Managemental

Poor Customer Service

2010-04-02T21:03:00.003+05:30

The customer service at even the most urbane of places often leaves a lot to be desired. The staff is either too intrusive or plain inattentive. Either they come across as over enthusiastic or plain arrogant. Why is it so difficult to strike the balance? Because the staff is unable to put themselves in the customers' shoes. They cannot visualize the mindset of yuppie professionals who stop by a Barista or Coffee Day. And how can they, for they are rarely educated beyond 10th grade, and in many cases, have moved in from semi-urban or rural areas. To make matters worse, the items on the menu are usually western imports, which even the clientele has trouble comprehending and pronouncing. This is precisely the problem faced by Indian callcenters. The service reps have to connect to an entirely different type of customer and it is not simply about speaking with an accent. The BPOs have realized this and are investing in training their staff on culture-specific matters. How long will it take for the coffee shops and restaurants to realize they need to do something similar?

Hussain's Pain India's Gain

2010-03-04T22:08:00.004+05:30

A section of the intelligentsia is troubled by M F Hussain's acceptance of Qatari citizenship, a situation supposedly aggravated by our government's disinterest to bring him back. They feel we have lost a great artist. Whether Hussain deserved the kind of backlash for his paintings, and whether the methods of the protesters were legitimate is not the point of this post. My point is rather pragmatic. What did we lose?

So Hussain will continue to paint from wherever he is, and if he is the master painter they proclaim him to be, he is sure to attract attention and awards and whatever it is that painters are honored with. With the threat of the so-called Hindu fundamentalists out of the window, he can confidently push his envelope and paint Gods, Goddesses, Demons, Angels, maybe even humans in whatever manner, and by the simple rule of probability, one of them is bound to hit the bullseye. Should that happen, our media will promptly claim credit highlighting his Indian association, for he learnt and practiced the art here. This is more than what can be said about certain other artistes in whose success we brazenly bask. The most recent instance being a website that has proclaimed that Desis have taken international TV by storm. Notwithstanding that "Desi" is generally used in derogatory sense, none of the actors featured in this list have ever lived or practiced in India, to the best of my knowledge. Its not too far fetched to imagine that the media will claim credit for a novelist, who on a flight from Shanghai to SF, happened to scratch his behind at the precise moment that the flight entered the Indian airspace, and went on to write a bestseller. If thats a stretch, what about the coverage of Amla's Gujju connections following his brilliant performance in the test series?

The way I see it, Hussain will now paint all he wants, and by extension, will come up that one odd monstrosity which will thrill the art world while we will sit back and rejoice that India has produced a master painter. What am I missing?

The Great Indian Laughter Challenge

2010-03-03T18:53:00.002+05:30

Even as you thought that the race for the best comedy show was between Star and Sony, the real battle was brewing between Hindi and English news channels. The Aaj Taks and India TVs raced ahead and have become synonymous with wholesome humor. The English news channels were groping for direction though, which was definitively provided by one Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai, and ably carried forward by the likes of Arnab Goswami and Barkha Dutt. I have been followingthe latter two recently, and their shows are a blast. Their brand of humor is as different as chalk and cheese, but the effect is undeniable. Thanks to a fortunate coincidence of ad slots and the fact that the two channels are next to one another, I was treated to a non-stop hour of their performance last night, and my stomach still hurts.

Arnab is clearly after a world record. He wants to host a debate where no panelist gets a word in. In fact, he already has the record for not allowing any panelist to complete a single sentence. His acts have me rolling on the floor laughing. Be it his frustration at not getting a straight response or his repeated assertion that India tunes into his show for answers, he is a blast. And I thought he was the definite numero uno until I stumbled upon Barkha Dutt.

Barkha’s humor is more subtle and situational. She patiently lets her guests finish their sentences, and sincerely follows up with a question, which is inevitably the same as her first one, or in the case that it is not, then totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. The poor panelist falls into the trap of repeating his stance, which only encourages Barkha repeat her question one more time. After two or three such rounds, she is bored and moves on to repeat this game with the next panelist. When she is done playing with all the panelists, she returns to the first one and, of course, poses the exact question she had begun the show with. You could see some panelists visibly struggle to kill their sense of déjà vu.

News channels were last on the list of my TV-viewing preference list and God knows I have missed on some fun. It’s time to undo the damage.

Right, Wrong and Correct

2010-02-27T21:55:00.005+05:30

Before the deluge of budget news yesterday, all eyes were on the meeting of foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan. Our nation has a certain view and position on issues ranging from the arrest of 26/11 perpetrators to what is the best and lasting solution to the Kashmir problem. It must have been plenty obvious by now that Pakistan doesn't see things the same way as we do. So to expect that Pakistan will be overawed by our gesture to talk and will change its views overnight is sheer insanity. If our ability to persuade was so magical, and if Pakistan was willing to objectively approach matters, then the impasse would have been resolved long ago. As the editor of The Dawn pointed out on Newshour, we are sitting on the opposite sides of the table, for God's sake!

It is now too late to sit in judgement and say who's right and who's wrong. 50 years back maybe that was an option, but not anymore. To even make an attempt to try and get Pak to see our side of the story is a waste of time and resources. The only way forward is to acknowledge the current situation and evaluate options as alternatives to status quo and not the originally stated positions of the two countries. Agreeing to LoC as the international border must not be evaluated against whether Kashmir rightfully belonged to us or Pakistan; rather, it should be compared to the constant firing that currently takes place, and will continue if no resolution is reached. Some concessions have to be made by both sides.

Today's HT has a piece by Gopalkrishna Gandhi on Prez K R Narayanan, who once asked the Mahatma that the struggle often faced by humans is not so much to choose between the right and the wrong, the truth and the untruth, but rather to choose between one right and another right, and one truth and another truth. Apparently, he did not receive a direct answer, even from the Mahatma. It is easy to distinguish the right from the wrong, but the right option is not always the correct one.

Google cant Foundem

2010-02-25T14:51:00.005+05:30

A recent lawsuit against Google questions the legitimacy of its blockbuster algorithm that ranks search results, and whether there is any human intervention at all in how results are displayed. There are suggestions that Google has, and uses, a system to penalize or blacklist certain sites, which are then relegated beyond the 3rd or 4th page, thus drying up virtually all traffic. When such sites happen to be search engines themselves, things get murkier. The recent accusation of Foundem may be an isolated incident, but there are certain developments that do appear ominous.

Google's innocuous Universal Search that not only returns websites based on search phrases, but also retrieves relevant images, maps, blogs etc., may have put websites such as labnol or mapquest out of business. When searching for a city or town, I remember Google showing links to Mapquest and yahoo maps, but not anymore. The feature is definitely convenient to the user, in the same manner that bundling Internet Explorer free with Windows was.

Players like Google and Apple have been making noises forever about Microsoft's unfair practices, but some of their own actions are disturbingly similar. I cant recall the last time I typed a URL in my address bar directly. Even when I know the URL, it's easier to google half the website name and click through to the website. Thats laziness, of course, but it also shows my trust in Google - that it will fetch me what I am looking for, and usually as the first result. I doubt if I am alone in reposing complete trust in Google. So when more than three-quarters of the world uses Google to search, the results displayed can potentially influence people's actions, including purchase decisions, which means money. And there's the rub. With iPods having the insane marketshare that they do, and their ability to communicate only with iTunes, what is available for purchase, and prominently displayed, on iTunes can affect purchases. Apple's recent decision to take down inappropriate software from its iPhone app store is another example. Amazon can drive or kill book sales simply by adding or deleting a "keyword" to the book description.

This is not a new phenomenon limited to websites. This is true of large players in other industries, and is akin to what Toyota is going through. In an open economy, you are allowed to make defective and dubious products. Its not a crime; customers will simply dump you and switch for better ones. But once you establish certain quality standards and gain customer trust, you automatically take on the responsibility to maintain that. The GEs, Boeings and Cokes of the world cant make the kind of mistakes that a mom-and-pop business can. It may seem unfair, but as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

Emotional Accidents

2010-02-23T20:11:00.004+05:30

Please do not read this post if you are easily offended.

The death of a 10-day old in a stone pelting incident in Baramulla is definitely disturbing. No doubt, it was an accident, but the media coverage would make one wonder whether the protesters meant to commit a cold-blooded murder. We have all seen and been in situations, where the rush of adrenalin makes us lose our bearings. A great office party with one witty joke after another might suddenly turn sour when someone goes overboard with a risque comment. Or a game of cricket where the batsman tries to hit one too many ball out of the park and gets out. We all get carried away. But there was a cold-blooded murder in the valley recently. Although the matter was as widely publicized, the sympathy appeared muted, even polite, in comparison to the current outrage. I refer to the BSF's killing of a 16-year old schoolboy. If you detach yourself from the emotions, the reaction is devoid of logic.

A youth or a middle-aged person has responsibilities toward parents, spouse and children. Having lived much longer in the world, he is bound to have stronger emotional ties with people around him. The loss of such a life often leaves a humongous void within the family that is often impossible to fill. Sometimes, the family simply crumbles after such an incident. Whereas a 10-day old has hardly spent any time here and is free of any emotional connects. The damage is limited to the parents, and the immediate family to an extent. Every other factor - be it shattered dreams, parental love, loss of innocent life - applies to both cases. Logically, the magnitude of loss has to be much smaller compared to losing a 10-year old child and even smaller compared to losing 20-year child and so on (a bell curve, with the magnitude of loss falling after 50 or 60 I guess). I am not even talking about selling this logic to the young couple who lost their kid. With their expectations and dreams shattered, to them, it might as well be the end of the world. I am only questioning our reaction - people not directly impacted by such incidents.

So why does our emotion run high when infants and kids are robbed of their lives? Why do accidents involving school buses evoke an outrage, but a bus with a marriage party, albeit overloaded, that falls into a ravine doesnt evoke the same sense of shock? I can only conjecture that when we see helpless people hurt or killed, we react much more strongly because we see the situation as completely unfair. When the people involved are grown up adults, we assume they have some control of the situation regardless of how helpless they actually might be. Subconsciously, we patronize the weak and detest the strong.

Say a truck has run over an animal on the highway. Will we feel more sorry if it was a cat than if it were a tiger? I'd say yes.

Tax, Votes and TOI

2010-02-22T19:14:00.004+05:30

I religiously hate anything to do with The Times of India, and the group does well to reinforce this feeling by hitting stunning new lows of journalism with amazing frequency, both in print and on TV. I make an exception for the Mumbai Mirror though - it is cheap and sensational and makes no pretense to be anything else. So when I found myself waiting at the reception with time on hand, I noticed with some disappointment that the only newspaper at hand was the TOI. I devoured the Mirror first, and as expected, it contained a healthy dose of daily nonsense. I was still waiting, so I offered a prayer and opened the main paper straight to the editorial page, which I thought that would be the section least prone to rubbish. What a mistake! As I learnt, that is birthplace of trash.

The piece was on income tax rates for women, and going by the title of the section, it appeared a pathetic attempt to simplify economic concepts. The article lauded the effort of the Minister of Child and Women's Development to seek lower income tax rates for women. Apparently, lower tax rates not only empower women but the society at large! What more, it will also encourage more women to start working!! Had it been my own copy, I would have ripped it to shreds. Other than attracting the women vote, which the Minister is clearly after, I dont think lower IT rates for women will make any difference to either women's development or the economy. I mean, if women making enough to pay taxes are considered oppressed, what about the millions that dont even earn enough to afford three square meals a day?

Civilization, non-violence and maoism

2010-02-19T19:22:00.003+05:30

Gandhi famously said that ends never justify the means. In the current standoff between the government and Maoists, the maxim applies to both parties. The government may have wronged, but the brutal killing of security personnel and villagers is hardly justifiable. The tribals and Maoists may be creating trouble but the excesses of security forces is equally unpardonable. But when both parties err, the solution is never simple. It requires grace and courage to admit errors, swallow egos and plot a way forward - traits that remain a rarity in the human race. The easier option is to justify and rationalize the action, which only makes it easier to commit a greater error, causing the entire situation to spiral into a full-fledged war, where everything is fair, or so the stupid saying goes.

Despite Gandhi's well-documented success of using reason and dialogue, rather than violence, to prove a point, the approach is incredibly inefficient. It took some 25 years for the British to finally relent, and the decision was no doubt influenced more by their losses in WWII than by their prickly conscience. And not every non-violent protest will gain the momentum of Gandhi's movement. There are so many variables, and in Gandhi's case, they miraculously fell in place to elevate him to a Mahatma so that even the British held him in respect. But despite so many conflicts post-independence, why has no one risen to such prominence as the Mahatma? Is there a dearth of Gandhians in the country? I doubt. It is more that the "timing" and "placement" of these non-violent protests were not as perfect as the Mahatma's. To be clear, I am for non-violent protests. I'd any day prefer that Pak militants swim across the Arabian Sea and organize a satyagraha at the Gateway rather than open indiscriminate fire. And air travel will be vastly comfortable and security checks much less interfering if the Al Qaeda simply chose to protest outside buildings than blow them up.

If civilization is an onion, then non-violence is the outermost layer that has evolved after eons of human life and strife, which also makes it the easiest one to shred because underneath it is a more primal and dominant layer of survival instinct and self-preservation, which is usually subdued, but can get invoked in a jiffy. Shootings in college campuses and churches, driving a plane into the IRS building over a tax dispute, shouting contests and physical abuses on local trains or roads are the handiwork of this instinct. One can debate to no end whether the situation warranted such a primal response, but, unfortunately, life is a matter of perspective and there are no absolutes, whatsoever: The umpire at the bowler's end sees three stumps at the batting crease but the square leg umpire sees only one.

The emperor and Birbal were talking a walk in the palace garden, when Akbar notices a monkey pampering its offspring in the pond. The emperor comments that a mother's love for its child is pure and selfless. Birbal disagrees and when asked to prove, requests the water level in the pond be increased. At first, the mother protects the child from drowning, but when the water rises above its own head, the monkey abandons the offspring and runs for safety. Civilization is our offspring and we will guard it closely until our own existence is at risk, and then, all bets are off. Gandhi also said that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But isn't that a better option if non-violence will end up making you the only blind guy walking around?

Competing on Quality..or the lack thereof

2010-02-17T19:36:00.008+05:30

Recently, an article by an IIM-B prof appeared in the WSJ with the message that businesses must gear themselves to face tomorrow's competition or become extinct. Such write ups are pure delight for any self-respecting management grad whose foreordained favorite pastime is to pontificate on how the world will turn out tomorrow even as he is inept to deal with the today's complexities. But I digress.

The article raises valid points and I can relate to one area where I have come close to switching to this kind of "competition". My TV viewing preference is thus: sports, Hollywood movies, Bollywood movies, Bollywood music, news. Leaving out sports and news, the other three choices can be said to fall in the traditional category of "entertainment" and,traditionally, competition for my time must be within this category. Of late, one news channel, riding on one particular program anchored by one disgusting gentleman, has crossed the chasm between information - which is what news traditionally was - and entertainment, with admirable success. The producers of those innumerable cheap comedy shows are facing tough competition from no less than the chief editor of a news channel. Arnab's news hour on Times Now is a riot.

The program is probably a blot on journalistic sensibilities, but it seems to be so on purpose. The manner of debate is deplorable with no semblance of respect accorded to the events, commentators or the audience. I can spend all day ripping it apart, but I cannot deny that from being nowhere on the radar of a entertainment-minded TV viewer profile such as myself, this program suddenly has moved to # 2.

Measurement and Importance

2010-02-11T20:15:00.005+05:30

A recent campaign by Aircel attempts to raise awareness about the dwindling tiger population in India. Apparently there are only 1411 of them, but the campaign only asks people to spread awareness about this info - how it will translate into action, and more importantly what action, is anybody's guess. So here I am, doing my bit. But I am incredibly uninformed about the magnitude of the Tiger situation. Is 1411 a small number? I dont know the life expectancy or mortality rates in tigers, but assuming 10 tigers die every year, we are still good for 140 years without counting new additions. In comparison, global warming looks a near term issue.

Another hot topic is how to deal with drunk drivers. The recent high-profile incident in South Mumbai has everyone clamoring for harsher penalties and stricter punishment. To be clear, drunk driving is extremely dangerous and must be punished. But is it the most dangerous form of driving out there? Again, I dont know the stats, but I doubt that drunk driving causes the highest number of accidents or deaths. I'd say its overspeeding and breaking of traffic rules.

One of our psychological biases is to automatically attach importance to what can be measured because we are more comfortable with tangibles than abstracts. Nowhere is this more visible than in our financial markets where all sorts of ratios and indicators are used to explain trends. Once a metric has been devised, of course, a proper explanation inevitably follows, and this is called post rationalization which we are extremely good at.

Drunk driving must be dealt with but what about other offences that are equally fatal? There is no tangible metric to measure these offences nor a system to track such offenders. With drunk driving though, the cops simply have to hang out in the vicinity of night clubs with a breathalyzer and they are sure to find offenders, which will make for good reporting and fat wallets. To say there are only 1411 tigers sounds much more desperate than simply asking people to stop poaching tigers. This bias is also prevalent in the corporate world where sales, billing, collections, margins etc are emphasized to death. It is widely assumed, and incorrectly so, that numbers dont lie. Intangibles like employee morale and customer satisfaction are hardly ever focused on. And here's the worst part. Even when cos choose to look at these intangibles, the attempt is always to create a survey and get a number which simply defeats the purpose. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what it means to have customers who are 88.5% satisfied.

Shah Rukh, Chidambaram, Tendulkar

2010-02-09T21:56:00.007+05:30

A day of interesting events and statements...

SRK says he doesnt look at the script before signing on a film. Well, I am glad he realizes that because we movie-watching public knew a long time ago that there doesnt exist a thing called script in his movies.

Then PC mentions that he is proud that Kasab is getting a fair trial. I had mentioned in a previous post that we accuse Pak of going slow on 26/11 suspects even as we are fiddling with Kasab's evidence and trial. How ironic that our honorable home minister should make this statement!

And finally, India is humiliated at Nagpur. With Dravid and Laxman out, the middle order simply evaporated. But, as always, Sachin rose to the challenge. As always, he played resolutely, with remarkable dedication, focus, hard work and commitment to get to his 46th century! And, as always, he decided that was enough!! I realize I am being really mean, but I would be surprised if I am the only one that thinks Sachin just played for the record today. Its just too much of a coincidence to labor to reach the century and then get out without adding a single run. I wonder what general reaction would be if he were dismissed at 99. Certainly, he would have attracted huge sympathy for putting up a fight and missing a landmark, being unlucky because had he reached the century he might just go on to make a double, triple, do a Laxman, and maybe win us the test! Alas, that was not the case. He reached the century alright. We love to see successful people fail so we can offer them our sympathies. But when they succeed and collect the reward, we are left to choose between either patronizing or criticizing them.

Penny wise, pound foolish

2010-02-06T17:58:00.005+05:30

It seems plain common sense for me to get off the bus at my designated stop without buying a ticket if the bus was too crowded for the conductor to get to me. And it is nothing more than opportunism if I surreptitiously hide behind a crowd to give me a few extra seconds so I can get away without buying a ticket. Say the conductor did reach me, and I acted as though I didn’t hear him. Even then, to call me a cheat is a stretch. But interestingly, all three cases are classified as cheating because the rules are unequivocal: To travel by bus, you must buy a ticket. So any violation counts as cheating.

Bus tickets are often no more than pocket change and it is very easy to assert one’s values when the stakes are negligible. It is interesting to see how our perception of violations changes with scale. How many of us would offer to pay up an airline if our credit card was not charged due to a system error when we booked a ticket online? We would laugh at the airline’s ineptness, rationalize that they deserve to lose money and feel good about the unexpected fortune. Okay, this can be excused as being a rare incident, but there are every day cases that no one looks as cheating. Have you ever paid your telephone or electricity bill on time even when the co forgot to send you one? This is the exact same situation with the bus ticket. A change of context and our mind starts playing games. In fact, research has proved that the way a question is posed or framed actually determines whether or not someone can answer it!

All this build up is to debunk to my favorite proverb, “Penny wise, pound foolish”. I love it because I have been accused of it and I can easily see how my actions can be summarized in those words. So I took a cold, hard look at why I do the things I do and have come to the conclusion that the proverb was coined by someone who had no inkling of how the human brain worked. First, penny-pound, cent-dollar, paise-rupee are not absolutes as we think them to be. Like values, money is relative too. The value of money changes depending on the situation. If you are buying a car for Rs. 50L, you wouldn’t think twice to buy accessories worth 25,000. But what if the car only cost Rs. 5L? Or let's say you take a cab ride home and the meter ran up to Rs. 490. Would you round it off to 500? What if the fare was only 90?

