the American Silicon Valley model
What could have been melting pot and technology superpower like America has become an immigration hostile country…
This century will be renewable energy century. Australia has vast potential of land area which can be converted to Solar Farms, excellent wind resources and big ocean line (tidal or wave power). If properly harnessed, Australia can become leading players in renewable energy both as producer and technology provider (e.g. Silicon Valley and IT Revolution, the role played by US)
Australia could have become leader in Wireless Telecom. Australia’s vast land area requires unique management and monitoring challenges. If Australia had focused its efforts in solving these challenges technologically, something as Scandinavian countries (Finland, Sweden) have done in the past, it could have become leader in Wireless Telecom Technologies like Scandinavian countries
Australia has vast mineral resources…one of the rare natural blessing compared with the other first world countries, and it could have ventured into next generation of materials, composites and nano technology.
If Australia had crossed a different tipping point focusing on above, Australia could have become next Silicon Valley (potential to become so still exists).
Wrong policies focusing on short term gains in exporting lower end education rather than long term sustainability of focusing on high end technologies and opportunities has made Australia cross wrong Tipping Point!
Friday, January 15, 2010
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Vertical Integration and Rise of Technology M&A and Fierce Competition
History repeats itself or call it Life has come full circle; we are witnessing a new trend of Vertical Integration in Technology Industries.
Some recent news items (2009)
Cisco’s entry into server market
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/technology/companies/20cisco.html
Apple recruits chip designers
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/04/apple-quietly-recruits-chip-designers-for-in-house-cpus/
Intel acquires a software company
http://www.infoworld.com/t/mergers-and-acquisitions/intel-acquires-software-company-rapidmind-651
Oracle acquires Sun
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090420_099699.htm
RIM acquires a browser company
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nf/68569
Google building Operating Systems
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
Nokia acquires Payment System Company
http://www.thedeal.com/corporatedealmaker/2009/03/nokia_buys_stake_in_obopay_hop.php
Prime View (Kindle Manufacturer) buys E INK
http://www.itworld.com/business/68697/kindle-manufacturer-buy-e-ink
List goes on ...and grapevine says more to come….
Why this is happening?
In early part of the industry evolution, we had vertically integrated industries (like IBM in early mainframe days) with proprietary and interdependent architectures.
Then with time as product functionality and reliability improved, industry shifted to modular and independent architectures and led to the rise of best of breed suppliers like Microsoft (Operating System), Intel (Processors).
Subcomponent industry develops with clear interfaces and best of breed suppliers
.
New product introduction is fast, one just needs to system design the new product. The components can be easily sourced from suppliers for product assembly.
Cost comes down initially as subcomponent suppliers main focus is cost optimization
Unfortunately party cannot go on for ever and few problems have started emerging
• Limit in component level innovation or cost reduction
• Breakthrough innovation is not coming as there are interdependencies across the subsystems and components
• Even if breakthrough innovation comes, it gets copied very rapidly as getting components from suppliers is easy , like iPhone, or eBook reader
So What Next?
Hence comes rise of Vertical Integration and drivers are more than innovation
• Cost and Profitability- As number of suppliers increase in value chain so is their profits (assume each supplier earns 20-25 % gross margin). So why not integrate companies and work on integrated 25-30% gross margin and pass partial benefit to customers
• Innovation – Product level Breakthrough innovation will need optimization and interdependencies across components and subsystems
• Competition – Raising time and other barriers for entry for the competition. Competitors will need time to understand the product and develop internal capabilities to design and manufacture components
• Regulation and Technology grants – Thanks to credit crisis and government stimulus, government is promoting new investments in creating jobs and facilities and also selectively giving grants for R&D programs in new technologies.
• R&D Economics of Scale – By vertical integration , companies can leverage economics of scale in R&D efforts at product level and interdependencies rather than suboptimal utilization and duplication at component level
What will be the Implications?
I wrote earlier about rise of product companies as result of Obama’s ban on outsourcing.
http://pareekhjain.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-ban-on-outsourcing-and-h1-visas.html
This goes one step further with rise of Vertical Integrated companies. There will be more levers for M&A for both early stage technology companies and established companies
So on one hand vertical integration will accelerate the pace of M&A and on the other hand it will change game from collaboration to competition, as witnessed in recent Google Voice and iPhone controversy
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/
Earlier leaders had no incentive for vertical integration, as it would have turned their existing partners and customers into competitors and would have led to cannibalization of their existing product line sales. But this is changing now, as evident from Cisco’s bold move…
The best of breed component players will need to think that where they will fit in vertically integration and fierce competition trends. Status Quo will not be the option!!
