Even as I write my own blog, check my facebook profile for messages and review the enterprise collaboration strategy for the company I work for, not for a moment do I stop believing in the power of human connect and the power of building personal relationships -- which was evident from the energy I felt at a recently-concluded annual customer - leadership meet that Genpact organizes every year.
We invite some of our customers and top leadership to get away for a couple of days of hardcore networking, strategizing and..partying! While the days consist mainly of business presentations and sharing of best practices, the evenings are filled with good old fashioned drinking, dancing...you name it!
I often meet these people (both customers and employees) at work..at conferences..at meetings but nothing beats the energy and connect one feels when you put people together in an informal setting...agreeing..fighting..debating...and partying. So sorry Cisco and HP..if you think your virtually-connected world is going to take over, it won't. No matter how evolved we get technologically, it will always be about getting people together..building relationships..working and playing together. And if you were an airline company, you'd say thank god for that!
Friday, March 12, 2010
NASSCOM India Leadership Forum 2010
Last month I was in Mumbai for the NASSCOM India Leadership Forum. Billed as Asia's Most Awaited Leadership Conference, it was a powerful platform that brought together over 150 organizations - both big and small from around the world. But from all the key messages that one took away, the one that was the most powerful was the one that wasn't even stated -- the industry has expanded far beyond India.
The game has grown exponentially and the international flavor of the conference was evident and refreshing - over twenty different countries had delegations present. It wasn't just the usual suspects from Europe, Americas etc who made their presence felt -- the conference was as much about a Poland or an Egypt as it was about an India. The undercurrent clearly had moved away from "the recession is over and its business as usual" to the changing way services will be sold in the future and that the newer players are entering and transforming the industry.
On a separate note, another thing I found pretty impressive was the slickness of the conference and quality of presentations etc. The fact that they had significant social media presence with their own blog and twitter page only helped!
The game has grown exponentially and the international flavor of the conference was evident and refreshing - over twenty different countries had delegations present. It wasn't just the usual suspects from Europe, Americas etc who made their presence felt -- the conference was as much about a Poland or an Egypt as it was about an India. The undercurrent clearly had moved away from "the recession is over and its business as usual" to the changing way services will be sold in the future and that the newer players are entering and transforming the industry.
On a separate note, another thing I found pretty impressive was the slickness of the conference and quality of presentations etc. The fact that they had significant social media presence with their own blog and twitter page only helped!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Leading with Cricket
I was in a heated debate with a bunch of old friends catching up over a drink and we debated some questions on leadership and sports. I caught a 16 hour flight soon after that and thought it was so good a debate that I should capture the questions and my views!
The thoughts resulted in an article for People Matters magazine which (hopefully) captures the difference between winning teams and others. Check it out!
The thoughts resulted in an article for People Matters magazine which (hopefully) captures the difference between winning teams and others. Check it out!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wild Boars and Wilder Dreams
Being bang in the midst of what can only be described as the middle of nowhere (I’m on vacation in the wild animal-infested Nilgiri forests of southern India) – sort of clears up your mind. Down a shot of locally brewed alcohol and it even allows for a spot of introspection!!
The wildest of wild dreamers couldn't have dreamt about where our industry would end up going. There are several visionaries around who dreamt big and achieved big - but even they wouldn't have imagined as to where this has come to.
Even today, it's difficult for most people to understand why this has worked – was it just a matter of the right timing or is there something more to it…
While that maybe too lyrical a question, one thing is probably true -- when people have a vision today, they are probably "under dreaming" as to where their dream can go - in the way companies run, who does what etc. The boundaries between companies in terms of doing work, the boundaries where competencies get created and the amount of value that can be and gets created in that process and the expertise that is globally distributed...all that one can dream of and envision...are probably 'under dreamt' and 'under-visioned.' Dream of a company that designs, prices, markets and sells a product or a service and does nothing else itself....everything else it buys through an eco system of partners!
It's become so much more mainstream now. There was a point when only some companies thought about it and it was possible only for large companies who were global. Today, it’s all pervasive in terms of culture, industry, size etc. and one of the interesting things is that it has spread its wings into countries that earlier were only delivery centers but are now buying services as well. That’s another indication of where this is going.
Therefore, any of us associated with any aspect of running companies who are in decision-making positions should really force ourselves to dream harder, else it’s likely that we will miss something. A lot of people who read this might ask which planet I’m on! They might argue that this has gone as far as it could…but that’s just my view.
The wildest of wild dreamers couldn't have dreamt about where our industry would end up going. There are several visionaries around who dreamt big and achieved big - but even they wouldn't have imagined as to where this has come to.
Even today, it's difficult for most people to understand why this has worked – was it just a matter of the right timing or is there something more to it…
While that maybe too lyrical a question, one thing is probably true -- when people have a vision today, they are probably "under dreaming" as to where their dream can go - in the way companies run, who does what etc. The boundaries between companies in terms of doing work, the boundaries where competencies get created and the amount of value that can be and gets created in that process and the expertise that is globally distributed...all that one can dream of and envision...are probably 'under dreamt' and 'under-visioned.' Dream of a company that designs, prices, markets and sells a product or a service and does nothing else itself....everything else it buys through an eco system of partners!