These two scenarios seem similar – things are relative – but the logic that guides in second scenario (cab) is very different from the first one (car). In the car scenario, one should definitely buy extra accessories for my 50L car and not 5L - why not go all the way when you are splurging money. But in the cab scenario, the decision to round off should depend solely on the service. That the fare ran upto 490 should not be cause enough to round it off and tip the cabbie Rs. 10. And that the fare was low should not stop one from tipping him. The magnitude of the money involved shouldn’t be equated with the magnitude of the decision involved.

I will avoid buying a bus ticket if I can and save Rs. 5. Once I get off, I will celebrate this with an ice cream that costs Rs. 20.

The Ground Reality

2010-02-03T20:50:00.003+05:30

I was in a cab driving by the Dadar area of Mumbai and came to halt at a signal called Prabhodhankar Thackeray chowk named after Bal Thackeray's father. My cabbie threw a look at the statue of the man and commented that his two grandsons have gone to great lengths to assert their lineage - one put up an umbrella over the statue and the other his party flag. Of course, he was referring to Uddhav and Raj. More out of courtesy (to acknowledge his observation) than curiosity, I asked him if the MNS can survive on its own. And that got him talking.

He was intrigued that in this day and age, we have separatist politics when we should be drawing inspiration from migrants who put in insane hours of work. He felt this strategy may have worked 10 years ago when leaders were demigods. Now, people are wiser. He then wondered who is a Mumbaikar anyway? Is he the one that speaks Marathi, then how is he different from a Marathi Manoos and others that have learnt the language? Is he the one that is born here? But then migrant kids are born here too. Do people who own land and property in Mumbai should be considered Mumbaikars? Not only do a lot of migrants qualify, but a number of natives will be left out. The conversation was cut short as I reached my destination, but he closed out saying he is a Maharastrian himself and finds this whole thing comical. Worryingly though, he said his line of reasoning is not popular when he talks to fellow cabbies and others in his circle.

So it seems the Sena and MNS will have enough to go on. And I wish they do, at least verbally. The barbs traded by political parties on Mumbai and IPL issues are sheer delight. Modi wondered if a letter in Italian might stem price rise whereas the Sena politely declared that even in the extreme case of Mumbai being thrown open to Indians, Italians are still unwelcome. What sense of humor! Thankfully, the clashes havent gotten physical, and I hope they dont. It'll be a shame for this entertainment to stop. And Rahul Gandhi is gladly obliging with one faux pas after the other, and for once, I am egging him on.

FootInMouthitis

2010-02-01T19:15:00.005+05:30

The past few days have yielded so many instances of this disease, which like any other, is never contracted willfully, but is "floating in the air" and afflicts the unsuspecting intellectual, who, fooled by his illusory fundamental right to free speech, shoots off his opinion like an arrow, but realizes a little too late that the arrow has rather incredibly transformed itself into a boomerang, and made its way to through the dirtiest of filth before coming back to smack the deliverer right on the face. As with any other disease, the virus needs a carrier to survive - someone who can carry it safely without getting afflicted themselves. And our media plays this role to perfection so that in the rare event the public decides to keep their mouth shut to avoid infection, the media promptly eggs them on.

I see no other conceivable explanation for the likes of Mukesh Ambani, SRK, Aamir, PC voicing their opinions on the Mumbai issue and the IPL. What seems is not what actually is. Pak players were kept out of the auction doesnt imply that the cricket-loving public in general, and the teams in particular, dont want them to play in India. There were clearly other considerations, which would be abundantly clear to even a 10-year old. Same goes for Mr. Ambani and PC on the Mumbai issue. With or without your endorsement, Mumbai will be for all Indians. So why provide fodder? George Barnard Shaw has shown us the cure, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides the pig likes it."

It is in this light that Omar Abdullah made a remarkable comment. On an TV debate about whether Pak is doing enough in prosecuting 26/11 suspects, and how dare the Pak PM say he cannot guarantee that another such attack will not happen - which our media promptly twisted to mean he will personally ensure another such attack while conveniently ignoring that our own government has made no promises to protect us from such attacks - Mr. Abdullah simply said that we should stop talking "at" one another and start talking "to" each another. On the popular opinion of not resuming dialog with Pak until something material is done to prosecute the perpetrators of 26/11, Mr. Abdullah acknowledged the slow progress and was saddened himself, but also pointed out that dialog is the only way to arrive at any sort of resolution. And he rubbed it in for the anchor and other panelists when he offered to happily drop the dialog option if they could show him any other way to break the impasse.

I must say that I do find it hilarious in a perverse sort of way that we must blame Pak for dragging its feet whereas our own judicial system is hardly lightning fast in prosecuting Kasab against whom we supposedly have a water-tight case - with CCTV camera evidence no less. And Kasab is having a good time replying in Marathi monosyllables and claiming he was falsely implicated. For some, this is testimony to the sanctity of our judicial system, for it gives even a traitor a chance of fair trial. But if the Pak courts insist on irrefutable evidence, well, they are just stonewalling the whole thing. To me, its the case of people living in glass houses throwing stones at others.

Ingenuity and Discretion

2010-01-29T21:16:00.008+05:30

We are complex creatures. We make complex things. And thats good. To this day, I still marvel at how the first person discovered the solar system - I mean how could something like that occur to a human mind? And inventions like TV that brings live pictures from around the world are simply beyond my comprehension. Yeah, its electronics and signals now, but the ability to take these certain basic elements and intricately tie them up into things that are useful or entertaining.

Ingenuity is great, but only when accompanied by discretion. The former we have in abundance, and the latter is conspicuously absent. So we start making things complex. Innovate in areas where there is no need. What purpose does a lie serve? Yeah, it saves pain in the short run, but the truth will come back reinvigorated to bite all involved in the backside. So it goes without saying that a lie must be used on the rarest of occasions. Yet, it is often the truth that makes the rare appearance. And we have gone on to invent a variety of complex communication mechanisms that make it impossible to decipher the real message. Euphemisms, for example, though they are the most benign of the lot. The English language lends itself beautifully to create sentences that say something, but not mean it at all. We seem to say something, but are not saying anything at all, and even if we did, it would not have meant anything, but if we dont say that something which doesn't mean anything, we are assumed to be saying something else, which would mean something else altogether.

As an unfortunate consequence, we have reached the stage of not recognizing or processing truth. It ruffles our sensibilities and screws up our brains. Thats not the sad part. Because we are unable to digest it, we must not be fed the truth. Are the attacks in Australia racially motivated? Did the center meddle to keep Pak players out of IPL? Are we completely innocent when it comes to the terrorism situation in Kashmir? Should migration to Mumbai be limited? The acceptable response is that there is no right answer. It's more like we are incapable of handling the right answers.

Welcome to Pro Sports

2010-01-22T21:52:00.003+05:30

So the Pak cricket players are left in the cold. They are outraged because they still live in the era, where playing for the country is a big deal, and the nation treats them as gods. All that was before cricket was played for money. Once it is pro sport, no one cares for sentiments and reputation. It is no longer a game, but a business.

Sure, even with cold logic, a couple of Pak players would have been really good additions, but clearly it wasnt worth the risk involved. First, the political risk that the likes of Shiv Sena and MNS will create hell should a Pak player have to play in Mumbai, let alone play for Mumbai. And then, Pak players are not renowned for their discipline. Afridi had a run in with the Chargers, and I read Md. Asif had trouble staying sober. But most importantly, what if, God forbid, we have a situation like a Kargil war or 26/11. No team would risk their reputation and be caught dead with a Pak player. The risks and complications were just too much.

So the natural, but incredibly naive, question is, why not state upfront that no Pak players for IPL? Well, the corporate world has its ways. The decision may be made, but the process should have all the trappings of fairness. One thing is for sure. No player or party will be spared this ruthlessness. Even in the last season, we saw team owners clearly outweigh the players in several decisions. And it is only fair.

Good and luck

2010-01-19T20:01:00.004+05:30

It took a couple of days in Delhi for me to appreciate what is liberally referred to as winters in Mumbai. The cold chilled me to the bone, and it took superhuman effort to rouse myself out of the two razais in the morning. The fog was thick and the visibility limited but none of this affected by cabbie - he kept merrily cruising at 70kmph in arterial roads. Cruel but effective way to get someone forget the weather. And to think that the city will be baking in 40+ degree temperatures in the summer.

It is unfortunate that the human mind cannot appreciate the absolute. We are forever evaluating options relative to one another. Be it job, income, living conditions or even the weather. Reminds me of this great line from the movie, Lucky Number Slevin....

The unlucky are nothing more than a frame of reference for the lucky. You are unlucky, so I may know that I am. Unfortunately the lucky never realizes they are lucky until it's too late. Take yourself for instance; yesterday you were better off than you are off today but it took today for you to realize it. But today has arrived and it's too late. You see? People are never happy with what they have. They want what they had, or what others have. The grass is always greener on the other side.

Waiting for Rann...

2010-01-13T21:26:00.006+05:30

It is now proven that Rathore did commit the crime. Whether his conviction was severe enough is debatable, but it has caught media's imagination like never before, who have grasped this opportunity to project themselves as the only just and righteous institution in the country. They have promptly accused Rathore of torturing Ruchika's family, getting her expelled from school, and eventually forcing her to commit suicide. Should we have gone to war with Pak in the same decade, he would have been blamed for that as well.

That media overreacts is an acknowledged fact, but to so brazenly support one side and vilify the other is lunacy. Every development on the Ruchika case is accompanied by a grave photo of her to evoke maximum sympathy while Rathore is shown with a grin to convey his glee on getting away so easily on a crime for which he deserves to be hanged - if it were left to our media.

But then Rathore is at least a convict, but the media takes sides with the same gusto even against a victim. Sample these two ridiculously funny instances of media ethics in Mumbai Mirror (yeah, not the newspaper to search for ethics, but still...). I guess there is an unwritten rule to not disclose the names of rape victims or show their pics, and with good reason. First was the story of a woman in Kalyan who caught redhanded by her husband in their home, having a good time with a lover. To save her face, she cried rape, and the poor lover was arrested. The case came to trial, when she abruptly showed up to reveal the truth. Now, is there any confusion here as to identities of the criminal and the victim? The newspaper religiously blacked out lady's face and withheld her name, which was accompanied by the mug shot of her lover.

The second one is funnier. Two lovers go watch a movie and get cozy, I guess, in the theater. They even eat out at the restaurant after the movie, and then she remembers, oh he took advantage of me, and cries rape. The case goes on trial, and is thrown out. The story is reported, after faithfully changing the name of the woman, but the guy's name is as is.

The less said about their handling of serious matters the better. NDTV chose have a debate on US' decision to put nationals of 15 countries under additional checks. Some idiot at NDTV thought this was racial profiling and wasted no time in inviting a couple of experts to discuss the matter, one of which was Mani Shankar Aiyer. I dont care much for Mr. Aiyer, but I am totally with him when he started by saying that the move by the US is not racial profiling at all, and that NDTV should have done well to get a security expert who can comment on whether racial profiling is effective in averting terror strikes.

I cant wait for RGV's Rann. I hope he hits them really hard with this one. I lick my lips imaging scenes of media nincompoops protesting that the Rann shows them in bad light. Go RGV!

Deve Gowda's rant

2010-01-11T22:58:00.005+05:30

The media is delighted a Deve Gowda's faux pas, and they are milking it for all its worth. And yes, I dont think it is any more than a faux pas. And no, our democracy has not stooped to new lows as the media would have us believe. If anything, it has risen higher on this day. And I mean this in all earnest.

For decades we have been faced with this glaring divide between haves and have nots, who seemingly live in different universes. And our politicians have been especially crucified for not being in touch with the "grass roots" and not doing enough for the "common man". Well, for once, a politician speaks the same tongue as the urchin on the street corner, and this is how we treat him. In fact, compared to what we hear on the streets, Gowda's rants sound polished. He still has a long way to go before he can claim to have connected with the lowest ranks of the nation.

If anything, I take offense to Yeddyrappa's retort that Gowda's choice of words reflects his culture. What does he mean? Sir, the entire nation speaks this language. Even the world - US politicians have been picked up using derogatory terms when they thought the mic was off. It is you who are out of touch and then you insult our culture? You owe our former PM an apology. Mr. Gowda may have stooped lower than any politician has, but in the process he elevated the office of the PM higher than our Manmohan can.

3 Idiots and FPS

2010-01-05T20:57:00.003+05:30

For most of the first half, I thought the movie had nothing to do with the book with two guys embarking on a search for a lost friend. Even as the IIT scenes appeared, I felt this was just a nod to Five Point Someone, and the movie will soon take on a different course. The twist before intermission convinced me that the first half was masti and the second half will take a serious turn. That was not to be. It was more of the campus antics and juvenile gags. As the movie ended I walked out with the feeling that it was closer to the book than I thought. Apparently, Mr. Bhagat thought so too.

I had read the book a good 5 or so years back so I didn't remember it vividly. I could see that the film was not a shot-for-shot ripoff but I felt a strong sense of deja vu nevertheless. And since the controversy blew up so spectacularly, I couldnt resist re-reading the book. And since I obviously spent so much time on this, might as well blog my analysis.

Bhagat is absolutely right in claiming the story credit. I will simply outline it here and you can draw your own conclusions.

The book has three central characters who meet during ragging. One of them, Ryan, doesnt believe in the education system, the second, Alok, is from a lower middle-class household and must get a job to pull his family out of poverty - the family has a paralytic dad, mom, the sole bread earner, who hasnt bought a new saree in five years, and an elder sister waiting to get married but for the lack of funds to pay dowry. The third character, Hari, happens to be the narrator, and although no background is provided in the book, it is fair to assume he hails from a typical middle class family with no clear cut views on life and just followed the crowd to get into IIT.

All three of them are laggards with GPAs of 5.x. After the first semester, Alok is not happy with the effect of this friendship on his grades, and tags up with Venkat, the typical studious class topper. The association lasts for a year until a day when Alok must to go home to see his dad, but Venkat insists he rather complete a group assignment that was delegated to Alok and is due the next day. Ryan steps into help and the three get together again.

Hari falls in love with Neha, Prof Cherian's daughter. Prof Cherian (uses a bicycle) was an alum of the institute and had a GPA of 10 during his days, but chose the institute over lucrative overseas opportunities so he could give back to the society. Naturally the prof wanted his offspring to keep the tradition alive, but his son having failed to get in after three attempts commits suicide, a fact not revealed to the father. As GPA is how people are judged in IIT, to impress Prof Cherian and compensate for his poor form overall, Hari slogs his ass off and is determined to get an A in Cherian's course, but a series of unfortunate events results in a situation where he needs 47 out of 50 in the final exam for an A. Ryan suggests stealing the paper and Hari gets a duplicate key through Neha (without her knowledge though). They enter the office at night, and Ryan has taken out the question paper and is resealing the envelope when Alok decides to use the phone in the office to call home. An alert night employee manning the EPABX sees a call coming from a Prof's office, raises an alarm and three three are caught in the act. Consequently, all 3 are suspended for a semester, and since this happens to be the final year, they wont be able to graduate within 4 years. Unable to bear the consequences, Alok jumps from the roof and breaks 13 bones.

A sympathetic prof helps the 3 out so they can work on a research project based on Ryan's idea during their suspension, which is eventually counted for some credits, and they are able to somehow graduate on time. Owing to their poor grades, however, they cant hope for lucrative jobs. Hari and Alok manage to get jobs, and Ryan ends up assisting the prof in furthering the research.

Three Idiots and Rocket Singh

2010-01-01T13:54:00.004+05:30

Rajkumar Hirani has carved a niche out of making light and entertaining movies with a social message. 3 idiots entertains – mostly – and has a message on our education system. But I found it too long with the second half meandering without purpose. The twist was of no consequence, the webcam-assisted medical scene totally irrelevant and the depiction of middle-class poverty puerile. They killed what might otherwise have become a classic along the lines of M’bhais. Since Aamir has a history of interfering with directors, I don’t know if he or Hirani was the culprit. In any case, the acting is first-rate, the comedy is funny, and the narrative is mostly engaging. Worth the movie ticket, but no more.

As much as 3 idiots is ruling the box office, there was another recent movie with a similar message. In Rocket Singh, the protagonist is unable to cope with the ways of the corporate world and decides to follow his heart, which expectedly is against the unsaid rules of the game. There was hardly a dull moment, and except for the poignant if over-the-top climax scene, every other line or shot brought a smile to my face. Its biggest achievement, in my view, is that the humor never looked cheap, this despite one of the main characters being a porn-addict! And “cheap” is what some of the gags in 3 idiots seemed to me. But at the box-office, where it matters, 3 idiots hit the bulls-eye (although RS did reasonably well in overseas markets).

Whereas Rocket Singh portrayed the grim reality of life, 3I invokes the supernatural power of “all iss well” to calm your nerves during bad times, continuing on the lines of jaadu ki jhappi and Gandhigiri. I liked Lage Raho for perfectly walking the tightrope of keeping things light but spreading a message, but 3I overextends to one side or the other. Some of the comedy – the ragging scene to demonstrate the conductive properties of salt water, patient on scooter – is purely to elicit laughs with no relevance to the story line whereas when its message time, you can safely switch off your mind for a few minutes. I guess this is to an extent a reflection of our reluctance to be frank. We like our messages sugarcoated – if the message is lost, there’s at least the sugar. It is probably this optimism that is well captured in the WSJ article, Indian Standard Time Warp.

Sachin 800

2009-12-23T22:33:00.003+05:30

People have been dropped from the Indian side for all kinds of reasons, but it will be a first to see someone dropped for denying Sachin a century. Thankfully, Dhoni has been suspended so Dinesh Karthik will escape. If he was another batsman, you never know.

In any case, it is weird that we still tout Sachin as our best batsman. There was a time when he was a unique combination of aggression, style and consistency. Is he still our best though? Shot for shot and inning for inning, we have far better players. When Sehwag is in the mood, Sachin starts to look like Dravid. When runs flow from Laxman's bat, Sachin's strokes look manufactured. And there is no doubt who the "wall" is. Well yes, he blends in these qualities better than others, and produces good knocks from time to time. But I have my reservations about him being the best.

For one, I am deeply disappointed at his inability to lead the team. Such absurd shirking of responsibility would be tolerated only in our government services where one joins as a clerk and can retire as one, albeit hardworking, if one chooses to. That is precisely the allegory that comes to my mind when I watch Sachin play. A focused, hard working, dedicated and determined worker ant. He cant play like a Sehwag or Yuvraj because he is supposedly mature and responsible. But apparently not mature or responsible enough to lead the team. So all we get out of Sachin are some consistent innings, and its a shame that we dont have the talent to replace him.

Not to discount his feats and accomplishments, but what's the point of keeping him around, if he is serving no higher purpose, simply being a batsman building records, blocking the place of a youngster who can be groomed for the future. And even then, threatening the place of others for denying him a damn record! He is like our good old Maruti 800. A reliable and elegant alternative to the Ambassadors and Padminis when he broke out on the scene. And he remains so. But would you be caught dead driving a 800 today?

The state of unity

2009-12-15T20:55:00.003+05:30

Raj Thackeray must be rolling on the floor laughing. Congress, which lambasted him until a few weeks ago for his divisive tactics, has gone ahead to announce the creation of Telengana. Worse yet, it had no clue of the simmering discontent within its own ranks, and the issue has become a comedy circus now. If anything, Raj stands vindicated. His actions may be condemnable, but his reasoning that one state cannot subsidize corruption and underdevelopment in other states merits consideration. The independent states movement is simply a corollary of this observation - that one part of the state cannot receive all the development and focus at the cost of others.

I was born and raised in Hyderabad, so I can definitely say that Telegana is the poorer of the three areas that form AP - the other two being coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. The coastal Andhra is definitely richer in natural resources with fertile plains and rivers whereas Rayalaseema is traditionally wealthy and also has the temple town of Tirupati helping its economy. The Telengana area is part of the Deccan Plateau with mostly barren lands except for some cotton farming. By some freak chance, Hyderabad was made the capital of AP, else this area would have been written off totally. Of course, now, the demand for a separate state is purely a political manoeuver. And it has sparked demands for a bunch of other states. How long before we end up with 500 odd princely states we started with...

The paradox of sport stars

2009-12-06T20:44:00.003+05:30

The recent Tiger Woods incident has highlighted a painful fact that great sportsmen are not necessarily great men. If anything, most of the guys at the top are terrible people.

Of the thousands that play tennis at a pro level, only one wins the Wimbledon. A nation of billion plus is represented by only 11 men at the national level. Getting to the top in sports requires talent, hard work, and a bit of luck. Talent and luck are to some extent predetermined, so the only thing a budding athlete can put in hard work and loads of them. And hard work is not simply hours of practice, but also developing a killer instinct to win, and at any cost. They develop a fiercely competitive spirit and seize on the slightest of opportunities. Even after reaching the top, these traits are required to stay there. The more physical a sport is, the more ruthless one needs to get. I am certain soccer players have the worst character record among top athletes. Even on the field, they resort to blatant cheating, be it diving for penalties or the use of hand. And until this recent incident, I thought golfers had the best one.