Some recent news items (2009)
Cisco’s entry into server market
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/technology/companies/20cisco.html
Apple recruits chip designers
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/04/apple-quietly-recruits-chip-designers-for-in-house-cpus/
Intel acquires a software company
http://www.infoworld.com/t/mergers-and-acquisitions/intel-acquires-software-company-rapidmind-651
Oracle acquires Sun
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090420_099699.htm
RIM acquires a browser company
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nf/68569
Google building Operating Systems
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
Nokia acquires Payment System Company
http://www.thedeal.com/corporatedealmaker/2009/03/nokia_buys_stake_in_obopay_hop.php
Prime View (Kindle Manufacturer) buys E INK
http://www.itworld.com/business/68697/kindle-manufacturer-buy-e-ink
List goes on ...and grapevine says more to come….
Why this is happening?
In early part of the industry evolution, we had vertically integrated industries (like IBM in early mainframe days) with proprietary and interdependent architectures.
Then with time as product functionality and reliability improved, industry shifted to modular and independent architectures and led to the rise of best of breed suppliers like Microsoft (Operating System), Intel (Processors).
Subcomponent industry develops with clear interfaces and best of breed suppliers
.
New product introduction is fast, one just needs to system design the new product. The components can be easily sourced from suppliers for product assembly.
Cost comes down initially as subcomponent suppliers main focus is cost optimization
Unfortunately party cannot go on for ever and few problems have started emerging
• Limit in component level innovation or cost reduction
• Breakthrough innovation is not coming as there are interdependencies across the subsystems and components
• Even if breakthrough innovation comes, it gets copied very rapidly as getting components from suppliers is easy , like iPhone, or eBook reader
So What Next?
Hence comes rise of Vertical Integration and drivers are more than innovation
• Cost and Profitability- As number of suppliers increase in value chain so is their profits (assume each supplier earns 20-25 % gross margin). So why not integrate companies and work on integrated 25-30% gross margin and pass partial benefit to customers
• Innovation – Product level Breakthrough innovation will need optimization and interdependencies across components and subsystems
• Competition – Raising time and other barriers for entry for the competition. Competitors will need time to understand the product and develop internal capabilities to design and manufacture components
• Regulation and Technology grants – Thanks to credit crisis and government stimulus, government is promoting new investments in creating jobs and facilities and also selectively giving grants for R&D programs in new technologies.
• R&D Economics of Scale – By vertical integration , companies can leverage economics of scale in R&D efforts at product level and interdependencies rather than suboptimal utilization and duplication at component level
What will be the Implications?
I wrote earlier about rise of product companies as result of Obama’s ban on outsourcing.
http://pareekhjain.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-ban-on-outsourcing-and-h1-visas.html
This goes one step further with rise of Vertical Integrated companies. There will be more levers for M&A for both early stage technology companies and established companies
So on one hand vertical integration will accelerate the pace of M&A and on the other hand it will change game from collaboration to competition, as witnessed in recent Google Voice and iPhone controversy
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/
Earlier leaders had no incentive for vertical integration, as it would have turned their existing partners and customers into competitors and would have led to cannibalization of their existing product line sales. But this is changing now, as evident from Cisco’s bold move…
The best of breed component players will need to think that where they will fit in vertically integration and fierce competition trends. Status Quo will not be the option!!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Credit Crisis as an Opportunity: Big is getting bigger in Telecom Sector
“Every crisis as an opportunity and so is credit crisis”. I disregarded this as a hollow positive thinking management talk earlier.
There were reports how few companies actually prosper even in great depression. I was taking this with a pitch of salt probably cause and effect fallacy with hindsight bias.
Having said that, I am now seeing first data point in Telecom industry, how big is getting bigger and taking advantage of credit crisis.
