About six years ago, I created this website so that I could write more often and engage with my friends and colleagues on topics of mutual interest. When I look back, I can give myself a B for the effort... I did not write as regularly as I wanted to, and perhaps the topics were rather diverse and scattered; but a few posts did create a lot of engagement. Of course, the post that is most memorable to me and several others who talk to me about it was written when I left Tata Communications. 

During the last 30 months, my work has been quite diverse... teaching at b-schools, executive education for corporates, publishing management cases, mentoring a few start-ups, and more. I have been using GlobalGyan informally as a "brand" for many of my activities. Now, my education work is entering the next, more structured phase under the banner of GlobalGyan Academy of Management Education. 

Soon, www.globalgyan.in will become the portal for that venture. I will continue to write on relevant management topics in the GlobalGyan blog. For other personal topics, I need to figure out an alternative... most likely at Medium.  

If you came to www.globalgyan.in looking for information on GlobalGyan Academy, please bear with me for a few more days. The New Year will see a new beginning for this website.

In an earlier post, we looked at how network orchestrators like Uber, Zomato and Facebook see exponential increase in connections as they add more participants. There is clearly tremendous value in being a first mover and growing market share rapidly, even at the cost of reasonable business economics. Yet, we also see that none of the networks are really unique – every platform idea has spawned several other copy-cats. Most of the markets are still nascent and have a lot of room for growth, so everyone believes they have a chance at success. Moreover, given the asset-light model of network orchestrators, there are no real entry barriers for a me-too product.

This absence of competitive advantage is emphasized by the apparent lack of any platform loyalty by network participants. For instance, most customers of ride-sharing services have downloaded more than one app on their phones; likewise, many drivers have signed up to two or more networks. Availability and price seem to determine choice for both sides of the network. A similar situation of bargain-seeking can be seen in e-commerce and real-estate marketplaces.

As long as the role of the platform is to just aggregate and enable discovery of supply and demand (at no cost to either), there is limited stickiness. The next platform with a slightly lower price or transaction fee will churn traffic to its network. In an extreme but plausible scenario, why wouldn’t the network participants try to disintermediate the platforms? On several occasions, drivers of the ride-sharing networks pass along their business cards, asking to be contacted directly. What would stop the customer from saving a bunch of phone numbers for the promise of a lower price?

Essentially, how do these platforms add value beyond discovery and aggregation? Let us discuss two major sources of value and differentiation that appear to be working for the successful platforms.

Information

Every time a transaction occurs in the network, the platform gains valuable information that can be used to predict future demand / behavior. A taxi network that has analyzed demand / supply patterns can help its driver partners to locate themselves at specific locations that increase the chances of being hailed quickly. The network can ensure that all the drivers do not land up at the most obvious hotspots (e.g. airports) even as customers are waiting elsewhere. Not only does this help the drivers increase capacity utilization, but customers also benefit from faster access to rides. In fact, surge pricing reflects inefficiency in network planning (matching of demand to supply).

The principle would apply to any of the network businesses. E-retailers can plan inventory and logistics better, even as they offer valuable suggestions to customers on what else they might buy. A social network would be able to match people with other people, and people with advertisers much better.

Valuable insights about the network can create improved efficiency on the supply side, and customized access and experience on the demand side.

Risk Management

Any interaction or transaction carries an inherent risk of something going wrong. When it is done bilaterally, each party builds in safeguards to mitigate risk, thus creating inefficiency. If I were to book a cab, I would ask the driver to reach at least half an hour early because I am worried (based on previous experiences) that he would be late. It is inefficient for both of us – the taxi remains unproductive for that time and I might have to pay some waiting charges. Or we mitigate risks by purchasing from well-known sellers (brands) because they offer an assurance of quality. We could have bought a shirt directly, at a lower price, from the contract manufacturer who actually made the branded shirt.