We, of course, are enamored by their successes and equate them to role models. But it is simply unfair to expect that they will smoothly metamorphose from ruthless animals to stellar human beings. Of course there are certain exceptions who readily come to mind. But they are just that - exceptions, who are born with incredible talent and put in an extraordinary amount of hard work. They only needed to remain focused, not become ruthless, to get to where they are. But the majority has had to scrounge for opportunities and capitalize on them at any cost. It is the survival of the fittest and the fittest are not necessarily the best.

Party Crashing

2009-12-01T20:05:00.004+05:30

A couple showed up uninvited at the recent White House reception of PM Singh. However, the husband has claimed they were certainly invited and it is the organizers who goofed up. Whatever the case, one can be certain that the truth will be unraveled in no time and the offenders will be appropriately punished. The law and order system is extremely efficient in the US. To cite an example, a few months ago, a Denver family caused a national scare when they thought their 8-year old son accidentally flew off in a hot air balloon. It turned out to be a hoax, and the couple have now pleaded guilty, and admitted to the pulling off a publicity stunt.

The rest of the world, however, is having a good laugh at the Secret Service's expense though. Questions are being raised about their ability to protect the first family. It is unfortunate that the right actions end up evoking the wrong questions. What if the secret service never found out? Or chose not to make it public? That's one of the great American traits - the ability to own up responsibility. I am willing to bet that our Presidential and Prime Ministerial gatherings routinely have gatecrashers that our security doesnt know about.

Value creation v/s redistribution

2009-11-29T21:53:00.000+05:30

Why do firms exist? There are two broad views. The capitalistic view pushed by the US until recently insists that a firm must create value to its shareholders. The European view, however, is that a firm must create value to its stakeholders, which includes employees, investors, customers, society etc. The difference between the two shows up when value is not “created” but simply “redistributed”. Typically, value creation, implies an improvement in status quo. Where such value is tangible, its creation is by way of making things or processes faster, better or cheaper. But where the said value is intangible, its creation is determined by the perception of customers or consumers.

When a bank implements an IT system that speeds up its processes, it definitely creates value. Employees work better, customers transact faster, and risks of improper or fraudulent transactions are reduced. Or a power plant for that matter so long as it does not disturb the natural ecosystem.

On the other hand, let’s take expressways, which reduce travel time, thus creating value for commuters. But we overlook the loss incurred by fuel pumps because of increased fuel efficiency, auto mechanics because cars are on the road for fewer hours, hotels because people reach their destination much faster and need to stop for the night, roadside eateries, which are not allowed on expressways, and even if there is one, commuters might give it a skip and so on. This is a case of value redistribution – from fuel pumps, hotels, restaurants, to commuters. This is also the case with IT outsourcing. In these cases, the first definition comes up as myopic, focusing solely on the firm and its shareholders with total disregard to other players. And sooner or later, such cases will inevitably lead to agitation and outcry.

Recently, the WSJ reported how Mumbai’s black-and-yellow cabbies resorted to physical protests and violence against fleet operators such as Meru. Meru offers incredible value to a certain class of commuters, by simply not screwing up. People don’t pay more for the air-conditioning, but for such basic manners as courtesy and promptness. Nonetheless, it is a case of value redistribution, and is bound to rankle the sentiments of certain groups. Not that I support the case of taximen. Rather, I am appalled at their stupidity for I don’t know what else it can be. The unique prepaid system in our country doesn’t benefit anyone. Passengers pay nearly 50% more than the normal rate and I am quite certain the cabbies get paid less than the regular fare. It is only the middlemen who make money. But how did we get here? Simply because our cabbies refused to be honest. I can pardon them for lack of polish and manners for it is a matter of upbringing, and even the burgeoning middle class is woefully short on this. But there can be no excuses for dishonesty, and unless they are willing to see this, no amount of agitations and protests will help.

What's in a game?

2009-11-21T15:28:00.003+05:30

Soccer is easily the most popular sport in the world, both in terms of players and viewership. And possibly the only sport today that has remained indifferent to technological advances, because success continues to be determined by such elementary considerations as physical stamina, skill and teamwork. The sheer thrills and rushes of adrenalin offered by the game are unmatched. Fortunately or not, soccer is no longer a game but a national obsession as highlighted by the events following the world cup qualifier between Ireland and France.

After a 1-1 draw, France managed to scrape through in extra time with a golden goal set up by Thierry Henry, one of the game’s leading strikers. However, Henry used his arm to control the ball, which went unnoticed by the referee. The Irish were devastated, and to lose because of a refereeing error was too much to digest. The team protested the result and wanted a replay, which is understandable. What came as a surprise was the call for a replay from the Irish Prime Minister himself! And he even brought up the matter with Mr. Sarkozy on the sidelines of an EU meeting!! Now, Irish fans are protesting outside the French embassy.

My point is beyond how to deal with refereeing errors and the dying element of “sportsman spirit”. I find it incredible that an entire nation can take the result of a game so seriously. We have seen it happen in India too every time Sachin gets out on a dubious LBW decision, and more so if we go on to lose the game, which is often the case. Why are we unable to see these events as part of the game and move on? After all, India losing matches has no direct impact on our lives. If anything, we will stop following cricket and put our time to better use. Technically, even players should not bother much for they are rarely paid on the basis on the result (unless in a tournament or in a qualifier such as this where they lose out on games). But in a bilateral series such as the Ind-SL one currently underway, how does the result matter?

The answer probably lies in the structure of our brain, which has three components: the reptilian brain, limbic brain and neocortex. The reptilian brain is instinctive and reacts immediately to stimuli without thinking, which makes reflexes possible. On the flip side, it also leads us to automatically react without thinking, and probably explains the current Irish rage. We get attached to our team and become one with it. So when the team loses, we lose. But before we can step back and analyze, our reptilian brain has perceived this as a threat and forced us to respond. Once you make a move based on gut, it is nearly impossible to let things go and reconcile with reality. Instead, we end up with rationalizing and justifying our stance.

The trick, of course, is to suppress the reptilian instincts and let the limbic brain and neocortex take over. The limbic brain processes emotions whereas the neocortex is responsible for reasoning and thinking. Apparently, studies show that our neocortex is severely underutilized. There are ways to address this, some of which I learned in the MCC and AMCC courses at IIM-A, but more on that later.

Child Prodigies

2009-11-20T22:44:00.006+05:30

Sachin recently completed 20 years in international cricket. He made his debut at the age of 16. Is it fair to subject a minor to the demands of international cricket? In his first Test series, he was hit by a Waqar bouncer on the nose. Thankfully, it wasn't serious, but if it was? Were his parents careless?

The other day I watched a news item on CNN IBN that showed a 9-year kid in Tamilnadu driving a car at speeds of 100 kmph. The incident took place sometime back, but only recently came to the attention of child rights activists, who vociferously and vehemently condemned the episode. It was sort of funny because the parents had spoken to the media after the incident and were proud of their child. Those clips were now being played with a child psychologist yelling her heart out on why such stunts are detrimental to the growth of kids.

For a moment, I was taken aback by the incident. The anchor wondered why parents were so enamored by records and went to such dangerous lengths. But full marks to the channel for presenting an alternative view. A certain gentleman named Hussaini, himself a stuntman, came on the show. Without beating around the bush, he said the act was justified if proper precautions and safety measures were taken. For good measure, he added that if we are not adventurous, we would never know the limits of human endurance. For example, how can we say that kids are not fit to drive? They are super comfortable with computers, then why not cars? Finally, and most logically, he pointed out that this was no different from teaching kids to swim at the age of 5 or enrolling them in tennis classes, which do have the risk of a child getting seriously injured.

In a few minutes, I took an about turn. Pushing children into music and sports as early as 3 is not only acceptable but is thought of as necessary if they have to get anywhere in life. Schoolkids are overloaded with study materials and tuitions in preparation for IITs. All of us has seen at least one kid that has lived up to the saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Can we wait until kids grow up and make their own choices? This is what happens in other developed countries where people try all sorts of things before even getting a college degree. But then we have too many hands chasing too little opportunities so to not do anything about a child's career appears unfair as well. I guess the line between guiding children towards their passions and thrusting our passions on them is thin. Very thin.

Buridan's Ass

2009-11-18T20:06:00.000+05:30

I didnt know that donkeys had any analytical skills until I heard about Buridan's ass, which refers to a philosophical paradox. It states that a donkey placed exactly between two stacks of hay of equal size and quality will continuously evaluate its options and ultimately starve to death. That reminds me of computers running into infinite loops, but it also happens to us on several occasions. Only, we use the more acceptable euphemism of analysis paralysis. Now, more than ever, we are susceptible to this lunacy.

Every time I go shopping, I feel like an ass myself. The men's section usually spans an entire floor, and it sounds mighty stupid to pick up the first shirt I like without checking what else is out there. But by the time I have surveyed the entire section, I am only more confused. And its too late now to simply pick up my first choice because choice is always relative and never absolute. So I am running 2x2 matrices in my head comparing looks, price, brands and what not. And a clear winner is extremely rare. In the best case, I am too confused to choose so I drop everything and walk out of the store. Worst case, I pick up something as a compromise and then keep second guessing my choice until I reach home.

The proliferation of shopping malls and supermarkets has made matters worse. Not only do we have more choices for what we need (toothpaste, soap etc), we are also introduced to newer stuff that we dont need. So the process of buying has become inefficient and, more often than not, we buy stuff only to regret later. I remember the days when grocery shopping simply meant going to the neighborhood kirana store with a list of items - toothpaste, refined oil etc. Brands were mentioned sometimes, not out of loyalty but convenience, for a brand name always represented the category - Sunsilk meant shampoo and Surf meant detergent. Neither did the storeowner have the shelf space to stock multiple brands nor was the consumer adventurous enough to try something new. But the best part was the efficiency - it took hardly 10 minutes to buy provisions for the month despite having to manually add up the purchases. Sometimes, I had to wait an additional 5 or 10 minutes because of the rush, and that felt like an eternity. Now, I dont even blink after spending 5 hours at a Big Bazaar.

Domestic Terrorism

2009-11-17T21:51:00.003+05:30

The recent shooting rampage in Texas by an army psychiatrist has complicated matters for the US. It was a simple open and shut case if the gunman was a Hispanic, European or a South East Asian. But he turned out to be a Muslim. Even then, had he refrained from taking the name of Allah, as some reports suggest, the matter could be conveniently sidelined. But the combination of these two facts poses a question that cannot be avoided: Was the Texas firing an act of terrorism? Apparently, there is now evidence that the gunman was in contact with an individual sympathetic to Al Qaeda. That may not mean much, but it is hard to ignore that the US Army, supposedly the mightiest in the world, has just been shown to be vulnerable.

Now this is precisely the problem India has faced since Independence. A small minority of our population has perpetrated terror attacks on our soil. Inevitably, they owe allegiance to Pakistan and happen to be Muslims. To separate the criminals from the innocent majority is no mean feat, and we have failed horribly. And as support, the US has offered nothing more than platitudes such as India being an important ally in the war against terror. The US had no idea how difficult it is to tackle domestic terrorism. Until now.

When you are attacked by foreign forces, the enemy is clear (not necessarily easy) and you can kindle the spirit of unity and patriotism and get into a war. But when attacked internally, you dont know who the enemy is. Where do you start?

It will be interesting to see what the US does now. I doubt if they will let this pass as a one-off incident. But then there is no way the US can create two classes of citizens based on religion - that will be a slap on the face of American values. Neither can it afford to assume that all US citizens are beyond doubt. The current case of David Headley is an example. Even pulling up Asians for additional security checks post-9/11 caused a huge backlash against "racial profiling".

One thing is certain. Whatever measures are adopted, we wont know the complete details. The American intelligence agencies are good at these things.

The Utility of Probability

2009-11-13T17:34:00.002+05:30

We intuitively understand probability, but its application is incredibly complex. For the record, probability is defined as the likelihood of an event occurring, expressed in % terms. Textbook explanations talk of rolling a dice and predicting the chance of getting a 6. These are benign experiments with results of little consequence. But when probability is applied to real events, interesting, if slightly unnerving, possibilities emerge.

Let’s take power cuts as an example. In most Indian metros, we are used to 24-hour power, but there is always a probability of grid failures that will cause a blackout. I don’t think even power equipment manufacturers provide 100% uptime guarantee, although the probability of failure is extremely low. So if we didn’t have any grid failures in the last five years, the probability of such failure increases with each additional day. Yet, the way we look at it, if something hasn’t failed in the last five years, it probably won’t in the future.

This paradox is explained to an extent by the framing of the situation. Underlying every probability data is the assumption of a very large number of observations. We think five years is large enough, when apparently it is not, as is seen from the recent crisis. If property prices are rising over the last few years, it is probably time for a correction, but we believe otherwise. However, we do grasp probability pretty well in other areas. For example, when a batsman hits a century, we expect that he will soon get out. We know scores above 150 are very rare. (Why so many batsmen get out between 100 and 150 is another question altogether.) In a game of cricket, with a definite start and end, we can easily imagine possibilities and compute probabilities. But in life, defining a start and end period is easier said than done.

We shouldn’t feel too sorry for the theory itself is weirdly structured. It says, for example, that the probability of getting heads or tails when tossing a “fair coin” is 50% when the experiment is repeated a large number of times. So if I take a random coin, what’s the probability of heads? This dilemma is beautifully captured in one of my favorite Jay Leno punch lines, “George Bush’s popularity rating hit a low of 25%, which means, now only one in four people support his presidency. So when the President is having dinner with his wife and two daughters, he is the only one that thinks he is doing a good job.” The second statement logically flows from the first one, but one can immediately see the fallacy. So if autism affects 1 in 10 children, we know there is no way to rule out our kid by gathering a group of 10 children. The statistic is chilling, but it has no practical utility, which leads us to believe that our child is not the “1”, resulting in complacency and complications.

So what to do with probability data? One could argue that we should strive to minimize the probability of adverse events (or failures). For example, the probability of traffic snarls can be minimized through electronic monitoring of traffic patterns and adjusting the timing of signals or diverting traffic through alternate routes. This will work, and brilliantly so, but here’s the problem. Once these things work on a consistent basis, we assume that they will never fail. So when they do fail for whatever reason, we are caught unawares. And my uneducated opinion is that as we keep minimizing the probability of failure, the magnitude of failure goes on increasing. If the traffic signals were coordinated and centrally controlled, a break down will result in unmanageable chaos. And with every day such a system works brilliantly, the probability of failure, infinitesimal as it may be, keeps mounting. But a high probability doesn’t mean the event will occur:)

The Consequences of Drunk Driving

2009-11-10T16:41:00.002+05:30

We have seen several cases of negligent or drunk drivers losing control of their vehicles and running over pedestrians. In some cases, such as the recent one in Noida, the consequences are fatal. The outrage against the offenders is understandable, but the saddening outcomes prevent us from making an objective assessment.

First, one would say hit-and-runs must be punished severely for it shows utter disregard to the life of a fellow human being. But if you drive on Indian roads, you very well know the fate that awaits you should you stop to check on the victim. A mob quickly gathers and you are the target of all their pent up frustration. In several cases, mob assaults have caused deaths too. Can one really blame the driver for fleeing the crime scene?

On the question of negligent and drunk driving, there is no dispute that such offenders must be severely punished. But the most stringent penalty for such an offence is probably to revoke their driver’s license and levy a huge monetary fine, and possibly a few days in prison. Were the offence of rash/drunk driving committed in the day during heavy traffic, it could be argued that the driver put lives of fellow commuters at risk, and a more stringent penalty is required – possibly charging with intent to murder or something like that. But during the night, when the roads are deserted, is rash driving so bad? It is understandable that the victims and their survivors, and even the general public, will be in no mood to consider this. A life has been lost, and that implies the offender must be tried for murder.

Of course, the law makes a difference between murder and manslaughter. Murder implies premeditated killing whereas manslaughter denotes no prior intent. But even a manslaughter charge is harsh from the offenders’ perspective. You are returning from a late-night party with a nice buzz when you see a deserted patch of road and decide to let it go. The worst you expect is to crash against the pavement. Imagine your shock when you hit the pavement only to realize you have just crushed three people sleeping there.

My point is that harsh punishments in individual cases won’t change anything beyond providing emotional relief to the victims and survivors. The underlying risk of recurrence remains. The solution must be to create a strong disincentive against rash and drunk driving. And there must be an equally strong disincentive against squatting/occupying pavements and roadsides. I realize both are easier said than done, but the risks are worrisome if not addressed. If you drive on a regular basis, you know the feeling when you watch pedestrians crossing the road with no regard to the oncoming traffic.

LCDs and DTH

2009-11-05T22:48:00.005+05:30

Flat screen LCD TVs are probably the most sought after gadget today. But their ads are beyond my comprehension. What's the point of showing attributes of clarity, fidelity etc on regular TVs? The Samsung ad, for example, shows a football game is immaculate detail - the emotion on the players' faces, sweat trickling off their bodies, the giant-sized football. Well, if I can see all this clearly in my 21", what's the point of getting an LCD TV?

Same goes for DTH ads that purpotedly claim to have better quality. I think Airtel has Saif watching a football game - half the screen is blurred to represent regular cable and other is bright to represent Airtel signal!! I feel insulted watching these ads. The BIG TV ad is much better. A wife is talking about the husband's excitement at purchasing an LCD TV followed by his disappointment when he saw much better picture quality at his friend's place. Apparently, BIG TV makes the difference, but in doing so the message conveyed is also that you only need such a connection if you have an LCD TV. Chances are, if you have an LCD TV, you are on DTH already and the switching costs are not negligible.

Sun DTH has found the right formula in my mind - the price. When one has to switch from a Rs. 300/mo cable connection, the biggest resistance is in the cost. Yes, there is a segment that wouldnt mind paying a premium for better quality, but I doubt if there is such a perceptible difference between the providers there. Tata is even smarter. They only advertise Tata SKY+ which is the premium offering that comes with a DVR. The ads are exciting but most people would balk at the high price. Oh no problem, sir, we have a cheaper option without the DVR. Bingo!

Blue Ocean Strategy for FM Channels

2009-10-30T12:20:00.000+05:30

The launch of FM channels has put radio entertainment back on the map. So much so that phone makers were forced to bundle FM radio with the instrument and the move has helped broaden the reach and appeal of FM. In a city like Mumbai, where the average commute time is more than an hour (one way), FM has become the staple form of entertainment for commuters.

It is, but natural, that FM players are vying to attract the most number of listeners during rush hours so they can jack up advertising rates. Which is why they have their marquee RJs hosting shows, and extensive brand building to raise their profile. But such differentiation ceases to matter when everyone follows the same strategy. Trying to get better RJs or changing the tone of these shows can hardly be termed innovation. This is a typical example of trying to compete with what’s called “Red Ocean Strategy”.

When markets get competitive, one should step back and assess the situation afresh. What pulls listeners to an FM station? In my mind, the top three factors are: good music, more music/fewer ads, and interesting/funny RJs. The first and third are pretty much standard so the way to break out is the second option. (Am not saying all RJs are good, just that they are equally bad.)

The solution is simple. Eliminate RJs. That will allow more time for ads because time that was earlier split three-ways (music, RJ and ads) is now split two-ways. You may choose to slip in an occasional interview to keep listeners curious. Otherwise, listening to one star or the other everyday has become a boring thing. This is “Blue Ocean Strategy”. The only potential hiccup here is if FMs have to pay royalties based on the number of times a song is played, in which case the expense will shoot up. Can that be offset by the savings in RJs’ pay is something that needs to be worked out.

I must confess this is not my original thought. Jack FM in Los Angeles plays rock 24x7, has no RJs, doesn’t take any requests, but has some self-deprecating and condescending recorded messages that play between songs. (“Broadcasting from a dumpy little building in beautiful downtown Culver City”), and is a popular station out there.

Per-second Pricing

2009-10-27T17:18:00.006+05:30

Continuing on the topic of pricing ploys...

Tata has managed to steal the thunder from Airtel and Reliance by adding more subscribers for the second month in a row – and by a wide margin too. It introduced pay-per-call on Indicom to let users talk as much as they want by paying a fixed price. Then, of course, DoCoMo let users pay per-second for calls and per-character for SMS. Has it paid a price in the process? TRAI is making noises about having all players move to per-second billing, and expectedly, the operators are upset. I think they should celebrate.

The data on the left is from Bharti’s Quarterly report. The average tariff is almost 1p/sec, which is what the new scheme offers too. The right side shows my calculations to determine revenue loss by offering per-second billing.

I am assuming the average call duration is 120 sec and that 30 secs are wasted every call – the call is terminated at 1 min 30 sec, but we get charged for 2 min. In this scenario, ARPU lost is about 23%, and that is a big drop.