Situation
Indonesia Telecom industry is dominated by three players – Telkomsel, Indosat, Excelcom
The market share by subscribers is Telkomsel (51%), Indosat (26%) and Excelcom (22%)
Credit Crisis as an Opportunity
As credit crisis hit, it was difficult for smaller players Indosat and Excelcom to raise money and fund Capex. They lowered their Capex by 50% in 2009 vs 2008
Telkosmel largest player sensing opportunity actually raised its Capex by 25% in 2009 vs 2008
Results
Last two quarter subscribers data is showing while Indosat and Excelcom lost subscribers, Telkomsel is increasing its subscribers in fast growing Indonesia Telecom Market
“Over the last two quarters, Indosat and Excelcomindo, Telkomsel's two largest competitors, have both reported lower customer numbers, with the first losing 3.24m in Q1 and a further 4.4m in Q2 and the second, a rather more modest 1.12m and 220k”
Implications
Big is getting bigger…
So in credit crisis, invest in bigger blue chips…leaders in their industry, who are taking this opportunity and going on aggressive spending mode..
Same thing China is doing , treating credit crisis as an opportunity buying all raw materials of the world and building additional capacity. Chinese companies might give run for their money to companies in other parts of the world later…!!
There were reports how few companies actually prosper even in great depression. I was taking this with a pitch of salt probably cause and effect fallacy with hindsight bias.
Having said that, I am now seeing first data point in Telecom industry, how big is getting bigger and taking advantage of credit crisis.
Situation
Indonesia Telecom industry is dominated by three players – Telkomsel, Indosat, Excelcom
The market share by subscribers is Telkomsel (51%), Indosat (26%) and Excelcom (22%)
Credit Crisis as an Opportunity
As credit crisis hit, it was difficult for smaller players Indosat and Excelcom to raise money and fund Capex. They lowered their Capex by 50% in 2009 vs 2008
Telkosmel largest player sensing opportunity actually raised its Capex by 25% in 2009 vs 2008
Results
Last two quarter subscribers data is showing while Indosat and Excelcom lost subscribers, Telkomsel is increasing its subscribers in fast growing Indonesia Telecom Market
“Over the last two quarters, Indosat and Excelcomindo, Telkomsel's two largest competitors, have both reported lower customer numbers, with the first losing 3.24m in Q1 and a further 4.4m in Q2 and the second, a rather more modest 1.12m and 220k”
Implications
Big is getting bigger…
So in credit crisis, invest in bigger blue chips…leaders in their industry, who are taking this opportunity and going on aggressive spending mode..
Same thing China is doing , treating credit crisis as an opportunity buying all raw materials of the world and building additional capacity. Chinese companies might give run for their money to companies in other parts of the world later…!!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
What is Strategy? IIM Professor, CEO, Sonia Gandhi and Kaminey
Which is the most used but least understood management concept? I think it is Strategy…
Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a strategy for doing some thing. If you dig deeper, you realize they don’t understand what strategy is!
One of the most renowned Professor of Strategy taught us Strategy course in B school. We asked a dumb question outside the class to Professor, “what the strategy is in real world?” He answered that even after decades of teaching he didn’t fully understood what is strategy! He added “Probably strategy is a way of life...”
I was confused and couldn’t understand his point. Now after few years of corporate life I can appreciate what Professor was talking about.
Strategy is about making choices.
Most people I see confuse strategy with goal.
Doing better is not a strategy. Doing better is a goal.
I heard from an acquaintance about recession strategy of a CEO.
CEO understood the challenge of recession and was addressing his sales force. He said “We need to formulate strategy for recession. The environment will be difficult so
We need to increase our Sales, Go out of our comfort zone and look for all opportunities
We need to be careful about profitability as your customers will pressurize you for lower prices
We need to be extra careful about cash collections as many costumers will face cash flow problem
With this strategy we should be able to face recession”
Is the above a strategy???? This is his goal of doing better for increasing sales, profitability and cash flow but definitely not a strategy. Is he making any choices or asking his sales force to make so??
Sales guys are confused… Should a sales guy go and win market share by decreasing price? Should sales guy take risk and do business with risky customers? If sales guy doesn’t opt for one of above two choices, he will loose sales.
So choice is between taking risk and increasing sales or being conservative and satisfied with lower sales. Unfortunately so called CEO strategy doesn’t provides any answer…
If Strategy is about making choices, then don’t we make choice every moment consciously or unconsciously among infinite possibilities? Is that a strategy?