It's become so much more mainstream now. There was a point when only some companies thought about it and it was possible only for large companies who were global. Today, it’s all pervasive in terms of culture, industry, size etc. and one of the interesting things is that it has spread its wings into countries that earlier were only delivery centers but are now buying services as well. That’s another indication of where this is going.
Therefore, any of us associated with any aspect of running companies who are in decision-making positions should really force ourselves to dream harder, else it’s likely that we will miss something. A lot of people who read this might ask which planet I’m on! They might argue that this has gone as far as it could…but that’s just my view.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Playing “safe” vs. The Whole Nine Yards
A dilemma that many first-time buyers of global services face is whether to take small steps into outsourcing or dive right in. Many end up putting in minimal effort, which results in failure. What this says to me is that although they know it will be successful, they don’t want to go full throttle because it isn’t easy to do so. No CEO is interested in spending time on just the small stuff and it ends up in a self fulfilling prophecy where you go in putting little effort because you think you might fail, and you do end up failing because you didn’t put in enough effort!
An ideal way that works both for the buyer and the supplier is to go ahead with one process, Finance and Accounting for instance, and as soon as you start seeing results, move forward and get all your ducks lined up for the next phase and so on. That’s what most companies do. Frankly, it keeps the supplier on their toes because they know there is no chance of getting the next scope of work, unless they deliver on the first phase.
The industry has seen clients who’ve doubled the services they have globalized every year for 5 consecutive years. The only way you do that is by adding more and more scope through success.
An ideal way that works both for the buyer and the supplier is to go ahead with one process, Finance and Accounting for instance, and as soon as you start seeing results, move forward and get all your ducks lined up for the next phase and so on. That’s what most companies do. Frankly, it keeps the supplier on their toes because they know there is no chance of getting the next scope of work, unless they deliver on the first phase.
The industry has seen clients who’ve doubled the services they have globalized every year for 5 consecutive years. The only way you do that is by adding more and more scope through success.
Speed is all that matters!
Over the years, a basic pattern I’ve noticed in partnerships that don’t work is that people often tend to spend too much time up front in the selection process and too little time, later on, in the process of deciding how you want to take the partnership forward.
Let me explain. Once a company decides, broadly speaking, that they want to enter a partnership with a firm that provides global services, they typically spend 6 months talking to 10 different suppliers to zero in on 2 final contenders. Then, they spend 6 more months deciding between the two!
This is a real waste! The way it should work is that they should quickly figure out who the provider will be and then spend as much time working with the provider to create a roadmap of ensuring how the partnership will work and how it will be successful.
Take the example of Google -- they launch products almost as soon as they think them up! This works because they let the users find out for themselves what's working and what isn't and then go back in and fix the bugs based on user-feedback. Putting the word 'beta' on these products / applications lets the users know that hey, this is new and I'm allowed to play around and give my feedback -- which, in most probability, will get actioned on. This is fantastic! In contrast are other organizations who invest months, sometime years in products and then perhaps even more time figuring out what's wrong with them.
What typically happens when it comes to partnering with organizations that sell global services, you’re take 6 months to go from 10 to 2 and another 6 months to go from 2 to 1, that’s a year gone by already! So what ends up happening is that the Board starts putting pressure to get the relationship going and you jump right in, not thinking through the roadmap and not spending enough time figuring out how it will be successful.
What I would do is decide quickly who the provider will be and put them up to a test by asking them to come work with me on a project and help create a roadmap that will work for both. Most buyers just create a plan and hand it over. That's not the right way.
Collaboration is the trick to a successful partnership. More about Collaboration later.
Let me explain. Once a company decides, broadly speaking, that they want to enter a partnership with a firm that provides global services, they typically spend 6 months talking to 10 different suppliers to zero in on 2 final contenders. Then, they spend 6 more months deciding between the two!
This is a real waste! The way it should work is that they should quickly figure out who the provider will be and then spend as much time working with the provider to create a roadmap of ensuring how the partnership will work and how it will be successful.
Take the example of Google -- they launch products almost as soon as they think them up! This works because they let the users find out for themselves what's working and what isn't and then go back in and fix the bugs based on user-feedback. Putting the word 'beta' on these products / applications lets the users know that hey, this is new and I'm allowed to play around and give my feedback -- which, in most probability, will get actioned on. This is fantastic! In contrast are other organizations who invest months, sometime years in products and then perhaps even more time figuring out what's wrong with them.
What typically happens when it comes to partnering with organizations that sell global services, you’re take 6 months to go from 10 to 2 and another 6 months to go from 2 to 1, that’s a year gone by already! So what ends up happening is that the Board starts putting pressure to get the relationship going and you jump right in, not thinking through the roadmap and not spending enough time figuring out how it will be successful.
What I would do is decide quickly who the provider will be and put them up to a test by asking them to come work with me on a project and help create a roadmap that will work for both. Most buyers just create a plan and hand it over. That's not the right way.
Collaboration is the trick to a successful partnership. More about Collaboration later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)