However, I think people who opt for this scheme, or even subscribers to whom the scheme is made available (should other operators follow suit), will make additional calls. For two reasons. First, of course, is the genuine need to make those short calls to let someone know you are late etc. Right now, one might hesitate because the 5 second call will end up costing you 60p.

Second, and more interesting, is the need to make short calls so you can “realize” the savings. At least initially, when one has per-second billing and everyone else is on per-minute tariff. The temptation to “demonstrate” savings should not be undermined. In a group, if one has to make a call, it is the per-second guy that will go first to show everyone that he pays only for what he uses. I mean there is no point in going for per-second billing and then not reaping its benefits. So you make a 30-sec call, show everyone that only 30p has been deducted, and feel happy that you saved 30p.

Assuming these additional calls last an average of 15 seconds, calculating the # of new calls to make up for lost ARPU comes to about 14 calls per day. Should such a call last 30 sec, it only requires an addition 7 calls a day. I think that’s a small enough number. Also, notice that the difference in the ARPUs without considering additional usage is about Rs. 60, so I doubt if people are desperate to save that amount. Rather, most consumers would like to make sure the Rs. 300 they spend every month goes the extra mile. So my take is that usage will drastically increase with ARPUs increasingly slightly or staying constant.

Is that hard to believe? Why do we spend Re. 1 sending an SMS when a call is only 60p?

Pricing Ploys

2009-10-25T23:34:00.003+05:30

My dilemma in the previous post is not as far fetched as it seems. We are victims to such mind games everyday. For starters, we have come to subconsciously relate price with quality. I remember reading somewhere that in Japan, it is cool to show off the price tags on clothes even as you are wearing them.

The price-quality association is the least malign of the tricks. There are much more subtle ones out there. If you are looking to subscribe for the WSJ, you get three options: online only, print only and online + print. The pricing is such that the price for online + print and print are virtually the same. One would think its a really dumb move that would kill its print subscriptions, but apparently, this has increased the total number of subscriptions - of course, with most people going for the online + print deal.

One also routinely seen in magazine offers at almost 50% less than the cover price if you subscribe for a year. They are essentially hoping that the temptation to save so much money almost always overpowers any questions on the utility of such a subscription. And it does work in certain segments.

And, of course, if you are part of middle-class India, you know how our system of haggling works. The vendor almost always quotes a price that is three times what he is expecting. As a buyer, you are sort of aware that he is overcharging, but you dont know by how much. So you start with a price that is 1/2 what you are really willing to pay. Often the deal will conclude with you paying a little less that your max price and you will walk away satisfied. The vendor would have made a neat margin and is happy too. But as buyers, we will never know exactly how much we overpaid.

In some cases, pricing is simply gaming buyers, but in others, it is directly related to the value perceived by the buyer. Couple of days back, a bridge collapsed on the railway line in Mumbai thus disrupting and delaying all long-distance rail traffic. Airlines promptly jacked up their fares with a one-way Chennai-Mumbai ticket starting at 12K!! Clearly, anyone desperate enough to reach Mumbai will pay that.

P.S: Having got a return trip for half that fare, I think I should stop complaining now:))

Mental Accounting

2009-10-23T13:23:00.002+05:30

I spent the Diwali weekend in Chennai. I decided to make the trip only a week in advance, and was frantically searching every damn website for the cheapest fare, but found nothing below 10K return. Out of sheer luck, I stumbled upon Indian Airlines, which was offering a return trip for 5K. I couldn’t believe my eyes and booked my tickets without a second thought. In the rush to save money, I booked my return for Sunday night despite Monday being a holiday. By the time I realized this and wanted to make the change, the fares had gone up by 3K so I let it be.

inThe magnitude of the fare sunk in only when I saw the credit card statement. 5K is not a small amount. Of course, it's hard to deny that the deal was a sweet one "under the circumstances”. So I set about analyzing what the circumstances were. First, how badly did I want to be in Chennai? My mom had gone there a week ago and would be there during Diwali. Most of my extended family lives there, and I had not visited them for more than a year. Neither did I have any alternate plans of celebrating Diwali in Mumbai. So, yes, I wanted to go badly. But I think there is another factor that tipped my decision in favor of going.

I came across the expensive fares first. I saw 10K, thought the airlines were crazy, and decided it was best to spend some money on beer and the weekend in bed. But when I saw a fare half that number, the temptation to save 5K was overpowering. Would I have made the trip had the fare been 5K uniformly across airlines? Or even if the going fare was, say 7K, and I was getting it for 5K. Maybe not. The incentive to save 2K is not as irresistible. To give you an example, I shopped at Pantaloons this weekend. At checkout, the sales guy asked me to enrol into their rewards program. I had to pay Rs. 100 to get into the club, and would be immediately rewarded with a gift voucher for Rs. 200. Without hesitation, I declined the offer.

What's my point? I am trying to analyze the trip financially. Did I spend 5K - a loss, save 5K - profit, or spent 5K to save 5K – net net? (In the second case, I think I definitely saved Rs. 100 by not going for the card.)

The business of business...

2009-10-20T22:22:00.002+05:30

Continuing with thoughts on business models...

To exist, businesses must deliver value to its customers - this is different from the debate on creating value for shareholders vs stakeholders. Preferably, value must be tangible, but in some cases, it is notional. The industry that best demonstrates value creation is IT. Just imagine the time and effort wasted on mundane tasks everyday if we didn't have Windows and Microsoft Office.

Of course, value creation is not as obvious in all cases. Entertainment and television, for example. Some people would argue that television is turning us into morons and is actually value destroying. Yet, the industry is exploding. This is a case of notional value, where people are ready to lap up any and every form of entertainment. It can be risky to bet on such models because they fundamentally rely on exploiting consumer preferences. Very similar to what the fashion industry does. The value created is not by clothing people but rather by making people feel that their clothes are better than others. This is also the business model of our local quack, palmist and other fortune tellers – they all make the consumer feel better.

The ability to deliver notional value on top of real value is the holy grail of a successful business. Which means, not only is the product good, but you also take pride in ownership. The ipod and iphone are perfect examples. World-class products enhanced by the “Apple” brand. Even here, the relative magnitude of the tangible and notional values matter. So long as the tangible value is much larger than the notional one, the business is stable. Microsoft, for example, probably has a negative notional value, but is yet a profitable business because it offers unmatched tangible value. On the other hand, FMCG products do have some tangible value, but rely heavy on notional value. I doubt if any of us can differentiate between two shampoos in a blind test.

The simplest way to check whether a business adds value is to ask if it helps people do stuff “faster, better and cheaper”. Ideally, all three aspects must be addressed but sometimes addressing even two is okay.

I mint?

2009-10-16T22:39:00.003+05:30

Great ideas sound exactly like foolish ones - until they work that is. That's my favorite Scott Adams' quote.

The thought occurred to me when I saw the ad for imint on the back of a bus. It is a rewards system where you earn points every time you spend, which can be later redeemed for gifts or vouchers. Nothing radical about the concept itself. Credit cards have been doing this for a long time now. But here's what puzzled me. Is there an opportunity for a third-party to make a business out of it?

I dont know for a fact how imint works, but my guess is they have consolidated the rewards system of some retailers and cards so that the customer is able to get points for all transactions in a single "currency". So no more 100 points with ICICI, 250 points with HP, 50 points with Jet with none of them sufficient by themselves to do anything. Now, we get 450 imint points that is good enough to get a mug or something.

I guess imint adds some value thru the economies of scale it gets by consolidating the rewards system. So that explains why ICICI, HP and Air India have hopped on. Their points now make some sense to customers. But how would imint get new customers? For instance, why would HDFC or Jet sign on? Its destructive to both HDFC and ICICI because their customers wont see any difference in using either card, thus resulting in mutual cannibalization. In fact, I wont be surprised if ICICI has an deal that prevents imint from signing on competing financial institutions.

So how can imint grow? Well, by encouraging customers to spend more. That I think, personally, is a friggin stupid model to run a business.

Front Page

2009-10-13T12:51:00.005+05:30

There was a time when the front page of a newspaper was a precious piece of real estate. Only the most important of the important news would find mention, and even then, the story would be cut short and continued elsewhere for it was unwise to waste so much space on a single story. (The exception being the Hindu, which always has complete stories.)

Although I dont have first-hand experience, I think there was a time when the front page determined newspaper sales. Especially during high profile murder trials or controversies, people would buy the paper after glancing at the headlines. Also shown in innumerable movies where paperboys at busy signals are carrying tabloids screaming with the latest headlines.

Well, all that would be history soon. Our newspapers have realized how precious these front pages are - literally. The front page has dumped news in favor of ads. I believe every single major newspaper now comes a "wrapper" with ads on both the front and back. The trend started with tabloids such as Mid day and Mumbai mirror but even TOI and HT have adopted this. I wonder how long before our dailies go the magazine way where ads dominate and content has a token presence.

Power Landing

2009-10-07T22:20:00.005+05:30

Mythili Bhusnurmath recently wrote a piece on our inability to wait until the plane comes to a complete halt before turning on our mobiles. But its not just the mobile phones we are after. Barely a second after the plane touches down, and before it has even started to taxi, seat belts are popped open, mobile phones turned on, overhead compartments opened, and a beeline is made for the exit. Were it not for the locked doors, the adventurous might not even wait for the stairs and consider making the 10-foot jump. Such abject disregard for rules and safety is unheard of in any other country and makes one wonder why someone spending a couple of hours twiddling thumbs in the air would suddenly get so excited and active to save a few minutes at most. After all, our flights are usually off by more than a few minutes.

Here's the point: It's not those few minutes that people are after. It is the resultant delay that could be in hours if those few minutes are not well utilized.

Let me explain. We live in India where power laws surface even in the most mundane of instances.“Power laws” is a term used to indicate a non-linear, usually exponential, relationship between two variables. Let’s say it takes you an hour to drive from home to work. If you start at 7, you reach at 8, start at 8, you reach at 9 and so on. If you plot your start time on X axis and arrival time on Y axis, you will see a diagonal straight line that indicates a linear relationship. But let’s say, if you start at 7, it takes you an hour, but if you leave at 8, it takes an hour and 30 minutes. At 9, it takes two hours and so on. Now, if you plot these, you will get an exponential curve. The point being, if you are 5 minutes late in getting off the plane, it might take you an hour longer to reach your home or workplace.

What does a typical domestic traveler do on arrival? Pick up the baggage and head for the exit. Now, in the US and other countries, there is a clearly marked lane with several cabs waiting. One simply gets into a cab and zips off. Here, though, we have the prepaid taxi counter - a monopoly that cares a damn for travelers. They are in no hurry to get people out fast and are often seen engaged in shouting contests with cab drivers. So if you are late by even a minute, you see 10 people ahead of you in the line at the counter. That also means 10 opportunities for things to go wrong. Someone does not know the exact name of the locality so the guy at the counter denies a cab and an argument ensues. Someone isnt carrying change - another argument. The 2 minute delay in getting off the aircraft has already snowballed into a 20 minute delay in getting out of the airport.

There's more. The roads leading out of the airport arent broad enough so the traffic is typically crawling. During peak hours, traffic starts piling up and a smart cabbie tries to save 30 seconds by cutting across a lane and creates a mess that takes 30 minutes to clear. Your misery just keeps compounding...

Am not saying that the precious headstart of a minute or two will ensure you will reach your destination in time. There will be several other traps along the way that are impossible to avoid. Just that getting out of the airport quickly is the only aspect under your control and it would seem foolish not to use it. I am willing to bet that the moment our airport facilities and services ensure that we can get out of the airport without hassles, people will be much more relaxed. In fact, I think we are much more relaxed when arriving at new Blr or Hyd airports that are much less congested.

Gandhi Jayanti

2009-10-05T22:43:00.003+05:30

Why is Gandhi Jayanti a public holiday? Shashi Tharoor thinks the Mahatma would have wanted us to work this day, for he advocated work to be worship. But Mr. Tharoor, we are so busy worshipping work the rest of the year that Mahatma's birthday provides the perfect opportunity to step back and reflect on whether our work is worth worshipping at all. Of course, most of us end up spending the day in the bed, in front of a TV, or in a movie theater, but it is not our fault entirely. The essential ingredient for such reflections has been denied to us on the day when we need it the most. Not everyone has the option to stock up liquor ahead of time or consume it in their homes. In any case, given the levels of corruption in our government offices, the holiday at least minimizes underhand dealings on Mahatma's birthday.

I am not quite sure why Gandhi is revered today. Whether his ideals still hold is questionable (and will need a separate post), but why cling on to something that happened 70 years ago? He gave us freedom, you say? Sure, thank you Mr. Gandhi. But it is time to move on. Why do I have to thank this man every time I breathe?

Granted that it is in the human nature to hold on to events and people because it gives us identity. But it is also what prevents us from breaking the shackles of the past. Drawing an analogy from the business world, organizations routinely shake up the top management when growth stalls. In fact, leaders are chosen based on whether their management style fits the need of the hour - aggressive managers for growth and conservative ones during bad times . Why then are we singing paeans of non-violence and truth when our neighbors are needling our buttocks with nuclear missiles?

Marathi Manoos

2009-09-30T20:22:00.001+05:30

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Raj Thackeray interviewed by Arnab Goswami last Sunday. Delighted, in fact, for it provided the rare occasion where Arnab was lost for words, and resembled a castrated cat. Part of the problem, I guess, was that Raj chose to respond in Marathi. It's kinda obvious, but I missed the beginning so maybe Raj offered a particular explanation for not answering in English. And it wasn’t clear whether Arnab understood Marathi or if they ended up using an interpreter, which explains his constipated questioning. (I am ruling out the possibility that Raj doesn't know English.)

Raj, though, was perfectly composed and his answers, while uncompromising, were logical and rational. He basically pointed out that all states have a responsibility to their residents, and Maharashtra in general, and Mumbai in particular, shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of poor governance elsewhere. He also begged to differ from the popular opinion that Mumbai is a commercial and financial hub becauseof its migrant population. Rather, he noted, that because Mumbai had all the characteristics to be such a hub, that people flocked in. On the question of preferential treatment for Marathis, he simply pointed to agitations in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, where representation for localites has always been an issue. In Bangalore, for example, I recall a recent push by the local film industry to ban screening of Tamil and Telugu films because Kannada films have no viewers! On Chhat puja, he was enraged that, except in Mumbai, the event is not organized at such a scale anywhere else. I think he gave the example of Maldives that has a significant immigrant population.

His analysis of the situation is spot on. The root cause, of course, is the asynchronous pace of development, which also explains the urban-rural (India-Bharat) divide to an extent. But Raj neither has the ability nor the inclination to attack the root so he is simply going after the symptom. One can only question his approach rhetorically and ask, were the tables reversed, then would he, a migrant, accept being subjected to such discrimination by natives? Same goes for the migrants too – would they, as natives, watch in silence when their cities and towns start filling up with migrants?

Paths of Glory

2009-09-26T22:17:00.006+05:30

Wanted a break from serious reading so picked up Jeffrey Archer's Paths of Glory last week. It is an engrossing account of Goerge Leigh Mallory's attempt to conquer Mt. Everest in the 1920s. Dont let that turn you off for this book is as good as any of Archer's thrillers.

My only experience with rock climbing is going up an artificial 20-ft mobile rock in an offsite during my MBA program. I managed to climb up, but was so tired when I got there that I let the safety wires bring me down. Agreed, I am not the epitome of fitness, but the experience did give me some idea of how tough it is to climb mountains. So to even think of climbing the Everest in the 1920s sounds like sheer madness. The use of oxygen was considered "cheating" at that time and the only cover from the -40 degree temperature was multiple layers of clothing. Which sound like minor inconveniences when you consider that no one had done it before so one had no clue of what route to take and what the conditions will be like.

Archer is in good form despite the dry nature of the subject and refrains from launching into monologues on mountaineering. In some ways, this is a romantic novel where the protagonist happens to be a mountaineer.

If you have never heard of George Mallory, I recommend reading this book first before googling him. Even if you do happen to know about his life and times, this is still worth a read.

Scarcity in Abundance

2009-09-23T21:29:00.001+05:30

I was baffled the first time I came across a STOP sign in the US. Thankfully, it was before I started driving there. I saw vehicles approach the sign from all directions, stop for a moment or two, and proceed without any commotion or confusion. I tried my best to crack the code, but gave up, and asked an American colleague. She gave me a ridiculous look and said, well, whoever approaches the STOP sign first, gets to go first. #@$@##@!!

Of course, STOP signs will never work in our country, but even signals are under pressure. On my way to work, I stopped at a red light, put on the hand brake and waited for the signal to turn green. Obviously, I was a novice. The professionals don’t believe in relaxing. Rather, they are on the lookout for the signal to turn green for the cross-traffic, judge how long it would remain so, and slowly start inching towards the intersection as it turns amber, such that by the time our signal turned green, they zip off a clean 5 seconds ahead of us. That’s an important 5 seconds though for they manage to reach the next signal ahead of the pack, and in front of the line.

I am quite certain I have indulged in similar acts of desperation, either on the road or elsewhere, so I don’t consider myself any different. But what drives our behavior? I believe it is the deep sense of insecurity embedded in our national psyche. Generations have grown up in misery and scarcity where life was a zero-sum game. You won only if your neighbor lost. Although the situation has considerably improved, these fears have not been fully alleviated.

This is aptly summed up by Shashi Kapoor in the movie, Deewar. The scene shows Shashi Kapoor being interviewed for a manager position. The interviewers like him and offer him the job when a young lad barges in. He apologizes for the delay and explains that he had to walk as he was out of money for the bus fare. The interviewers turn him away because the job has already been offered. Unable to see the young lad in misery, Shashi Kapoor rejects the job citing poor pay. The job goes to the lad, who recognizes this gesture and is extremely grateful. Shashi Kapoor simply suggests that “Yeh zindagi ek third class ka dibba hain dost. Main baith jaata, tho tum khade ho jaate.”

Austerity and Keynesian Economics

2009-09-16T20:29:00.002+05:30

I am not the best articulator of economic concepts but this is too tempting to let go. The government has decided to cut costs. MPs and ministers are being asked to fly economy and use state guest houses.

This move is an economic disaster, especially when we are yet to fully recover from the recession. The GDP of a nation can be expressed as a sum of consumption, investment, government spending and net exports:

Z = C + I + G + NX

Roughly, GDP is the total value of goods and services produced by an economy. Now, for the economy to be in equilibrium, production must equal consumption. Therefore, GDP equals aggregate demand, which equals aggregate supply.

According to Keynes, the aggregate supply drives the GDP of an economy in the long run. That is, the resources available with a nation, both natural resources and people, will eventually determine what a country can produce, and therefore, what is available for consumption. In the short run, however, it is the aggregate demand that rules. When demand goes up, supply levels will adjust upwards to meet this increase.

Now, looking at the above equation, one way to increase GDP growth is to increase consumption, which means put more money in people's hands so they can spend. This is precisely the logic behind stimulus packages. But what's the guarantee that I will spend the money? As it is, the economy is gloomy, so I might rather put it in a bank deposit. To make that option unattractive, central banks cut interest rates, so you either spend or invest your money, both of which will boost the economy as can be seen in the above equation.

Government spending is much more effective in getting economies out of recession. Every rupee spent by the government has a multiplier effect, because it creates demand, which fuels more demand and so on. Tax cuts work in a similar manner. When people have more disposable income, well, they dispose it off in some way, which boosts consumption again.

So the present government's decision to embark on an austerity drive is an economic blunder. If ministers do not stay in hotels, the hospitality industry will suffer a slump. Hotels will have to make some cut backs that will result in people losing jobs and their vendors such as catering and laundry guys losing business. When these people have less money to spend, they will cut back on festival purchases such as apparel, which is the boom season for the retail industry. So now the retail industry will get into a slump and so on.

Of course, these effects would kick in only if the government stopped "spending". I doubt if our government was ever prompt in paying for its services, and has probably accumulated several years of unpaid dues so we shouldn't worry too much.

Anyway, with solid corruption, money will still be flowing freely in the black economy that will at some point trickle into the mainstream and boost demand. I can't remember right now, but I believe at least one well-known economist actually made the point that the underground economy plays the role of a stimulus package.

Farce India

2009-09-15T17:52:00.000+05:30

Force India's fortunes have undergone a dramatic turnaround in the last two races, and our media has spared no effort to shove this piece of trivia onto our face. I fail to understand why this is a matter of notional, let alone national, importance.

The team has been part of the F1 scene for years under various names. The owners, unhappy with its performance, found a sucker in Mr. Mallya. Ever the publicity seeker, he promptly made much noise and named it Force India, which actually reminds of the old Air India joke. We all know how well his decision to start an airline as a marketing campaign for liquor brands is working out. What makes us think he will do any better with an F1 team? Anyway, except for Mr. Mallya, nothing in the team is remotely Indian. Not the engine, not the crew and definitely not the drivers. Mr. Mallya is not even the full owner although he has pulled off the brilliant gimmick of attaching our nation's name to the team.