That’s the point, that’s not the strategy.
For making strategic choices, one should have conscious choices in hand other wise this is business/life as usual and no real strategy...
I cannot say that I didn’t choose to become Prime Minister and that is my strategy to work in corporate life vs. politics. I never had that choice.
Sonia Gandhi had a choice to become PM of India but she didn’t choose to become PM, so probably she has some strategy behind her move.
Similarly for making strategic choices, choice should be among comparable alternatives. Smartness or Diligence cannot be strategy
I can’t say that I didn’t choose to become clerk but chose to work in management role and this is my strategy. Choosing a superior option can be smartness but not strategy. However if I choose the other way, i.e. work as clerk instead of working in a management role (despite being IIM MBA), then that could have been a strategy. Why would I like to become clerk when I can have a management career, may be to know trade secrets of a competitor (This could be my strategy, Isn’t it?)
Similarly I see people confuse strategy with
Planning of initiatives with out really making conscious choices. Detailed Action Plan with milestones and responsibilities is not a strategy. Why you choose to have that plan not the other (if any) can be strategy...
Differentiating their Product. Service, Brand without really making conscious choices. Merely because you have a differentiated product or service, you don’t have a strategy. Why you made product different? Just because you liked it, sounds cool then that this is not your strategy...
Tactics of achieving the goals
So when can we say a company or individual has a strategy?
Most convincing definition, I have came across of strategy is “Identifying what you choose not to do”
Think why you chose not to make a particular choice. There will be some logic behind it… That is your strategy.
If there is common thread behind your choices then your strategy is consistent...
As goes a dialogue in latest Bollywood block buster “Kaminey”... “Life’s course is not decided by which path you take but by what path you leave...”
Isn’t it what you choose not to do? Strategy…
That is what Professor was referring to a way of life, missing in CEO’s strategy but visible in Sonia Gandhi’s strategic moves
Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a strategy for doing some thing. If you dig deeper, you realize they don’t understand what strategy is!
One of the most renowned Professor of Strategy taught us Strategy course in B school. We asked a dumb question outside the class to Professor, “what the strategy is in real world?” He answered that even after decades of teaching he didn’t fully understood what is strategy! He added “Probably strategy is a way of life...”
I was confused and couldn’t understand his point. Now after few years of corporate life I can appreciate what Professor was talking about.
Strategy is about making choices.
Most people I see confuse strategy with goal.
Doing better is not a strategy. Doing better is a goal.
I heard from an acquaintance about recession strategy of a CEO.
CEO understood the challenge of recession and was addressing his sales force. He said “We need to formulate strategy for recession. The environment will be difficult so
We need to increase our Sales, Go out of our comfort zone and look for all opportunities
We need to be careful about profitability as your customers will pressurize you for lower prices
We need to be extra careful about cash collections as many costumers will face cash flow problem
With this strategy we should be able to face recession”
Is the above a strategy???? This is his goal of doing better for increasing sales, profitability and cash flow but definitely not a strategy. Is he making any choices or asking his sales force to make so??
Sales guys are confused… Should a sales guy go and win market share by decreasing price? Should sales guy take risk and do business with risky customers? If sales guy doesn’t opt for one of above two choices, he will loose sales.
So choice is between taking risk and increasing sales or being conservative and satisfied with lower sales. Unfortunately so called CEO strategy doesn’t provides any answer…
If Strategy is about making choices, then don’t we make choice every moment consciously or unconsciously among infinite possibilities? Is that a strategy?
That’s the point, that’s not the strategy.
For making strategic choices, one should have conscious choices in hand other wise this is business/life as usual and no real strategy...
I cannot say that I didn’t choose to become Prime Minister and that is my strategy to work in corporate life vs. politics. I never had that choice.
Sonia Gandhi had a choice to become PM of India but she didn’t choose to become PM, so probably she has some strategy behind her move.
Similarly for making strategic choices, choice should be among comparable alternatives. Smartness or Diligence cannot be strategy
I can’t say that I didn’t choose to become clerk but chose to work in management role and this is my strategy. Choosing a superior option can be smartness but not strategy. However if I choose the other way, i.e. work as clerk instead of working in a management role (despite being IIM MBA), then that could have been a strategy. Why would I like to become clerk when I can have a management career, may be to know trade secrets of a competitor (This could be my strategy, Isn’t it?)