So, it irks me to no end when he makes statements such as "Force India carries the hopes of a billion people." The words that come to my mind are too strong to mention here. I doubt if any self-respecting F1 fan is actually cheering for Force India. The ones doing the cheering are either in the media or are people just content with "India" and some variation of "victory" being used in the same sentence. (I shouldn't blame the second group for those are indeed rare occasions.)

Far from protesting the embarrassing reference to our country – until recently, the drivers were finishing in double digit positions and were engaged in duel to not finish last - we have found cause for celebration.

Plane drivers

2009-09-13T02:04:00.000+05:30

Are the pilots right?

Unions are a pain for any management, but to fire pilots for starting a union sounded extreme. Apparently, it was set off because the relations between management and pilots soured when Jet wanted to cut back on pilot pay.

However, I wasnt too comfortable with the idea of going on a pseudo strike and causing inconvenience to the general public let alone losses to Jet. But I was simply stunned when I learned that pilots make as much as 10L per month. Yes, per month. Some might make less but nothing below 3-5L. I heard Naresh Goyal on TV say that people making that kind of money shouldnt be exploiting rules intended for blue-collared workers. And that sounded logical. (Let me get this out of the way. I did feel pangs of jealousy on hearing the size of the pay packet.)

So the point is, do employees with six-figure salaries really need unions? Such people have high intellect and specialized skill sets that cannot be easily replaced. That also means they have plenty of employment options. Their thought process is broad enough to consider the possibility of job loss and save for the rainy day (which bluecollared workers may not or even cannot). But airlines is an oligopoly, and one that is not doing too well. As it is, you have no more than 5-6 airlines in our country with the majority of them losing money. While airlines may not be able to join hands publicly, they can still work behind the scenes to keep salaries down. A couple of years ago, our own IT companies agreed not to poach from one another, and have repeatedly stated that rising employee salaries are a concern. Whether such moves amount to collusion or cooperation is a matter of debate.

I think the pilots are right in forming a union to maintain the power balance, but in the process have shown that they are no more than simple plane drivers. That is, they are no different from a railway motorman or a crane operator who will find himself at sea should he be let go. It is not a skillset that can be transferred to a different industry.

Karan’s coup

2009-09-11T17:33:00.000+05:30

Karan Thapar has to be one of the most obnoxious TV interviewers anywhere in the world. He symbolizes all things wrong with our media. Yet, he did pull a coup of sorts the other day when he got Jet Airways ED, Saroj Datta on his show with Capt. Sam Thomas (one of the pilots initially sacked) on the phone. And in his thankfully inimitable style, Karan did all the talking, skillfully twisting the meaning of their words here, and shamelessly putting words into their mouths there.

I was stunned that the two parties so adamant on sticking to their positions chose to talk on his show rather than have a direct discussion. I guess once these matters are public, neither wants to extend a hand and be seen as weak.

I was more surprised that Sam Thomas chose to participate. The pilots are walking a thin line by going on mass sick leave. No one believes they are sick, unless they mean "sick" in a perverted way. And given the inconvenience caused, the public is not going to be too merciful. So to appear on a TV show and state that the agitation will continue and we are being discriminated against only offers evidence to the obvious - that the mass sickness is indeed a strike. The pilots have numbers on their side and it might save them from any severe consequences, but to be so brazen shows a sense of pride, which they say comes before a fall.

The problem with airlines...

2009-09-08T22:52:00.000+05:30

Pilots declare strike. Management threatens. Pilots go on mass sick leave. Management sends doctors to their homes. Had it not inconvenienced so many travelers, this was just the kind of comic relief to lighten up these gloomy days of recession.

Today's strike aside, most airlines worldwide are headed for a disaster. I think the problem is lack of creativity. Airlines is a boring industry in every aspect. They are highly capital intensive and are subject to several regulations due to safety concerns. Consequently, they are "boxed" within a certain framework with very little room for creativity. Take the safety instructions by the crew before takeoff for example. (It is only Southwest that has managed to break out and the results are there to see.)

Even the names are boring. Jet Airways, Spice Jet, Indigo, Go Air. One would be pardoned for concluding that the law requires airlines to include either Jet or Go in their names. Even worldwide, the names are surprisingly drab. Except for Virgin which has gone to the other extreme, and following in its footsteps, our own Kingfisher.

Contrast it with how IT firms are named. Apple, Sun, Oracle, Google, Adobe etc. Except for Microsoft, no one felt the need to announce what business they are in, let alone where they are from. Whereas for airlines the preferred choice is the nationality of the airline followed by "airlines".

The only way the airlines can come out of their perpetual slump is by hiring a software CEO.

Cold Steel

2009-09-06T21:51:00.000+05:30

I had heard great things about the book. Still, I was reluctant to spend money on something whose climax is well-known. Given that both cos were Europe-based, government intervention and interference was expected and references to Mittal's racial background could not be ruled out. I presumed the book would follow some kind of a timeline leading upto the finale, but beyond that I had no idea what it offered or why it got such great reviews. So I picked it up with a pinch of salt.

Right from page 1, it sucked me in. I forced myself to put it away so I could get some sleep at nights. The writing was plain and for the most part didnt get in the way of the narrative. The events that unfolded were so intriguing they needed no literary embellishment. Although at times the authors did provide some arbit literary twists. I also found it difficult to remember all the characters given that there were so many of them. And their European names didnt help. The book is little biased towards the Mittal camp, both in terms of coverage as well as characterizations. Maybe the Mittals happily cooperated for the book whereas the erstwhile Arcelor execs werent too forthcoming.

But the big question I have is on the neutrality of the book, or the lack thereof. Right from the time Lakshmi Mittal first wanted to talk to Guy Dolle (Arcelor's CEO at the time) about collaboration, Dolle was shown as a snob whereas Mittal was depicted as a victim of persecution. This, despite the fact that Mittal's team for this bid consisted of the best in the business. I would think Mittal's success is as attributable to the caliber of his team and their clout as it is to his personal humility during the course of the battle. Reading the book, you cant help but get the feeling that it was mostly Mittal's humility that clinched the deal whereas his character flaws are conveniently glossed over. It is quite possible that things did go down this way. Just that it reada bit like a fairy tale.

It would seem the Mittal's PR team has a done a great job not only during the bid but also in managing the aftermath, of which the book is one. In any case, this is a definite must read if only for the visceral thrills on offer.

Back from Jaipur...

2009-09-05T22:28:00.000+05:30

Fell in love with the city at first sight. The new part of the city is well laid out with broad roads and tree lined avenues. The old city is of course rich with history and tradition and the walls are colored in what I thought was a shade of saffron. (Dont quite know how it got construed as pink.)

Had only about 4 hours to spare so it was whirlwind sight seeing. The city palace was very impressive. Clearly, the emperors of this part of our country were well ahead of their times (Maybe they all were). It had trophies from winning polo competitions as far back as 1920s. The arms and weapons collection was breathtaking. Daggers with jade and crystal hilts! Reminded me of Mahabharat and Tipu Sultan serials. I couldnt help wondering how tough wars of those days must have been.

The weather was warm and sultry and the traffic a bit unorganized but other than that no complaints at all.

Saved by our incompetence

2009-09-03T21:40:00.000+05:30

The jury is still out on why we missed the financial crisis. Some popular reasons include the strong culture of domestic savings, rural demand, YV Reddy's supposed foresight and so on. But there is one cause that is completely overlooked, our own incompetence.

A simple analysis of bike and car accidents should reveal that the cause is often a foolish driver. He was drunk, speeding, trying to cut lanes, racing with another driver etc. What goes unnoticed is that the people enticed into doing these things are competent as well. I mean, do you see cars used by driving schools ever involved in an accident. Yes, the teacher can control them, but considering that you have all the beginners driving, these cars must be the most accident prone. Yet it rarely happens because learners hardly drive faster than 20kmph.

The Americans really pushed the envelope of their financial system. But only because they were thoroughly familiar with its intricacies in the first place. Most of our bankers are still grappling with our financial system, thanks to the public sector legacy. Our capital markets are not well developed and the general public is still skeptical about the term "investment".

In a sense, the US went into the Olympics and made a mess whereas we never qualified. But hey, at least, we are not losers!

Today’s news, Tomorrow’s history

2009-09-02T22:42:00.000+05:30

Hardly, but our imagination has moved on. Even Jaswant Singh is so last week. Force India and Fisichella are in. And the debate on Pokhran II is brewing and will probably be the next big story. The aphorism that public memory is short sounds so true, and if anything, it seems to get shorter. But what is often overlooked is that memory can be easily rekindled, especially in the Internet age as is beautifully captured in a scene in the film, Notting Hill.

Julia Roberts, playing an American actress in the movie, ends up spending the night at Hugh Grant’s place. The next morning papparazzi show up and pics are snapped. Julia is all hyper about the situation, but Hugh asks her to chill for the public memory is remarkably short and this too shall pass. But Julia retorts that it will pass for him, but every time a journo wants to write something about her in the future, he will search the archives, come across this image, and make sure to print it. (Am trying to find the exact lines. Even IMDB doesnt have it.)

I guess my point is if you are in the news for the wrong reasons, the entire nation doesnt have to actively track your fortunes. It only takes one person to run into you several years after the incident and exclaim, “That was you? Wasn’t it?”

Today's news, Tomorrow's history

2009-09-01T20:28:00.000+05:30

Until last week, swine flu deaths were prominently reported on the front pages of leading national dailies. But now, they have been relegated to a mere statistic. Has swine flu suddenly become less dangerous? Is it no longer the epidemic it was made out to be?

Hardly, but our imagination has moved on. Even Jaswant Singh is so last week. Force India and Fisichella are in. And the debate on Pokhran II is brewing and will probably be the next big story. The aphorism that public memory is short sounds so true, and if anything, it seems to get shorter. But what is often overlooked is that memory can be easily rekindled, especially in the Internet age as is beautifully captured in a scene in the film, Notting Hill.

Julia Roberts, playing an American actress in the movie, ends up spending the night at Hugh Grant's place. The next morning papparazzi show up and pics are snapped. Julia is all hyper about the situation, but Hugh asks her to chill for the public memory is remarkably short and this too shall pass. But Julia retorts that it will pass for him, but every time a journo wants to write something about her in the future, he will search the archives, come across this image, and make sure to print it. (Am trying to find the exact lines. Even IMDB doesnt have it.)

I guess my point is if you are in the news for the wrong reasons, the entire nation doesnt have to actively track your fortunes. It only takes one person to run into you several years after the incident and exclaim, "That was you? Wasn't it?"

Back with a thud

2009-08-30T23:07:00.000+05:30

Not too often, but every now and then, certain events make us proud. Wait, thats too strong. Lets say, we just stop feeling like total losers. The Pokhran tests, Chandrayaan, Bhuvan etc are some recent examples.

They may not mean much to the younger generation that grew up in the relative prosperity of the late 90s, for they already visualized us as an emerging superpower. But if you have grown up in the 80s and early 90s, and experienced the legendary Indian bureaucratic lethargy (or lethargic bureaucracy), such headlines do bring joy and emotion. You wonder if we are finally breaking away from our past. If we really can do more than write code and deal with angry Americans on telephones.

To be honest, our quality was never world class, for we were rooted is the strong tradition of good enough. When asked to choose any two from fast, good and cheap, we inevitably choose fast and cheap. Be it software or anywhere. Clients are amazed by our rapid fast turnaround of deliverables and appalled by their quality. It seems this is more pervasive than what I thought.

Chandrayaan was touted as India's "nano" space project, cheap but highly effective. The celebrations had hardly died down when some defects came to the fore and now the mission is officially dead. Even the celebrated Pokhran tests have come back to haunt us with a scientist claiming the yields were disastrous and others shouting it was "good enough". And Bhuvan is a nonstarter.

I believe these are not isolated incidents but a reflection of our ethos and pysche.

Sports Formula

2009-08-26T12:07:00.000+05:30

The sports ministry has declined a request to bring F1 racing into India on the grounds that F1 is not a sport but rather a commercial entertainment initiative. The logic is impregnable.

The traditional argument to develop sports is that it promotes physical well-being and mental toughness. It is also purported to build character, but the conduct of today's athletes hardly supports this assertion. As for the F1 debate, the formula of the modern day sport has two elements: substance and form. In substance, racing cars cannot be compared to cricket, soccer, hockey or any other sport. Not only is it risky and life-threatening, but winning and losing depends as much on the vehicle as the driver. Yes, it does improve physical endurance and mental sharpness, but in its basest form, it is a thrill rather than a sport. As for the form, which is F1 or A1 racing, it is very close to how every major sport is played today.

Almost every sport has gone pro, meaning it is played for money rather than for pride or fun. Their popularity has more to do with the astronomical sums involved in contracts and sponsorships than anything else. Now, playing for money does not necessarily take away the virtues of sport, and I am definitely not advocating that sports should not be commercially viable. Neither should sportsmen be required to put national interest above individual interests. However, one must recognize that money transforms the nature of the game, and consequently, every sport today has elements of entertainment in it. Ah...those shades of grey.

From what I have read, it did not look like the ministry will have to make any investment. It only had to grant permission to franchise F1 in India. So I am not sure why the ministry rejected the proposal and said arbitrary things like the funds can be put to better use elsewhere. If indeed taxpayer money is involved, I am in complete support of the ministry's decision.

What pushed me to write on this was Karun Chadok's comment that even Olympics are an entertainment. It is true that Olympics are reduced to a form of entertainment in India, for we have systematically ensured that our athletes don't even get close to the medals. We end up watching what the rest of the world is doing. But to generalize that is foolish. To me, the Olympics capture the true spirit of sport, and provide the rare occasion to watch sport triumph over money.

Game Theory and Traffic Rules

2009-08-24T21:48:00.000+05:30

Game theory attempts to explain our behavior in situations where the success of our choices are impacted by the choices of others. Price wars are the most common example. If Pepsi cuts prices, assuming elastic demand, sales will increase and so will profits. But if Coke follows suit, Pepsi's action will be neutralized such that both Coke and Pepsi end up with lower profits than what they would make if prices werent cut in the first place. So letting prices be is the best course of action for both, which is the conclusion they will eventually reach after the game is played multiple times.

I got thinking if this explains the problem with our traffic rules. When we all follow rules, then it gives those who break them an advantage. Let's say the rule is that we stick to our lanes regardless of traffic. Now, if the traffic is slow, someone can cut across lanes and weave through traffic, assured that everyone is driving in their lane. But once that happens, the rest will naturally feel cheated and start doing it too, and we end up with massive chaos.

I see two ways of addressing the problem. One is to remove the incentive for breaking rules, by imposing hefty and consistent fines, which is impossibly difficult to do in our country. The second is to let people play this "game" enough times until they realize that we are better off following the rules. It doesnt mean every single person has to experience chaos before sanity returns. Once enough people decide to follow rules, a critical mass is reached. You have - tada - a tipping point. You see people following rules, then more people follow rules and so on. The concept of social proof kicks in.

Its not as far-fetched as it sounds. I think it partly explains why Mumbai has better lane discipline and civic sense than other cities - people here have seen traffic chaos so many more times.

I think the unfortunate part is when everyone starts to follow the rules, some of us will be tempted to break them and get an unfair advantage. And when there is no system of fines or penalty, more people will start doing it creating another tipping point and the cycle continues...

Consultants as Traffic Police

2009-08-20T19:23:00.000+05:30

Consultants are arguably the most hated bunch of professionals around. While the financial engineers have stolen that crown momentarily, it won't be long before the trophy is passed back. Not just because the crisis will be forgotten, but also because every minute, consultants are coming up with ludicrous recommendations. Ludicrous when you look at them with 20/20 hindsight that is.

Every manager worth his salt hates to employ a consultant for it is a tacit admission of his own incompetence. Yet, the consulting profession continues to thrive and remains the most sought after career option for management graduates. What gives?

I was crawling in Mumbai traffic when it hit me. In front of me was a Santro sandwiched between a truck and a BEST bus. Now truck and bus drivers believe in extreme precision. They will drive by within an inch of your vehicle without skipping a beat. In this case though, both of them were generous enough to spare a couple of inches, but the Santro guy got all worked up. He kept nervously peering over the bonnet and looking through the side windows to make sure he was okay. I, of course, clearly saw that he just had to maintain his line and he was fine. For a minute I was amused, but soon realized it happened to me as well. Several times, in fact. Sitting inside the car, I find it incredibly difficult to accurately estimate the space available around the vehicle be it when making a sharp turn or parking in a tight spot. And that is what happens to organizations as well. People within find it difficult to clearly see the external environment. And their calls might result in a traffic pile up, or worse, a crash. The former causes organizations to lose its direction and momentum while the later pretty much kills them.

Time for your friendly neighborhood consultant to step in. He is not a Santro expert – you are – but he knows enough about it to guide it out of traffic. Which is what consultants often do; they bring in simplicity and clarity. In other words, the value added by a consultant comes from his perspective and not so much his competence. If he is a good one from McK, he will know the shortest route to the expressway. In that sense, he is no different from a traffic policeman. Of course, the recommendations would fail if something else comes up on the suggested route - another traffic snarl, for example. Or you ignore his idea and stick to your route and by some freak chance the traffic clears up. And when that happens, organizations ensure consultants dont go unpunished.

I have taken artistic liberties to make the analogy work and sincerely apologize if it caused offense to traffic policemen.

Tailpiece: It is much more difficult to estimate navigate sharp turns if you are driving a big car like Accord or Corolla. That explains whylarge organizations react sluggishly to changes in environment.

Dogs and Culture

2009-08-18T21:14:00.000+05:30

Came across this, well, interesting piece of news. Some guy in New Zealand barbecued his pet dog. Inevitably, the SPCA raised a hue and cry and came close to taking legal action, but realized there was no case because the dog was killed painlessly. Usually such events only get a couple of lines, but this was a full-blown story with interesting details.

The incident took place in Auckland but the man originally came from Tonga, where dog meat is perfectly acceptable. Why was he so desperate as to eat his pet dog? Apparently, the wife was bored with it. So what better way than to make a meal of it! I dont know if they have a 911 number for SPCA over there, but they seem to have reacted pretty quickly. "The dog had been skinned and partially charred" when SPCA arrived!! Man, in our country, even an ambulance wouldnt reach in that time. Unfortunately for SPCA, it is legal in NZ to kill animals so long as they are killed swiftly and painlessly. The guy hit the dog on its head with a hammer to render it unconscious and then slit its throat - apparently the standard procedure of killing animals for meat.

The SPCA is disturbed that it is legal in NZ for people to kill and eat their own pets, and are pushing for a change. But here's the part that intrigued me. SPCA advised the man that it was not part of the "culture" to kill and eat pets. My guess is this Tonga region must have be home to natives or aborigines who were here before us (going by the fact that dog meat is still acceptable there). And now we have the gall to tell them what is culturally appropriate!!

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/no-charges-man-barbecued-dog-2919419

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/spca-calls-law-change-after-dog-bbq-2919922

Independence Patriotism and Stardom

2009-08-15T18:11:00.000+05:30

We are supposedly proud of our Independence yet the celebrations are ridiculously formal, typically limited to the hoisting of our tricolor and distribution of sweets from the neighborhood halwai. Today's HT editorial says we should express ourselves more freely. Totally agree with that coz in the US, most people look at 4th of July as an occasion to meet family or go to Vegas rather than stick US flags on their shirts. Of course, its been more than 200 years for them now but only 60 for us, so maybe at a subconscious level we are a little afraid to celebrate. If we relaxed too much and let our guard down, maybe...you get the point.

Next is the question of patriotism. In the movie, "The Rock", Sean Connery surrenders after Ed Harris threatens to kill a tourist held as hostage. In the ensuing conversation, Connery says he thinks Harris is a friggin idiot. Harris quotes Thomas Jefferson about nurturing the roots of liberty from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Connery retorts with Oscar Wilde's "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious". Harris strikes Connery behind the neck, who falls to his knees and follows up with "Thank you for making my point!" If it was a Bollywood movie, the hall would be drowned in whistles.

Is patriotism losing its relevance today? For that matter even independence. No country can claim to be totally independent of the rest of the world. Except Iran and North Korea maybe, but even they have some outside help. The great United States that proclaims itself to be land of the free and home of the brave is probably the least independent nation today. Why, even our economy is intimately linked to the fortunes of the US as the recent crisis has shown. So in days of globalization where interdependency and interconnectedness rule, independence is an illusion. Even governments get influenced when making policy choices.

Things are even murkier with patriotism, which was never clearly defined to begin with. Its not right to love and protect one's own faith, gender, community or even state against another, but it is miraculously right to defend one's nation against another. The definition and boundaries of patriotism have been conveniently morphed over time. Some freedom fighters and most kings are revered as valiant patriots although their actions amounted to nothing more than protecting their own little territory. If patriotism is the feeling that one's nation is the best among all, how different is it from terrorism? I am not denying the need to defend one's nation against terrorists and wars, but let us clearly identify it as a necessary evil than an inherent virtue.

Finally on SRK's detention at Newark. Applying my learnings from Taleb's FBR, someone being a celebrity doesnt rule out their possibility of being a terrorist. That he is popular doesnt mean he cannot be a criminal. Plus the fact that someone has not killed until today doesnt mean he wont ever. That's a black swan for you. Although in SRK's case, I have this funny feeling that the immigration officer's wife is a big fan of SRK and must have dragged him along to watch one of his inane movies. Wont blame him for the reaction! But our politicians are taking this incident more seriously than Kalam's frisking!!

Outliers and Hofstede

2009-08-13T14:40:00.000+05:30

MBA is a great leveler. The heady excitement of macroeconomics, finance and marketing is tempered by the fatal boredom of HR and OB. And one topic that inevitably gets raised in HR and OB is the Hofstede’s Index.

Geert Hofstede, a Dutchman, profiled the behavior of people in various countries and concluded that cultural differences can be explained on a four-point scale: Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity and Uncertainty Avoidance. B-schools and academia adore such neat models and, next to Porter’s Five Forces, Hofstede’s Index has to be the most frequently used tool to explain away the failures of MNCs. It makes you sound intelligent and gets you points for class participation. Beyond that, it seemed useless. Until I read Outliers.

Gladwell’s latest book attempts to search beyond the obvious traits of successful people – that is intelligence, hard work and perseverance. They are important, he agrees, but claims there is a little something, called luck, which actually catapults them into a different league. Like his previous books, Outliers makes for interesting reading, but what made me sit up and take notice was his analysis of plane crashes.

Here is a chilling recount of the 1990 Colombian Avianca plane crash in New York. The aircraft is desperately running out of fuel, but has not been given permission to land. The captain asks the first engineer to contact ATC and tell them it’s an emergency. The first officer contacts ATC, and among other things, mentions they are running out of fuel. Planes are expected to be low on fuel as they reach the destination so ATC doesn’t give this much weight. But rather inexplicably, the first engineer doesn’t push.

The situation makes no sense, until one looks at it through Hofstede’s index. Colombia is a country with relatively high power distance, where people are more respectful of authority. Hence, no questions were asked. If the first engineer was an American, Gladwell claims, the conversation would have taken a different course. Reading this sent a chill down my spine, but it seems airlines world over have recognized such manifestations of cultural differences in everyday interactions, and have taken measures to train their pilots and crew.

Jai Hofstede!

Knowing your Audience

2009-08-11T23:13:00.000+05:30

Read RGV's interview w/ TOI today. Apparently, he has given up trying to figure out what the audience wants. It seems the Indian audience is too diverse to create something that will satisfy everyone. He claims that people love or hate his films for different reasons. That there is no consistent feedback on why a certain film worked and why another didnt. So he has stopped worrying about what people want or think and decided to do his own thing - hoping that it might appeal to just enough people to recover his investment.

I agree with his observation but not necessarily the conclusion. RGV clearly understands that presentation and treatment are as important, if not more, than the story and actors. Fault him for his ridiculous choice of actors and stories, but you cant criticize the technical standards of his movies. His problem, now, is that he is focusing too much on the form while ignoring the substance. In fact, he seems bent on proving that the audience will lap up anything that has slick editing, sound effects, and unexpected camera angles. And there's the rub.

His criteria of analyzing audience is off. He is trying to find a common pool of people who'll appreciate his directorial touches like Bhiku Mhatre's death in Satya, Abhishek's character in Naach, Urmila's experience in Bhoot and what not. And then he feels there are too many variables. Naturally. He is losing the forest for the trees. He cant expect ordinary moviegoers to get each of these nuances. It worked fine in his younger days coz he was not as sophisticated . Think of it as a pyramid. The higher up you go, the fewer there are. The trick is to target the base with the vast majority of our moviegoers. They understand simpe human emotions like love, hatred, pride, envy, greed etc. And so long as a movie has these ingredients served in a coherent manner, it will find takers. Not to say the ones purely relying on treatment wont succeed - just that it is a much riskier bet.

A confession is in order. I am a die-hard RGV fan and firmly believe that even his worst film is much better than the best films of several "succesful" directors.

Consumer Insight

2009-08-09T18:05:00.000+05:30

Carrying forward from the last post, there are two diametrically opposing views on this matter. One believes that consumers are really smart and will call your bluff the moment your product takes them for a ride. Examples include consumers dumping American made electronics and cars in favor of Japanese ones.

On the other hand, some believe that consumers are gullible and will willingly buy a golden noose only if you knew how to sell. Examples include Coke and credit cards. There was no "need" for cola. Someone made up with a drink and transformed it into a habit. If Fair and Lovely really worked, half of us in India would be swans now. Yet, the product continues to mint money for HUL, and has spawned a market for fairness creams.

How does one reconcile these two observations? The popular notion of succesful businesses is a neatly laid out set of numbers, projections and valuations, but any business is incomplete without the understanding of human psychology, which provides the most crucial insights. Mr Charles Revson, co-founder of Revlon famously said, “In our factory we make cosmetics. In the store we sell hope”. That's the key. What you are making and selling are often two different things.

Even in case of more mundane products like ball pens, consumers are buying expectations not products. And if the performance doesnt meet the expectations, well, you are screwed. And these expectations can stem from totally irrational notions. Chinese products are presumed cheap so its really tough for a Chinese manufacturer to sell premium products. In such situations, the solution is not in the 4Ps but rather in the other often neglected P - the Psychology of consumers.

Credit card fraud

2009-08-06T23:12:00.000+05:30

Enough has been said about the less-than-clean practices of financial institutions that perpetuated the housing crisis. Mortgage lenders have been accused of predatory lending practices and selling home loans to people that could afford them in the first place. Yet, the people running the mother of all scams continue to mint money.

The business plan of the credit card business would sound hysterical if it werent true. Create a card that lets people spend money they dont have, then charge banks for issuing these cards and merchants for accepting them!! Sounds villainous, but you have to give it to the ingenuity of Visa and Mastercard. They have managed to drive the world's largest economy into a trillion dollars of debt. In some ways, the credit card culture can be blamed for the reckless nature of US homeowners in taking on loans they knew nothing about.

If the idea was just convenience, couldnt they have just created a card that lets people spend their own money? I realize I am giving the impression that the top guys at Visa and MasterCard went on a strategic retreat for a week and racked their brains to come up with this fraud, which is probably not the case. Most likely, the card started out with the noble cause of offering convenience, but we took it to a totally different level. Of course, the debit card is ubiquitous today and is outpacing credit cards, but thats only 'coz we have realized our folly.

Of superstitions and Traditions

2009-08-05T13:46:00.000+05:30

FM radio is my only source of distraction during my commute to work and back. Something to keep me sane lest the traffic and the driving skills of fellow commuters drive me crazy. Yet, FM itself drives me crazy sometimes. We have 8 FM channels, so at any given point, the probability that one of them is playing a song I like is pretty good. Yet, it routinely happens that every channel is running an ad or their RJs are blabbering away to glory. And sometimes the trash spewed out by these RJs gets to my nerves.

Like today, for example, every RJ was extolling the virtues and traditions of Rakhi. Listeners can win gifts for calling in and sharing their memorable Rakhi experiences. Even celebrities were interviewed to throw light on this great tradition of bonding among siblings. Some RJs had tied Rakhis to government servants as a token of gratitude and love for keeping the city going. I don’t know the exact genesis of the ritual, or its symbolic meaning, but I am sure it is in the lines of the protective band on the brother’s wrist warding off evils, or even better, the sister taking on harm that was otherwise intended for the brother. This is undoubtedly a big event in many Indian families, and its fine to maintain that tradition.

But the same RJs were making mockery of the rituals we perform during an eclipse. That throwing away all food before the eclipse was blind faith. That asking pregnant women not to venture out was being superstitious. RJ after RJ was shunning these superstitions and proclaiming to be free of blind faith.

I wonder where tradition ends and superstition starts. Too much to expect the RJs to know this. If they had better IQs they wouldn’t be making a fool of themselves on radio.

Indian Airlines

2009-08-04T20:49:00.000+05:30

Well, I will claim to have successfully predicted that the proposed airline strike will invoke a sharp reaction from the government. If I got it right, I am sure it was plain obvious to everyone. As it happened, the airlines themselves were not united, and the strike has been called off.

What I like about such failed attempts is that they succeed exceedingly well in making the point. With losses mounting and what not, the last thing airlines need is the hassle of refunding fares to passengers. They just wanted to prick Praful Patel's butt and make him lose sleep on a few nights. Mission superbly accomplished.

What now? Mr. Patel says no bailout for private airlines. And that's fair enough. I am no expert on this industry, but Spice recently posted a profit and thats good enough for me. It indicates, if managed well, there is scope for improvement. On the other hand though, globally the airline industry is a disaster. But still there is a Singapore here and a Southwest there that defies the trend year after year after year. Airline CEOs need to roll up their sleeves and get creative about fixing the issues. Laying off employees and asking for price cuts on jet fuel is lazy management - these are the two biggest expenses, and if u reduce expenses, u make profit right? Wrong! The industry needs some fresh bottom-up thinking. Although not as fresh as Capt Gopinath's I guess, who is blamed by some for the mess we are in:)

Zee Saregama Lil Champs

2009-08-02T16:45:00.000+05:30

Of late, I have gotten addicted to this show. The quality of kids is simply amazing. What blows me away is the apparent ease with which the kids perform. Although I am quite sure they must be putting in hours of hard work and preparation behind the scenes. It even makes me wonder if it is fair to make kids work in this manner.

But, there are some irritating aspects of the show, starting with the intros and profiles of children which are downright cheap and tasteless. Even the two kids emceeing the shows get to you after a while.

As far as the quality of the contestants go, this is beyond comparison.

Airline Strike

2009-07-31T23:30:00.000+05:30

Private Airlines have decided to suspend operations on August 18 to protest jet fuel prices and surcharges. Their demands may be legitimate but going on a strike hardly feels like the right approach. Jet and Kingfisher have confirmed this, but low-cost airlines havent yet said anything. It is interesting to see if there will be any government intereference in this matter.

One might argue that these are private corporations, and the government should not interfere with their decision. Yet, airlines have become such an integral part of our economy that the 1-day suspension is definitely bound to have an impact on the economy. In addition, the legalities of airline operators getting together to suspend operations is doubtful. In most western countries, such a move would be termed "collusion" and attract the attention of trade regulators.

When calling to privatize PSUs, we must remember that the legal and regulatory system needs to robust enough to ensure that the nation is not at the mercy of capitalists.

MS Yahoo deal - Yahoo RIP

2009-07-29T21:59:00.000+05:30

MS and Yahoo have entered into a deal to beat Google. While the details are not completely clear to me, it seems like MS will essentially use the Bing architecture to power Yahoo searches. Consequently, the two cos will end up sharing revenues with Yahoo retaining ~90%.

Lets see how this will play out. Everytime you search for something on Yahoo, it is actually Bing that does the search and delivers the results. Now, search-based advertising means that ads will be automatically displayed based on search strings. So that will be done by Bing too. And of the revenues earned, Yahoo pays 10% to MS.

The only thing Yahoo had going for it is the #2 position in search and the resultant reveues from ads. That advantage is now erased 'coz it will depend on Bing to make money. I doubt if the agreement will restrict MS from competing in the ad space. So now MS gets to make its own ad money and also get money thru ads on Yahoo (although only a small %). But thats not the point.

The point is MS gets a much larger canvas to play on. The Bing "search system" will be used at least 4 times more than if Bing remained a standalone search engine. And all this data is available to MS, which means it can make Bing that much better. And once Bing starts getting better, and word spreads that Yahoo is actually "Bing", surfers like you and me will start searching on Bing directly rather than Yahoo (Some will go to Google, but hey, if they are still on Yahoo, they are probably gonna end up with Bing than Google). Consequently, Bing's market share will improve at the cost of Yahoo's, resulting in movement of customers from Yahoo to MS. Once Bing reaches a critical mass in the next 3-4 years, say 25% market share (standalone), it may damn well pull the plug on the deal. In all probability, Yahoo would have stopped work on its search platform and would be left stranded. Meaning all remaining Yahoo customers will drift to MS or Google.

My feeling is MS couldnt have asked for a better deal - it gets to kill Yahoo, although not immediately, but hey, they dont have to pay a penny. Well for Yahoo, it is definitely suicide.

Value of a stock - Part II

2009-07-28T21:28:00.000+05:30

Before we move forward, lets discuss the time value of money. This concept is at the core of financial valuations. It states that a $100 today is worth more than $100 a year from now. Why? You can put your $100 in a bank it will be $105 next year. That's the time value of money. In other words, there is an opportunity cost involved.

Back to our stock now. We've determined the return that we are expecting from the stock. And we have the price of the stock as it trades in the market. We can use the two to determine what should the price one year from now. If price is $10 and expected return is 10%, then price of stock 1 year from now is 10*(1+10%) = 10*1.1 = $11. In other words, if the stock price is $11, one year from now, you can pay $10 to buy it today.

A little digression to understand where a stock's value comes from. A company makes and sells products and earns revenue. Out of this, go expenses such as raw materials, salaries etc. If the company has any debt, it needs to pay interest on that. And what remains is the profit. Of course profits are taxed, so a portion of that goes to the govt. What remains after all these is called Profit After Tax (PAT) or Net Income (NI) is available for distribution among shareholders. In reality, of course, companies "reinvest" PAT, meaning they will use this money to fund further expansion and generate more revenues etc. For simplicity, lets say a company is "mature", meaning there are no opportunities of growth. It will just keep making and selling the exact # of units year after year. As a result, all PAT will be distributed as dividends to shareholders that is you and me:) In reality though PAT doesnt equal CASH - that's accounting for you, which is way out of the scope of this article. But understand that some adjustments are made to PAT to arrive at "Cash Flows (CF)".

Now it all comes together. Once you know the CFs of a company year after year, you can discount them all by the expected return rate to get today's value. But we only have data to calculate last year's CF. How do you know what the company makes in future years? This is where assumptions and projections come in. You look at the economy, industry etc., and predict that revenues, expenses will grow or shrink at a certain rate leaving you with a CF. This is one reason why analysts may have differing opinions about a stock's value - because they have different growth assumptions. Once you buy a share of a company, you own it forever (or until the co shuts down). So you'd have to project CFs out to infinity. To make it mathematically manageable, you project it out 10 years or so, and use a geometric series formula to find the value at the end of 10 years. Now discount all these values to today and you have the value of the firm.

Now, if the firm has taken any debt, that will need to be repaid eventually. So subtract debt from the value of the firm and you have the "equity value" of the firm, which is what shareholders own. Simply, divide the equity value by the number of shares outstanding, and voila! you get value per share.

If this value is less than market price, the stock is overvalued. If it is greater than price, the stock is undervalued.

Value of a Stock – Part I

2009-07-28T14:54:00.000+05:30

For a financial layman, like I was a year ago, the price of a stock is a mystery. Why does Microsoft trade at $25 whereas Google trades at $450? And why do analysts mean when they say Google is cheap at $450? Isn't MS dirt cheap at $25 then?

That's the first rule. The price by itself doesn't tell you anything. What you need to know is the price of a stock relative to its value – another term relentlessly abused by the financial press and analysts. Let me try and debunk this mystery.

Buying a stock is an investment so you expect some returns. Think of a bank term deposit. Let's say, you put in $1000 for a year, the bank pays you some interest. The interest is your return from the deposit. Of course, the big difference between the two is that the returns of a stock are not well-defined. Let's dig deeper.

If you hold a stock, your return can either be capital gains or dividends. Capital gains are simply the profits you make when you sell the stock at a price higher than what you paid to purchase it. For example, if you buy MS at $25 and sell at $40, your capital gains are $15. Dividends are cash payments made to you by the company at regular intervals, usually annually or quarterly. For example, MS recently announced a quarterly dividend of $0.13 per share.

Now that we know the types of returns, the big question is, how do you know if a stock will deliver any returns? And are those returns good enough? Let me answer the second question first. Your stock has to at least beat the 5% APR offered by your bank, if not, what's the point? Might as well invest your money in bank deposits and sleep in peace. But, are you happy if the stock returns exactly 5%? No, because you are taking on an appreciably higher risk by investing in the market. When you take that kind of a risk, you expect to get rewarded. So the return from a stock has to be definitely higher than your bank rate. But, how much higher?

For a moment, let's set our stock aside and take the stock market as a whole (or simply the "market'). The market is represented by indexes such as Dow Jones, NASDAQ and S&P 500 – there are many more, but these are the popular ones. These indexes are comprised of multiple stocks from various industries. So you will have stocks from FMCG, tech, telecom, infrastructure etc. Some of these cos will be good, some bad, some growing and some declining. Let's say you want to invest your money in the "market" - in other words, think that you are buying 1 stock of the S&P 500 index. What should be your return? There are ways to derive this, but the simplest way is to look at the returns delivered by S&P 500 in the past. Take the year-end values of S&P 500 over the past 30 years, find out the annual return (annual growth, to put it crudely). Now, determine the difference between the S&P return and your bank rate. This delta is called the Market Risk Premium, which is the additional return you are expecting because you took the additional risk of investing in the stock market rather than the safer term deposit.

But remember that the stock market has many companies so the negative effects of some stocks are offset by the positive effects of others. For every Sun that fails, there is an Apple or a Google that delivers stellar performance. So the risk of investing in the "market" is different from that of buying a specific stock. Some stocks are safer than the market and others are riskier. For example, P&G has been making hair and body care products since forever. And unless we dramatically change our ways of personal hygiene, it is fair to assume that P&G will continue to sell its products. So, it is a safer bet. Contrast it with Google, which is threatening MS and Apple today, but could just as easily be threatened by Facebook or MySpace. Therefore, Google is riskier than the market.

To determine the relative risk of a stock versus the market, analysts use a term called Beta. Without getting into the details, it is a factor to arrive at the risk premium for your stock, which is a product of your stock's beta and the Market Risk Premium. (By the way, the Beta of the market is 1.) Beta for cos such as Google will be >1, and that of Unilever etc is <1. Now add this to your bank rate to find out the return you must get from the stock. Let's take an example.

Say, annual returns of S&P over last 30 years is 8%

Beta of Google is 1.17

Your bank deposit rate is 5% (Technically, this should be the rate on US treasury bonds, but this is a fair approximation.)

Therefore, Market Risk Premium (MRP) = 8% - 5% = 3%

Risk premium for Google = Beta * MRP = 1.17 * 3% = 3.51%

So expected return for Google = 5% + 3.51% = 8.51%

In other words, Google is an attractive stock, if and only if, it offers returns above 8.51%. The next part will discuss how to determine this.

To be continued…

More Than You Know

2009-07-27T13:55:00.000+05:30

Just started Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. As it happens, this is the third consecutive book I am reading which talks about the role luck, randomness etc – I am using these terms to loosely mean uncertainty – plays in our lives. The previous two are Michael J. Mauboussin's More Than You Know and Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. I will quickly summarize my takeaways from the first one.

The point is stunningly simple. That the market has several players, and the same bit of information is interpreted differently by different players. Naturally, a pre-condition is that the market players be heterogeneous and for the most part they are. When heterogeneity is maintained, the market on average correctly reflects the underlying state of the economy. One particular story (a true one, I believe) is used to convincingly illustrate this phenomenon. At a village contest, people were asked to guess the weight of an ox. The average value of the guesses turned out to be correct answer, although none of the individual guesses was anywhere close. The so-called experts represent only some players in the market, and at best, their predictions may only be close to the actual. When heterogeneity is compromised, however, players fall prey to group-thinking, and we end up with unsustainable booms followed by the unavoidable busts. The practical consequence is that one is better off investing in index funds rather than mutual funds.

Anyone invested in the market would know that "overvalued" and "undervalued" are two terms that every analysts throws in at will in his analysis. The value of a stock is the discounted value of its future cash flows (profits loosely), and the price is what it currently fetches in the market. Now, if the price of a stock is higher than its value, it is overvalued. The typical analyst recommends selling overvalued stocks and buying undervalued ones because sooner than later price adjusts to reflect value. The point made in the book is that it is not enough for you to find a great stock that is undervalued. The premise is that price will adjust to reflect value (in this case, price will go up). Meaning, there are just enough people out there thinking the same way as you are so that the demand for the stock pushes its price upward. If everything thinks the way you do, the stock would skyrocket immediately. And if no one agrees with you, well, the stock might stay undervalued forever.

So the trick is not just to find stocks that are undervalued, but also predict whether the market will agree with your assessment. It is probably for this reason that analysts love to appear on TV shows and rattle out their predictions. If enough people watching the show fall for it, well, you've got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy. (The last point is my extrapolation).