Similarly I see people confuse strategy with
Planning of initiatives with out really making conscious choices. Detailed Action Plan with milestones and responsibilities is not a strategy. Why you choose to have that plan not the other (if any) can be strategy...
Differentiating their Product. Service, Brand without really making conscious choices. Merely because you have a differentiated product or service, you don’t have a strategy. Why you made product different? Just because you liked it, sounds cool then that this is not your strategy...
Tactics of achieving the goals
So when can we say a company or individual has a strategy?
Most convincing definition, I have came across of strategy is “Identifying what you choose not to do”
Think why you chose not to make a particular choice. There will be some logic behind it… That is your strategy.
If there is common thread behind your choices then your strategy is consistent...
As goes a dialogue in latest Bollywood block buster “Kaminey”... “Life’s course is not decided by which path you take but by what path you leave...”
Isn’t it what you choose not to do? Strategy…
That is what Professor was referring to a way of life, missing in CEO’s strategy but visible in Sonia Gandhi’s strategic moves
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Creativity in India or China?
Creativity in China? Are you kidding?
China has been long known for command and control structure, very process oriented, manufacturing economy. Creativity cannot exist in such discipline environment.
Comparing potential of creativity in India and China, India has a better chance...
I had the above world view for years
Compare the history of India and China, Indians were thinkers and invented zero and hence mathematics, where as Chinese invented paper, printing press among others.
That distinction is still relevant today as Indians have excelled in Software Industry where as China in Manufacturing Industry.
My above view got reinforced further after working first hand with Chinese colleagues (both mainland Chinese and ethnic Chinese)
I found Indians to be good at managing uncertainty, making assumptions, get some thing working, thinking out of the box, having big picture and on the other hand Chinese to be very process oriented, disciplined, focused , capable of flawless execution of projects at large scale.
My inference was that Indian companies will tend to be more creative than Chinese companies. Creativity has better chance in India
This view was challenged recently and I found, like many others, I might be wrong about creativity in China.
Global Consumer Brands can be proxy measure of Business Creativity
Name any global Indian brand in consumer space? I cannot think of any. Only few aspiring global brands are of Software Companies and these do not belong to consumer space
Name global Chinese brands in consumer space? You have some and many more are growing: Haier, Lenovo, Huawei…
How can Chinese companies be more business creative and build brands? It is again with the same process approach discussed earlier that they are applying to creativity. Chinese companies, combining process approach with execution excellence and global ambitions, are developing global consumer brands better than India. Haven’t you seen spectacular display of creativity during Beijing Olympics (Flawless execution)?
Chinese creativity style is collective or mass creativity rather than lone star creativity culture found in western world and India.
If a Chinese leader understands importance of creativity and wants his staff to develop mass creativity, his staff will take this task as a holy grail. They will do everything in their capacity to give their sincere shot. These collective sincere efforts even with less individual contribution can deliver results.
So China only needs few leaders who understand importance of creativity and have global ambitions, rest everything will follow.
In contrast, in India apart from leaders, followers should also understand importance of creativity and their version of creativity should match with their leaders. So India needs far more number of creative people and their collective synchronization to make any creative impact.
Which is more difficult to execute? India model or China model?
Incidentally, the only Indian company which comes close to building global consumer brands is Tatas and guess from whom Ratan Tata got inspired? Well China …
“About four years ago we decided to look at ourselves and our goals in a much bigger and bolder way than we had in the past. The genesis of this came from a little comparative study we did of India and China. I realized the difference was the scale of each thing they undertook. …I realized that with almost everything China did big, they grew into it very quickly. Their growth rate momentum supported that.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_33/b4046047.htm
In China, anything can be created even Creativity!!
China has been long known for command and control structure, very process oriented, manufacturing economy. Creativity cannot exist in such discipline environment.
Comparing potential of creativity in India and China, India has a better chance...
I had the above world view for years
Compare the history of India and China, Indians were thinkers and invented zero and hence mathematics, where as Chinese invented paper, printing press among others.
That distinction is still relevant today as Indians have excelled in Software Industry where as China in Manufacturing Industry.