The book covers such wide range of topics that I don't even remember all the things discussed. It definitely was worth my time, and hopefully I will get around to reading it again.

Tailpiece: Pune Mirror found my post worthy to be included on their website..

http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=4&contentid=200907222009072201490454678e298fc&sectxslt=

Ganguly Go Away

2009-07-26T10:22:00.000+05:30

Not only is my most favorite player not captaining KKR next year, he is now replaced by a guy I abhor and detest. Grace is something that I never associated with Ganguly, but this series of events takes the cake. Apparently, Shah Rukh and Ganguly met in London where the former apologized to the latter!! And then Brendan McCullum is conveniently busy with international commitments for next year's IPL.

Wearing my conspiracy theorist hat, I think there is more here than what meets the eye. The events would have unfolded thus. Ganguly indicates his interest to be part of the Indian cricket administration. He is touted to contest CAB elections and is the favorite to be the next BCCI president. The selectors and administrators started feeling that Ganguly was getting larger than the system, and needed to be put in place. But knowing cricket-crazy Bengalis, that wouldn't go down too well. So he needed to be eased out into something that will distract his administrative pursuits. Hence, the understanding with Shahrukh and his reappointment as the KKR captain.

This conclusively proves that Indian cricket has hit its lowest point, so far, ably led by a man who has hit his lowest point, so far.

The reality of reality shows

2009-07-24T14:03:00.000+05:30

Have you noticed that entertainment channels are big on reality, whereas the reality channels (news) are big on entertainment? I wonder if this is an inevitable side-effect of globalization, internet revolution, the fusing of different media, and Thomas Friedman's flat world. When I grew up, TV was an escape from reality. In a typical middle-class household, the man back from a day's toil, the woman exhausted after household chores, the kids finished with their homework and studies get together in front of the TV to let go of their everyday woes and immerse themselves into the world of the protagonist of a soap opera. Of course, shows of this genre are still popular. In fact, it is plentifully available, albeit stretched beyond the wildest imagination of a sensible human being. Yet, they can be pardoned for they continue to provide viewers a respite from their daily routines.

But how does one explain reality shows? It is the cheapest form of entertainment and caters to one emotion and one emotion only – schadenfreude. (I admit I looked the word up when writing this post.) It means enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others, which is exactly what we get out of reality shows. One might mistakenly conclude that shows such as Zee Saregama or even Indian Idol are different, for they unearth hidden talent. Have you seen episodes where they play the auditions? If the motive was to find the best, why waste airtime on showing the worst? And even in the main competition, you cheer for someone you like, and pray the other guys lose. You go thru the same feelings when watching a soap opera, you root for the bahu and hate the saas or vice-versa. That's good for an artificial show with artificial characters – you switch off the TV and they disappear. But reality shows have real people in them whom you hardly know but are loving or hating them. And your decisions – such as voting - change their life forever. Do we realize this responsibility? What we get from watching shows such as Sach ka Saamna, Big Boss etc should now be obvious.

Are quiz shows, KBCs and Dus ka Dam different? Only slightly. Lesser of the evils, if you want to call them that. I have watched innumerable BQC episodes where I was filled with glee as teams from Chennai got a drubbing. Why? Just because I didn't care much for that city. I am sure we have similar reasons for rooting for or hating a contestant on KBC or any such show.

Walk before you talk

2009-07-23T17:44:00.000+05:30

It is refreshing to see Rudi Koertzen lash out against criticisms about the standards of umpiring in the just concluded Lords Test. Rather than meekly submitting to the critics, he went after the players for putting umpires in a tight spot. And that's an angle often left out.

Maybe 'coz the rules say that the player is out when the umpire raises his index finger. That's the letter of the law. More so in sports than elsewhere, the letter is woefully inadequate when not supplemented by the right spirit. And today's cricket is short on spirit. Way short. Plus, the popularity of T20 and IPL may just expedite the degeneration of the game into a dreadful cousin of American pro sports.

Not to say that pro sports are drab – I am hooked to NFL – but they get to you beyond a point. If you poll football fans in the US about their preference for NFL v/s college football, the response will be in the favor of the latter, and overwhelmingly so. Mostly 'coz college games are not "pro". Of course, we all know the kids have an eye on NFL drafts and the big sums, but for the moment, they are attached to their school. It is also what our cricketers feel when playing for the nation. And it is precisely this passion and energy that IPL sucks out. IPL will remain a great entertainer, but after a few seasons, it will turn farcical like the American pro sport scene. Players will be sold, bought, traded and it will become an exercise in sports entertainment, with the latter becoming more pronounced.

Tailpiece: This is one of those rare occasions, as rare as yesterday's eclipse (sorry, couldn't resist that), where TOI has found favor w/ me. For a very selfish reason, naturally. The thoughts in their editorial about Dr. Kalam's frisking incident echo my ramblings from the other day.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Frisk-everybody-/articleshow/4809462.cms

Eclipse and myths

2009-07-22T09:40:00.000+05:30

Our appetite for blind faith is legendary, and on events such as today's solar eclipse it comes to the fore. Driving on my way in, I heard a few RJs blabbering about our customs and rituals that are not grounded in science. I am no expert in the full suite of actions that ensure protection from the evil forces prevailing during an eclipse. But there is one crucial aspect that we overlook. Which brings me to one of my favorite lines from the Simpsons movie where Bart says "This has been the worst day of my life" and Homer retorts "Worst day of your life, so far"

I think it is important to recognize that there have been no scientific explanations to some religious rites and customs, so far. Dont think the idea is far-fetched. Asbestos and CFCs are good examples. They were developed scientifically, yet we had no idea about their fatal side-effects. Unfortunately, that is the nature of science. New information will continually emerge, often trashing our prevailing knowledge.

My point, simply, is that one must have an open mind when dealing with matters. And that applies to people on both sides of the argument.

Dr. Kalam frisked. So what?

2009-07-21T13:36:00.000+05:30

Why is frisking perceived as an insult? Isnt it a clearly stated policy of airlines and airports to check bags and passengers before boarding? And we all go through this rigmarole everytime we have to take a flight.

Of course, this frustrates us to no end, not to mention the delays involved. If you have to take an 8AM flight, you rouse yourself out of sleep at 4AM, get ready by 5, travel 30km to the airport (thankfully there's no traffic) and reach by 6, and join a line with 15 guys waiting to get into the airport. More people waiting to check in their bags, and even more at the security check. At times, a train journey feels infinitely more comfortable. We have learnt to grin and bear it. The VIPs, I assume, dont go thru any of this.

The only inconvenience they have to put up with is a security check, which hardly takes 30 seconds. And they have a problem with that! Make no mistake, they are not of a superior race. We have enough civilians that have contributed to the economy as much or more than our politicians.

We also know how fragile the security situation is. Take the delhi airport shooting, for example. If anything, they should lead by example, and willingly follow the same security process as we do. That should send a strong message to the people. Unfortunately, we are only good at sending strong messages - we are yet to learn how to follow it up with actions.

Boss' Birthright

2009-07-18T21:29:00.000+05:30

One aspect of the corporate culture in India that turns me off completely is our abject disregard to the time of our colleagues. Of course, we dont manage our time any better, but we blatantly mistreat that of our coworkers. We dont think twice before interrupting a coworker and loading him up with work.

If the relationship is boss-subordinate, its just gets worse. Just being the boss seems to vest them with uninhibited powers over the time of the team. You can interrupt them at will, call them up at any time of the day, order them to show up on weekend. The sad part is that these actions impact productivity and morale. Employees end up staying late because work plans are thrown out of gear. They end up hating the boss coz of all the weekends they have to put in. The worst part of this whole circus is that our bosses dont even put in a word of appreciation when employees stay late or a word of apology for ruining their weekend.

Rita Bahuguna's crime

2009-07-16T20:31:00.000+05:30

It took me 30 min of focused Googling to ultimately figure what it was that caused so much uproar in UP. Well, I had an idea of what transpired based on what I saw on TV, but arresting the state congress chief for slander sounded a bit too much. I wanted to know the exact words uttered by Rita. For all the nauseating coverage of irrelevant events that our media provides, I had no luck finding the transcript of her speech or even the offensive words. I wonder if the media self-censored it or if they were afraid of the consequences of airing or citing the exact language! Mayawati, sure, is powerful.

It was the good ol' BBC that had the courage to mention what Rita said although even they did not quote her verbatim. Here's the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8153161.stm

Where's the media when you need them?

2009-07-14T17:29:00.000+05:30

The flurry of media channels has ensured that even a fart by a politician or celebrity would not go unnoticed. Yet, they are nowhere when we need them the most. It has been coming down hard since last night here in Mumbai. When I woke up this morning, I was positive that several areas would be waterlogged. Adding to this, a metro pillar collapsed near Sakinaka, arguably the busiest traffic junction in Mumbai. I scanned the news channels for updates, but except TV9, no channel was even running a ticker about the rains. There was no source of getting a real-time update on the situation. The authorities were mum on what citizens are supposed to do, but thats typical. Most Mumbaikars know enough about the rains and chose to stay home I think. Thats what I did too based on my past experience here!

I am most appalled at the state of the news websites. It is incredibly easy to update a website and post live notes as the news pours in. But none of the websites had any mention of the rains until 10AM. All of them waited until noon and posted "articles". By then, everyone that cared about the rains knew about them. The less said about the Mumbai traffic police website the better. Its not that these websites cant do live coverage - they do it with budgets, bomb blasts etc. I have no idea why they dont do it on occasions such as these.

I wish we had a website that posts minute-by-minute updates on situations such as these. Maybe I could start one.

The Delhi Metro

2009-07-13T11:49:00.000+05:30

In my last post, I alluded to Delhi Metro as a possible success story that has combined convenience and affordability. I wanted to build on this today, but the unfortunate incident of the pillar collapse will influence my objectivity. In any case, here's my take on the Metro.

I have used the metro and it is both affordable and convenient. In my limited view, Delhi is fast realigning along the metro the way Bombay has along its local lines. One must not forget, however, that Delhi had and continues to have a much better network of city roads that are broader and well-maintained. Partly, this is the function of how the city is laid out; Delhi is naturally conducive to ring roads and arterial roads where as the most one can get in Mumbai is a North-South expressway. Consequently, the approach roads to Metro stations are in much better condition. Of course, it is early days and one has to review the situation after the Metro is in operation for 5 years at least. Further, one must not ignore the weather factor. Mumbai monsoons are a key part of the equation. And unless the sewage system is first fixed, it is impossible to fix Mumbai's transport woes.

Further, the traffic pattern in Delhi is much more distributed than in Mumbai. Therefore, the routes dont get anywhere as crowded. I think, in a way, this has created the ideal traffic level - high enough to be profitable but not too high to choke the system into stagnation. A measly 4-car metro rake in Mumbai would be a disaster. I can bet the train would never leave the station and some adventurists might actually climb atop and between the rakes. Delhi Metro-type solution might work in Mumbai, but only if its on steroids.

I would actually think the Mumbai traffic pattern is easy if you are a planner. Just build two high-capacity north-south metro links and you are done. Only if we had the political will...

Solving the Traffic Puzzle

2009-07-10T13:31:00.000+05:30

The other day, I condemned the hyping up of the Bandra Worli sealink as if it were a national achievement. Specifically, I was outraged at the delays and cost overruns. In principle, however, I am quite agreeable to the idea of building a freeway. However, there are some so called experts that are claiming that roads are no longer a solution to traffic snarls as other metros of the world have proven. Rather, mass transit is the way to go. This is the typical hammer syndrome that haunts experts world over; for a child with a hammer in hand, everything looks like a nail.

There are two aspects of conveyance: affordability and convenience. Convenience includes things such as frequency, safety, ease of access, ease of travel, punctuality, speed etc. As commuters, we strive to strike a balance between the two. For example, a modern day knowledge worker finds public transport ridiculously affordable but extremely inconvenient. Naturally, he will go for a motorbike that improves the convenience factor yet remains affordable. Someone with a better pay will get a car so the convenience factor is improved further. Freeways and expressways will definitely improve the convenience, while the toll charges will make a slight dent on affordability. It is only right that those who seek convenience and are able to afford it make use of such amenities. And with the toll system, we have a way to directly make users pay. So there is no need to bring up issues such as taxpayers money being used for the privileged few.

For the mass transit model to work in India – and by that I mean, for all the car users to switch over – it has to be convenient and affordable to this segment of commuters. Affordability is granted; it cannot be more expensive than owning a car. But what about convenience? Can we really run air-conditioned buses and trains that cover the length and breadth of our cities? Can we have good approach roads to railway stations and parking space to leave cars there?

Such infrastructure doesn’t come cheap. Consequently, such a transport system will put it out of the common man’s reach. Are we then saying we will have two transit systems targeting different types of commuters? Will that be sustainable? It is tempting to look at the Delhi Metro for answers, but I don’t think the comparison is apt. More on this in my next post…

Outsourced!

2009-07-09T09:27:00.000+05:30

Must say I am not disappointed. Infact, it was a quite a treat. Anyone that has worked in the IT/ITES industry and also traveled to the US will see the humor. In fact, desis that have lived in the US for a few years and returned to India will relate to the movie most. Some of the aspects a little over the top. Such as the choice of location for the call center as well as its construction. Plenty of cliches and predictable scenes, but even they are not as rich. I mean, I could think of a 100 different things that can lead to funny situations. Anyway, the screenplay crisp enough to keep things moving.

Dont think its worth renting a DVD. If its on TV and you have nothing else to do, definitely watch it.

Watched this movie on TV last night, finally. I have had it on my laptop for quite a while and never got around to watching the entire movie. Some friends had highly recommended the movie and since I didnt have much to do last night, I set myself up to watch it start to finish.

Must say I am not disappointed. Infact, it was a quite a treat. Anyone that has worked in the IT/ITES industry and also traveled to the US will see the humor. In fact, desis that have lived in the US for a few years and returned to India will relate to the movie most. Some of the aspects a little over the top. Such as the choice of location for the call center as well as its construction. Plenty of cliches and predictable scenes, but even they are not as rich. I mean, I could think of a 100 different things that can lead to funny situations. Anyway, the screenplay crisp enough to keep things moving.

Dont think its worth renting a DVD. If its on TV and you have nothing else to do, definitely watch it.

Its a stinking bridge!

2009-07-07T23:03:00.000+05:30

The hype and buzz created for the opening of the Bandra Worli sealink was positively nauseating. It was everywhere. On the news channels, in the papers, on the radio stations! I fail to understand why it was blown so much out of proportion. It is simply a 4km bridge that happens to be on the open sea. Rather than being shameful of the delays and cost overruns associated with the project, we have conveniently ignored the fact that the world has moved on to "chunnels" and are celebrating the achievement. And to what end? Well if the intent was to get Mumbaikars to use the sealink, it succeeded. Succeeded too well, infact, thanks largely to the government's magnanimity of declaring it free for the first 5 days. It was a mega disaster as far as reducing commute time went.

And the traffic arrangements at the Worli exit are ludicrous. Traffic coming at 50kmph is supposed to make a 90 degree turn!! How did that get through the planners? I am sure if someone digs deep enough, we will learn that the contractors responsible for the sea link and the approach roads were different and didnt care to communicate.

Let my cynicism not get in the way of acknowledging that the sea link will possibly help reduce Mumbai's traffic snarls, albeit marginally. Personally, the Mahim route is what I will continue to take on a daily basis although I might decide to try out the link one of these days. And if the sealink does what it was meant to - reduce congestion on the Mahim causeway - you wont hear any more complaints from me!!

Roddick wins Wimbledon

2009-07-07T22:48:00.000+05:30

If you watched the men’s Wimbledon final last night, you really don’t have to read this. This is more to vent out my feelings. Sport is cruel and every game has a winner, but what is the point of winning games such as these? I have nothing against Federer. He definitely has earned his place in history books, but yesterday, he was not the best player on court. Well, you can say he played good enough to hang in there and held his nerve when it mattered – in the second set tie-break and the final game – but is that all there is? Andy Roddick was nowhere in the reckoning to make it to the final. Not after he had to face Hewitt in the quarters and Murray in the semis. Yet, he believed and showed us why we should too.

Watching Roddick play against Murray, I thought Federer was going to have a difficult time in the final. But I remembered the Australian Open final where Roddick was utterly destroyed in a 3-setter. So although I had decided to stay home and watch the match, I thought that the first set would hold the key; if Federer wins it comfortably, I am better off watching a movie. That Roddick would take his game to such heights was beyond my wildest imagination.

I was worried for Roddick when the game ended. How can you deal with a result like that? And then, within minutes you are expected to comment on the match, congratulate the opponent, and courteously accept the second prize. Man! He didn’t have to go through that! Not after the way he played last night.

If anything, my respect for Federer fell a bit yesterday. He didn’t even acknowledge that Roddick was the better player on court. Maybe we give Federer too much credit for his personality. Maybe he wanted the record badly. I was hoping that Federer, at some point, would say that Roddick was the real winner last night. But that’s me getting too filmy, I guess.

The Demise of Ragging

2007-05-18T12:06:00.000+05:30

So that's it huh? No more ragging in our colleges. Life on campus will never be the same. Another great tradition killed because we dont keep our limits. Generations will now grow up without this priceless experience.

I favor the Supreme Court decision because ragging has been abused beyond limits. But I still believe we need it in our country. It is the only way to foster mental growth in adolescents. Think about the life of the teens in our schools or junior colleges (11th and 12th). Wake up, study, go to school or college, attend private tuitions, finish homework, study, sleep....Unlike other countries where students work parttime and pay their tutions, our students are encouraged to focus on studies and that alone. No games, no sports, only studies. These poor beings have no interaction with the society. They move in groups of fellow students, usually of the same caliber. In sum, there's no attention paid to personality development, and consequently there is none.

Ragging builds character. When ragged, students are forced to come out of their shells or comfort zones; they are forced to do things they normally avoid, which is a critical step in mental growth. Ragging helps shed inhibitions and fears and builds confidence. For example, a student develops humility when he is forced to address a senior as 'sir'. This also keeps the 'toppers' down-to-earth by making them realize they are just as normal as the next person. Similarly, when a student is forced to approach a girl with a rose, he overcomes his fear of failure. He realizes that getting rejected or snubbed by a girl is not so bad after all. It doesnt kill you or anything. In fact, he learns how to do it better when has has to do it for himself. Even when a bunch of students are forced to strip down to their undies, although distressing initially, it makes them feel more comfortable with their bodies. For those with a good physique, it builds confidence, and for those without one, it pushes them to start working out. And you cant deny that ragging develops a naughty side in even the most studious and sincere students, without which they will be terrible bores. After the initial terror of ragging subsides, it paves way for great networking opportunities. Imagine the number of people that would not meet if there was no ragging. Surely such acquiantances wil be useful one time or the other.

Banning ragging is not the end. It's the beginning. Educational institutions must now find other effective ways to foster psychological growth in students. There should be more opportunities for students to socialize. And herein lies the rub. Regardless of how many such opportunities are offered, students can pass them up. An introvert would be too shy to attend, a rich student might feel it below his standards, a studious one thinks this is a waste of time and so on. And this is why ragging worked so well: it wasnt optional, it was compulsory. Whether you liked it or not, you had to step forward and follow orders. And I dont think our educational system is anywhere close to finding a safer alternative to ragging.

So now that we've killed ragging, be prepared for a generation of socially challenged and psychologically imbalanced geniuses that will soon pour out of our colleges.

Generation Storm!

2007-05-14T10:10:00.000+05:30

I wonder why we grow up thinking we dont need to learn once we pass out of college? Is it our rich tradition of government jobs that involve anything but work? I am appalled that we, for generations, looked at a government job as the ultimate prize in life.

Anyway, the point I am making is that learning starts when you pass out of college and step into the real world. I am not saying formal education is easy. On the contrary, it is getting more difficult and rigorous by the day. The sad part though is that these rigors do not mirror reality. Students are evaluated by their ability to cram mathematical equations, but now how those can be used to solve real-life problems. How many students learning binomial theorem, trigonometry or calculus in class 12 know where they will be used in real life? I certainly didnt and that was one of the reasons I hated math. It was so difficult, and I had no idea where in hell would I need it.

Most business schools adopt a case-study based approach. The professor lectures on a topic for about 15-30 minutes and then discusses a case. For example, a lecture on failed leaders might involve a discussion on India's world cup performance. Students are encouraged to offer their views and counterviews. Of course, for students to make sensible viewpoints they need to know more about the topic than what was covered in the 30-min lecture. And that's precisely why this model works so well: students prepare for a class. And that is unheard of in the traditional model, where even lecturers make up crap on the spot.

Case-studies work on two levels. One, they immediately establish the relevance of a topic by linking it to a real-life situation. And there is no better motivator to learning than a strong relevance. Two, they offer students a chance to participate, or in other words, students learn actively. Further, the discussion gives rise to several interesting and unconventional views, and builds communication skills and confidence among students.