My above view got reinforced further after working first hand with Chinese colleagues (both mainland Chinese and ethnic Chinese)
I found Indians to be good at managing uncertainty, making assumptions, get some thing working, thinking out of the box, having big picture and on the other hand Chinese to be very process oriented, disciplined, focused , capable of flawless execution of projects at large scale.
My inference was that Indian companies will tend to be more creative than Chinese companies. Creativity has better chance in India
This view was challenged recently and I found, like many others, I might be wrong about creativity in China.
Global Consumer Brands can be proxy measure of Business Creativity
Name any global Indian brand in consumer space? I cannot think of any. Only few aspiring global brands are of Software Companies and these do not belong to consumer space
Name global Chinese brands in consumer space? You have some and many more are growing: Haier, Lenovo, Huawei…
How can Chinese companies be more business creative and build brands? It is again with the same process approach discussed earlier that they are applying to creativity. Chinese companies, combining process approach with execution excellence and global ambitions, are developing global consumer brands better than India. Haven’t you seen spectacular display of creativity during Beijing Olympics (Flawless execution)?
Chinese creativity style is collective or mass creativity rather than lone star creativity culture found in western world and India.
If a Chinese leader understands importance of creativity and wants his staff to develop mass creativity, his staff will take this task as a holy grail. They will do everything in their capacity to give their sincere shot. These collective sincere efforts even with less individual contribution can deliver results.
So China only needs few leaders who understand importance of creativity and have global ambitions, rest everything will follow.
In contrast, in India apart from leaders, followers should also understand importance of creativity and their version of creativity should match with their leaders. So India needs far more number of creative people and their collective synchronization to make any creative impact.
Which is more difficult to execute? India model or China model?
Incidentally, the only Indian company which comes close to building global consumer brands is Tatas and guess from whom Ratan Tata got inspired? Well China …
“About four years ago we decided to look at ourselves and our goals in a much bigger and bolder way than we had in the past. The genesis of this came from a little comparative study we did of India and China. I realized the difference was the scale of each thing they undertook. …I realized that with almost everything China did big, they grew into it very quickly. Their growth rate momentum supported that.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_33/b4046047.htm
In China, anything can be created even Creativity!!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Mayawati Statues and Solar Power
Mayawati is in legal trouble for installing her statues with Public Money (over $300 Million and growing) in UP
http://www.timesnow.tv/EC-issues-notice-to-Maya-over-statue-pree/articleshow/4324006.cms
Well, she can in one stroke convert her most controversial action into wider international acclaim and even become an ecological political icon
She can convert her statues as solar power producing by coating them with special paint, which can convert solar light into electricity.
This is not a science fiction stuff or a geek’s fantasy. Italy is planning to build a 200ft high, solar energy-producing statue of one of its most cherished saints, Padre Pio
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5978928/Italy-to-build-solar-energy-producing-statue-of-saint.html
This way Mayawati can also contribute to improving power situation in UP, which is becoming worse with each passing year.
Indian leaders need to think about public utility as well when they plan and construct national monuments/ structures. The case in point is in Malaysia, where government not only build Petronas Towers as monuments of Malaysian pride and identity but also converted them into office space, which in no time became most sought after office address in Malaysia and South East Asia.
If Malaysia and Italy can do it, then why cannot M(alaysia)AYAWATI(taly)…
http://www.timesnow.tv/EC-issues-notice-to-Maya-over-statue-pree/articleshow/4324006.cms
Well, she can in one stroke convert her most controversial action into wider international acclaim and even become an ecological political icon
She can convert her statues as solar power producing by coating them with special paint, which can convert solar light into electricity.
This is not a science fiction stuff or a geek’s fantasy. Italy is planning to build a 200ft high, solar energy-producing statue of one of its most cherished saints, Padre Pio
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5978928/Italy-to-build-solar-energy-producing-statue-of-saint.html
This way Mayawati can also contribute to improving power situation in UP, which is becoming worse with each passing year.
Indian leaders need to think about public utility as well when they plan and construct national monuments/ structures. The case in point is in Malaysia, where government not only build Petronas Towers as monuments of Malaysian pride and identity but also converted them into office space, which in no time became most sought after office address in Malaysia and South East Asia.
If Malaysia and Italy can do it, then why cannot M(alaysia)AYAWATI(taly)…
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Execution Barrier 1 : Why companies don’t get it right?... Profit Making Motive rather than Idea Implementation
I read “Execution: Discipline of getting things done” by Ram Charan first time when I was in college doing MBA. I couldn’t appreciate value of execution at that time but still thought it was an excellent book.
After few years of corporate life and seeing the world change at unimaginable pace ( both boom and bust), I was wondering about Execution Barriers and Ram Charan’s book (though a good read ) cannot provide all the answers.
So what are Execution Barriers ?
Execution Barrier 1: Profit Making Motive rather than Idea Implementation
What will drive and inspire a team to produce extra ordinary results?
Setting financial goals like increasing sales by X, increasing Profit by Y, increasing share price by Z and then following this up in reviews?
Or implementing a unique product or process idea which is unprecedented and difficult to achieve and following this idea implementation process?
Idea can be a new product , better quality, better service , better on time delivery, affordable pricing , a different channel, user experience etc that on implementing will provide customers a better product or service proposition.
Radical ideas are contagious and inspire team more than financial targets. If implemented successfully they can even help to over shoot financial targets X,Y or Z.
Most executives and corporates miss the above and set only financial goals X,Y,Z and expect their team members to figure out the details, “ I don’t care what you do, just meet these numbers !!”
One cannot engage and inspire the team in this way. On the contrary , an inspiring and radical idea can even motivate folks to work and implement it for free ( like Linux, Wikipedia etc..)
Most successful examples in recent corporate history such as Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Cisco, Ikea, Dell, South West Airlines, Sony, Tata, Walmart, Infosys, Huawei, Reliance were those of successful idea implementers. These corporates had their radical ideas, which inspired their team to develop new products, services and processes, Thus inspiring their team to develop wining business propositions while executing on their ideas.
There will be many corporates whose radical ideas were not successful e.g. infamous Motorola Iridium case.
How can one know whether his idea is worth implementing? There is only one way to know, Just do it!! . Outcome will be successful, when idea is implemented passionately and meets right market opportunity (like Microsoft’s OS met growing PC demand). However some corporates might not be that lucky.
Luck or external environment is not in one’s control but executing an idea can certainly be one’s choice, which will be more inspiring and engaging than mere financial targets which most companies follow.
So what’s your big idea ?
To Be Contd…
After few years of corporate life and seeing the world change at unimaginable pace ( both boom and bust), I was wondering about Execution Barriers and Ram Charan’s book (though a good read ) cannot provide all the answers.
So what are Execution Barriers ?
Execution Barrier 1: Profit Making Motive rather than Idea Implementation
What will drive and inspire a team to produce extra ordinary results?
Setting financial goals like increasing sales by X, increasing Profit by Y, increasing share price by Z and then following this up in reviews?
Or implementing a unique product or process idea which is unprecedented and difficult to achieve and following this idea implementation process?
Idea can be a new product , better quality, better service , better on time delivery, affordable pricing , a different channel, user experience etc that on implementing will provide customers a better product or service proposition.
Radical ideas are contagious and inspire team more than financial targets. If implemented successfully they can even help to over shoot financial targets X,Y or Z.
Most executives and corporates miss the above and set only financial goals X,Y,Z and expect their team members to figure out the details, “ I don’t care what you do, just meet these numbers !!”
One cannot engage and inspire the team in this way. On the contrary , an inspiring and radical idea can even motivate folks to work and implement it for free ( like Linux, Wikipedia etc..)
Most successful examples in recent corporate history such as Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Cisco, Ikea, Dell, South West Airlines, Sony, Tata, Walmart, Infosys, Huawei, Reliance were those of successful idea implementers. These corporates had their radical ideas, which inspired their team to develop new products, services and processes, Thus inspiring their team to develop wining business propositions while executing on their ideas.
There will be many corporates whose radical ideas were not successful e.g. infamous Motorola Iridium case.
How can one know whether his idea is worth implementing? There is only one way to know, Just do it!! . Outcome will be successful, when idea is implemented passionately and meets right market opportunity (like Microsoft’s OS met growing PC demand). However some corporates might not be that lucky.
Luck or external environment is not in one’s control but executing an idea can certainly be one’s choice, which will be more inspiring and engaging than mere financial targets which most companies follow.
So what’s your big idea ?
To Be Contd…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