There is nothing new about this model. Like I said, this is the preferred approach in most business schools. And the concepts of relevance and engagement are cornerstones for trainings developed for the workplace. Why then can we not use this model in formal education where it will pay the most dividends? Imagine a generation that grows up learning how trigonometry is used to calculate the angle of flight take off or how magnets store large amounts of data in computers. Such a generation will not only be prepared to handle the real world, they will take it by storm.

When will we see Generation Storm?

The Iraq War

2007-05-03T04:00:00.000+05:30

I am not a Bush supporter, nor am I his worst critic. But, my sympathies are strongly with the President in the matter of the Iraq war. Several damning revelations since the start of war, most notably the CIA's intelligence failure, have caused not only Americans but people around the world to question the decision. In fact, the Republican party paid a heavy price in the mid-term elections held in October 2006. With the perfect 20/20 hindsight that we all possess, we can now say the war was a mistake. Even Bush, in the inner recesses of his soul, must agree.

But, what was it like in 2003? As the President of the most powerful nation on earth, but one that was attacked by terrorists on its own soil, with another rogue nation threatening to wipe you off the face of earth, what are your options? Sit back, relax and wait to see if Saddam makes a move? And if Saddam had nothing to hide, why was he so reluctant to allow UN inspections? Maybe, diplomacy was an option, but I doubt Saddam was interested in assuaging the anxities of the US. He probably relished being a thorn in Bush's posterior. So, I guess Bush decided to err on the side of caution.

Unfortunately for Bush, it turned out Saddam never had any WMDs. Or he somehow got rid of them. I am not familiar with the theory that the sole purpose of the war was to gain control of Iraq's oil resources. I wont comment on it, but I will say this: In this day and age, it is almost impossible to capture a sovereign nation and control its natural resources. Anyway, in my opinion, here's where the US faltered: after attacking Iraq and capturing Saddam, the US forces should have retreated. Bush has no right to use the taxpayer's money to try and establish democracy in Iraq. The US has done its part by liberating millions of Iraqis from the dictatorial rule of Saddam. Too bad if the Iraqis cant make something out of this. If the Iraqis dont have a leader that can unite all the warring factions and provide decisive leadership, then I guess they deserve to be caught in the throes of a civil war.

World's Most Powerless Person

2007-05-02T01:01:00.000+05:30

The American President is easily the world’s most powerful person although Osama Bin Laden is giving him a run for his money. But, do you wonder who the world’s most powerless person is? For obvious reasons, I am keeping ordinary citizens like you and me out of this race. And to make the search meaningful, I’ll limit my quest to national leaders, and in that, to people in positions that at least have a semblance of power. This will automatically eliminate choices like the President of India, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Iraq and the likes.

You should have guessed the winner by now. Yes, it’s our dear Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh. I don’t think there’s even a close second. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Singh. On the contrary, I believe he’s the kind of Prime Minster we’ve been desperately searching for. However, a Prime Minster also needs power, and that is where Mr. Singh lacks.

Mr. Singh was not the preferred choice for this position. In fact, he was never in contention until Mr. Sharad Pawar caused a furor over Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin. Mr. Singh has Mr. Pawar to thank as much as Mrs. Gandhi for his elevation as the leader of Republic India. Sadly, Mr. Singh was not chosen for his financial acumen or political wisdom. It was his image of being a soft-liner that won him the job, and on top of that, I don’t think he had any say over who got into his Cabinet. Even with that, if the Congress had secured a majority in Lok Sabha by itself, Mr. Singh would have had control over how his Government is run, despite Mrs. Gandhi holding the remote that is. Now, he has to work his way with the likes of Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav, and some of the political allies and supporters of the UPA don’t even belong in the same country. Yes, I refer to the Communist parties. The CPM and CPI have nothing in common with the Congress except their shared hatred of the BJP: Good enough to win an election and form a Government, but hardly sufficient to formulate progressive policies. (It is some consolation that Buddadeb Bhattacharya, Chief Minister of West Bengal, subscribes to a more realistic view of the industrial situation in India.)

So, Mr. Singh finds himself in an unenviable position, where he has the power to sign any law that he wants, but the Congress has tied his hands and the Left keeps hiding the pen.

10 Tips to succeeding at the workplace

2007-04-30T06:15:00.000+05:30

Visit any bookstore, and you will find several books on this matter. However, I feel most advice is targeted at mid-career professionals, and not so much the beginner. And the advice in this post will be particularly beneficial for beginners.What follows is from personal experience and home grown wisdom, but I assure you, these have worked for me. If you like what you read, I recommend you print this list and post it on your cubicle wall. You don’t have to keep working on these every minute, but if you get that feeling of your career hitting a brick wall, this list might give you some ideas.1. Don’t hate your job

This will influence your career more than the following 9 tips combined, so pay attention. We end up in our jobs for various reasons. Maybe, you needed the job to support your family, or you dropped out of college and had to survive. Even if your job is not in line with your aspirations, even if you have to work nights and weekends and cant find time to party, even if you did not get the promotion or raise you deserved, do not hate your job. You don’t have to start loving it, but I want you to see how you can use it to your advantage. For example, how can your current experience help you with your future plans? Can you make some connections that will be useful in the future? Get to actively know everyone in your team and beyond. Can you learn something from your coworkers? Does your employer have policies that reimburse you for continuing education?

Even if you absolutely hate your job, do not let this affect your attitude. Be a professional. An opportunity that interests you might come up, and you don’t want your boss to disregard you because you were not professional. And, hating your job is no excuse for poor performance. You are only deluding yourself by thinking so, and the sooner you snap out of it, the better. If you really feel stifled in your job, just get a different one.

2. Look at the big picture

How does your company make money? Does it sell products or services? What does the market look like and who are your major clients? Is this an emerging market or an existing one? Is the market on the rise or is it declining? Understand how new developments can impact your organization. For example, if you are working for a company that makes DVDs, you should know what HD-DVD and BLURAY are, how they might affect the DVD market.

Find out who owns your company and their track record. If they have started businesses before and failed, that might be a red flag. It does not mean they will fail this time as well, but you would want to pay close attention to where your company is headed. Doing this homework also gives a better feel of how you fit into the overall scheme of things. You can decide whether you want to continue in this field or switch careers. It also prepares you for nasty surprises like losing a client or your company being sold or taken over. You won’t know the exact events beforehand, but you will be much more open to these possibilities.

3. Look at your organization

Understand how your organization is structured. What are its different lines of business? Is there a department that does the kind of work you want to do? Find out how you can transition to that department.

Find out the number of layers between you and the CEO. If this number is greater than 7, this typically indicates bureaucracy. In other words, your bosses pay a lot of attention to their designation. And how many employees report to a typical manager? If it is more than 10, your organization might have a flat structure. Feel free to talk to other experienced employees or even your manager on how your organization “works”.

4. Annual performance review: Annual means year-long not once a year.

Most of us, me included, fall into the trap of collecting performance data when it is time to fill out evaluation forms. Like I said, almost all of us do this, so the ineptitude of the entire population negates any significant adverse effect to you. But, look at the opportunity you have; if you pay attention to it all year-long, and constantly work towards exceeding them, you are automatically a top-performer. And you won’t have to get into messy arguments about missing data or incorrect grades.

Of course, I assume you know what you will be graded on. If you don’t, ask to see a list of criteria on which your performance will be evaluated. Understand how these metrics translate to the actual job you are doing, and if you have any concerns, bring them up right away. Many organizations have a standard appraisal form for a particular role. However, the job functions of this role might vary across departments or projects. If you think the evaluation criteria are not relevant to what you are doing, then discuss this with your manager.

5. You be your judge

Trust me, the temptation to be part of the office crowd, the need to feel accepted, can be overpowering. It is alright to gel with your coworkers and be friendly with them. However, don’t let their opinion of you dictate your actions. For example, if you are in a meeting and you did not understand what was just said, then ask. Don’t feel that your coworkers will take you for an idiot. It all ties back to your annual review. If you think you need to know something that will affect your performance, and consequently your raise, then find it out regardless of what it takes. Don’t lose out on opportunities trying to please your coworkers.

In some cases, however, if pleasing a coworker by letting go an opportunity might help in the long run, do it. Again, don’t worry that others will brand you political. I am not asking you to be manipulative, but if it is a fair give-n-take, go for it.

6. You be your boss' judge

Most importantly, don’t judge your boss by what your coworkers' think of him or her. Figuring out your boss is a delicate matter, and you alone should do it. Bosses can be smart, stupid, smartly stupid or stupidly smart. Get a feel for what your coworkers think about your boss, but form your own impression of him or her based on your interactions. So long as your boss does not breathe down your neck everyday and gives you a fair performance evaluation, you should have no problems.

If some of your boss' decisions don’t make sense, try and understand the underlying motive. Is your boss trying to prove something to his superiors? Are these decisions linked to your boss' performance goals? Figure out these links and help him or her when it matters. You will win yourself a friend and can count on the favor being returned. And again, don’t care about what your coworkers have to say. They are not the ones giving you a promotion or raise.

7. Manage your time

I cannot overemphasize the importance of time management. If you are working a 9-6 job that does end at 6, you can skip this tip. However, if you are part of the majority that works late into the night and usually over weekends, then start by accepting that it is your fault and your fault alone. Yes, give it a moment to sink in.

Before I even talk about workload, let me draw your attention to some thing else that keeps you late at work. How much time do you spend on tea breaks, checking email and other personal websites, water-cooler conversations with coworkers, on the phone with a friend, etc? Do you deduct this time when you say you are working 12 hours?

Even if you are genuinely over-burdened, you are responsible for not bringing that up with your manager. If you already know the work assigned will need you to work late, let your manager know. You don’t have to refuse, but use the opportunity to showcase your commitment and loyalty to the organization. Even if you don’t have a choice of working late, don’t crib about it. No manager likes to have an employee that is uncooperative.

8. Negotiate, tactfully.

Inevitably, you will end up in situations where you disagree with what your boss or coworkers think or vice-versa. If not handled correctly, such situations can rapidly deteriorate into permanent hostilities. Even if such hostilities won’t cause you any harm, you should still avoid them. One of the hallmarks of success at the workplaces is your ability to influence people around you, and negotiation is the most potent weapon to have in your armory. Disagreements, by their nature, are win-lose situations: if one party wins, the other loses. Negotiation is a technique to turn disagreements into win-wins.

When you have a disagreement, do not immediately discard the demands and concerns of the other person. Instead, look at the situation from their point of view and understand their motivation. This will give you a better feel for the concenrs and insecurities of the other party. You can then use this knowledge to reach an amicable settlement without necessarily compromising on your position. As an example, let's say your manager wants you to work on a weekend, but you don’t want to. Instead of refusing point blank, take a moment to understand why you are being asked to work on a weekend? Is it because the manager wants to make sure your team meets a deadline? If so, can you think of an alternative to meet the deadline without working on the weekend? Are you okay with putting in a few extra hours the following week to cover up?

The key is to view disagreements as opportunities, and not as unpleasant problems. Learn to smooth talk your way into getting what you want. Try not to compromise your position as much as you can, but if you need to make some concessions, do it. It’s better to take a few losses now than to have a relationship permanently scarred. Not only might you have to work with this other person in the future, he or she might perpetuate negative impressions about you.

9. Build an image

You are a consistent top-performer and your team members just adore you. But, what about the people that don’t interact with you? What impression are they forming about you by watching you about the office? What’s your boss’ perception? This might sound shallow, but you do really need to maintain an image - an image of confidence and professionalism.

Work on your English. Expand your vocabulary so you are not repeating the same sentence structure and buzz words in every meeting. Don’t show off your language skills all the time; you will only disgust your coworkers. Instead, give a glimpse of it every now and then. Learn to write crisp and clear emails that are to the point.

Dress well. Take tips from your close friends on what suits you and what don’t. Have a neat hairdo. Go for an exotic haircut, if you want, but make sure it is well maintained. Shave everyday, or at least every other day, and if you have a beard and moustache, make sure they are neatly trimmed. Look at photos of yourself and see what you can do to make your appearance more pleasing? Do you wear glasses that are straight out of a 70s movie? What about your shoes? Are they polished? You dont have to dress up like a celebrity, but you should look smart and sharp.

I cant speak much for women, but I have two pieces of advice. One, look at how other women at your work dress, and try to fit in. For example, if your coworkers are into jeans and tops, or western-style formals, don’t turn up everyday in salwar suits. You will stick out like a sore thumb. If you are not comfortable with contemporary fashion, go for chic ethnic dresses. Number two, never repeat your dresses in the same week, and never ever wear the same dress on consecutive days – even if you’ve washed them. This is true for the guys too.

10. Learn from failures

It’s okay to make mistakes, but it’s important you learn from them. Don’t always stick to the tried and tested. Instead, try out new ideas. Fear of failure is the most common factor that inhibits growth. Conquer it. Once you have failed and bounced back, you wont dread it anymore. In fact, it adds to your confidence, and you will enjoy living on the edge.

If you don’t believe me, just look at sports. Even the greatest athletes are not perfect. They have all lost games in their career. They have weaknesses that are exploited from time to time. But most importantly, they learn from their losses. And that what makes them great.

There are many other things you can do to get ahead, but if you must start somewhere, this is a pretty good place. Do leave a comment to let me know what you think.

Instructional Designer!!¿¿??

2007-04-27T07:49:00.000+05:30

"An instructional designer.”
“A what?”

That’s what I get from 99 out of 100 people when I tell them what I do. I have to react quickly (not anymore actually, because I am now expecting that reaction) and say something funny like, “That’s just a glorified term for a corporate trainer.” My relief in conquering the awkward moment is often short-lived for I then hear, “I see. So what do you train on?”

That might seem an innocuous, and even legitimate, question for all those non-instructional designers reading this. But, if you are an instructional designer, you will know there’s no easy way to get out of that. So let me take this opportunity to explain what the hell an instructional designer does, so the next time an ignoramus mistakes me for an industrial designer, I will direct him to this blog.

Who is an instructional designer?
Put simply, an instructional designer creates effective trainings. By effective, I simply mean the training will achieve its goal. For example, if you want to train your employees on a quality process, the instructional designer’s job is to create an effective training program so your employees don’t walk out of the training looking dazed and drugged, but are actually ready to use the process.

What does an instructional designer train on?
Anything. Yes, the content, or “subject matter” as we call it, doesn’t matter. Instructional designers can be, and usually are, completely unfamiliar with the subject matter, but still create effective trainings. Of course, knowledge of the subject matter helps, but it is not a requirement to be a good instructional designer. How do we do it? Read on…

How can instructional designers create effective trainings without knowing anything about the subject matter?
Instructional designers collaborate with subject matter experts, or SMEs, to understand of the content. SMEs are content gurus. They know the content inside out; they eat, breathe and live it. They have seen everything there is to that content.

Why can’t the SMEs create the training themselves?
Sure they can. However, to develop effective training, you need to answer these questions: Why do you need this training? What are you training on? Who are you training? How are you training? How much should you train? Will the audience learn? Will the audience use what they learned back on the job? And so on. If you entrust the entire training responsibility to an SME, the only question that is usually answered is the “what” because that’s the SME’s forte. And content gurus that they are, SMEs often mistake content scope for effectiveness. That is to say, they succumb to the notion of “the more content we teach, the more effective the training”, which is not only untrue but also harmful.

In addition, there are other factors to consider. For example, the audience. If you a creating a training class on software programming, you need to understand how much your audience knows when they walk into the class. Similarly, the audience should know right at the beginning what they will learn in the class. This helps set their expectations and focus their thoughts. Considerations such as these and others are usually overlooked with the unfortunate result training branded as “ineffective”.

So, do instructional designers learn the content and then create the training?
No, instructional designers are primarily engaged in figuring out answers to the questions I listed above. They then rely on the SMEs to provide all the content. However, another important responsibility of an instructional designer is to review the content to make sure it is at a level that can be understood by the audience. A common trait of SMEs is to use jargons and acronyms, which may be every day terms for an expert but totally unfamiliar to the novice. And being an “outsider” to the content, a designer is ideally suited for this purpose. Then, there are learning strategies to consider such as: Should we include demonstrations? Should there be interactive exercises? And so on.

Why cannot the SME play be the instructional designer?
They most certainly can. In fact, many SMEs unknowingly address the questions I raised above, and often create trainings that are not only liked and appreciated by the training audience, but also prove effective from a performance and business standpoint. But remember, SMEs are content experts, and their interest lies in mastering the content area and exploring new aspects of it. Consequently, there is some resistance and reluctance when SMEs are asked to take up the training responsibility.

Should I hire an instructional designer every time I need to create training?
Not necessarily. On the contrary, for short trainings, it works best if the SME plays the role of the instructional designer. This expedites the training development, reduces development cost (because you only have one resource working), and eliminates any communication constraints. This approach is called rapid development where the SME uses off-the-shelf training development tools such as Adobe Captivate to quickly design a training program.

India...10 years from now

2007-04-26T04:55:00.000+05:30

These days, nothing written about about India, particularly in India, is complete without a mention of how India will beat China, sooner than later, in the race for global domination. There are some very valid underlying assumptions that lead business pundits to make these conclusions. But, several others are ignored, ones that could compound over the years and negate everything we have achieved so far.Almost everyone agrees the present trend of growth driven by capitalism started with the economic reforms in 1991. Which means, we are new to economic growth, still learning how to sustain it, and not even close to figuring out how to do it right. For now, we are trying our best to emulate the developed nations. In other words, we are playing catch up, and nothing wrong with that. So long as we realize this is lap 2 of a 50 lap race and we should try and sustain the momentum rather than go all out.But, there are so many opportunities for growth, you say? Why not whiz past the competition to the checkered flag? Well, the prosperity experienced by India is a direct and sole consequence of the IT boom. And if you ask me, the IT boom was one of the most fortunate accidents that ever happened to a nation. Think abou this: What have we done to deserve the benefits of the boom? Our English language skills, the main reason why India is such a lucrative offshore destination, are the legacy of the British, yes, the same ones who we so proudly drove out of our country. Sure, we had enterprizing young men who foresaw the opportunity and mobilized millions of middle-class English-speaking graduates from factories and warehouses into air-conditioned offices, but even after being involved in the IT revolution for a decade now, we are yet to invent a single IT product or software. The only area where our creativity has shown results is in our ingenuity to develop new ways of propagating piracy.

Let's do a reality check here. Our infrastructure: deplorable; education system: miserable; political and bureaucratic structure: rotten; social values: outdated; health care: nonexistent; law and order: unreliable. It is pretty clear the current economic growth is despite these ills, and not because of them. And that's the big difference. These factors are the cornerstones of sustainable longterm prosperity, and if you look at the ten most developed or richest countries in the world, you will see each of these factors is actively supports and sustains, barring the political system, of course, which has its own ways. The question, then, is what is India doing to change this situation? The answer is painfully obvious: nothing.

Plans to make Mumbai a Shanghai have been on paper for years now and by the time it gets approved, the plan will already be outdated. The decision to privatize Delhi and Mumbai airports was met with staunch opposition that raised an unbearable stench, but thankfully, sense prevailed. Most of India still uses the railways as the primary mode of travel, and despite the stellar financial figures, the railways is in a terrible condition. Can you imagine the ensuing outburst if the government were to privatize railways? The recent boom in the domestic airline travel might indicate prosperity, but our airports are badly equipped to handle existing flight traffic, let alone future increases. And what about our reliance on oil? Thanks to the auto boom, our consumption of oil keeps rising, but what is our contigency plan if a crisis were to erupt in the middle east? When Ahmedijinad may use the bomb is anyone's guess. Some more signs of an impending disaster:

1. Nandigram. No due diligence was done before identifying a SEZ that underlines the incompetency of our governments, and the over-reaction to the incident shows our outdated thinking.

2. Walmart. The central Government opposes Walmart's entry because the retail giant might put several middlemen and distributors out of work. Certainly, a sizeable percentage of the population, but what about the millions of consumers and farmers who will stand to gain from lowered prices and efficient supply chains? And even worse, why stop Walmart, but not Reliance which has exactly the same plans?

3. Political structure. Murli Manohar Joshi created a ruckus by reducing fees at IIMs to 20,000 and now it's Arjun Singh's turn to make some noise by announcing new quotas. These moves only manage to jeopardize the future of thousands of students, some of whom might be the next Jack Welch or Narayana Murthy.

So where are we headed? I can see these social and political ills closing in on the economic growth we are having. We already have a big divide in the economic power of urban and rural India. Without radical social and political changes, this divide will widen further, and could lead to an economic debacle like the one we witnessed in Indonesia and Argentina. Even worse, such a situation could perpetuate political chaos and unrest, and the clock on our progress will be turned back by 50 years.

Having said that, I recently read a book called Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman, where the author promotes the view that economic prosperity will lead to social and moral progress. He backs this up with several well-researched and nicely articulated examples. Let's all pray the current economic growth will continue despite the ills, and consequently rid us of these.