The network platform, as a third-party intermediary, can take on the responsibility of efficiently mitigating our risk, partly through the information it collects and partly through its own due-diligence. By providing an estimated time of arrival (using location information of the driver and rider), the taxi app gives an assurance of availability. By collecting user feedback ratings, the network builds a self-correcting mechanism of quality. Through physical due-diligence (e.g. supplier verification), and standing guarantee to the fulfilment of the transaction, the platform mitigates risk for all parties involved.

Assurance of fulfilment, timeliness and quality by the platform can reduce transaction anxiety and increase stickiness amongst network participants   

There is an Uber of something for almost every industry now. Actually, there are many of them. What will differentiate a successful platform from yet another copy-cat is the ability to use information effectively and efficiently to derive meaningful insights and reduce transaction anxiety.

(This was first published at DNA on October 20, 2015.)

Everywhere you look, there’s an Uber for something nowadays, whether it is healthcare or heavy equipment. The tremendous excitement about companies termed as Network Orchestrators makes one wonder if a dramatic discovery has been in the world of business.

Platforms like Uber or Ola connect drivers with riders and takes a share of the transaction value. Zomato or Foursquare connect restaurants with customers through an exchange of information (menus, photos, reviews, etc.); as they add advertising or delivery transactions, the platforms make money through revenue share. Similarly, Facebook and Twitter connect people with other people or businesses through information; revenue is made through advertising or transactions.  

In essence, network orchestrators enable ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers’ to discover and transact with each other. Most of these companies are rather asset light and their intrinsic value is a function of the number of participants in the network. If you were the only person on Facebook, zero connections would be made. Two persons would create one connection, three persons three connections, and six connections would be possible with four persons. A network of “n” participants gives rise to (n²-n)/2 connections, i.e. the number of transactions is an exponential function of the number of participants. While traditional business models grow linearly when their customer numbers increase, networks grow exponentially when their participants increase.

However, the idea of networks is not new. They have been around for centuries. We can seem them all around us. Financial exchanges are networks that connect buyers and sellers of shares; telecom networks connect speakers with listeners; banks connect depositors and borrowers; and shopping malls connect stores with shoppers. Brokers, whether they be of real-estate, wedding, or acquisition deals, have been around for a while too. Someone jokingly said that Sage Narada from Indian mythology ran the first information network.

So, what is all the excitement about? Why is there so much hype now about network models, and more importantly, such high valuations chasing them? There are three major reasons:

First, technology – a combination of the Internet, mobility and location-tracking – is enabling unprecedented scale to the networks. A real-estate broker was constrained by her time and also the localities which she could cover; an online brokerage has no such limitations. A retail store has constraints of time, location and (physical) space; an e-commerce site has no such issues. The use of technology and automation enables each platform to potentially reach every human being who can theoretically be targeted for that product or service; consequently, value increases exponentially.

Second, networks are being discovered in industries that were not seen as “network-friendly.” For instance, the automobile business was not considered a technology business; however, Uber is playing on the emerging mindset that customers do not need cars, they need a transportation service. Most “traditional” businesses probably have network models hidden in them, the orchestrators are just creating more efficiency and customer satisfaction, thereby taking significant market share away from incumbents.

Third, many of the traditional network businesses lost sight of their core operating model somewhere along the way. Banks, for instance, became asset heavy with lots of branches, systems and people; they are no longer efficiently connecting savings and loans. Similarly, many telecom operators moved to asset based, monthly rental models from transaction led, per minute pricing. This has given an opportunity for new-age players to build more efficient networks. Lending Club, anonline marketplace for peer lending connects depositors and borrowers at a fraction of the cost of traditional banks. Internet-based telephony and messaging company, Whatsapp which rides on others’ telecom infrastructure and provides free services, has 800 million active users, more than any mobile operator in the world.

Network business models are not new; neither are they technology businesses. The most successful of them use technology to accelerate their growth, discover hidden networks in traditional industries and create highly efficient, asset-light business models. Every company can gain from network business models; they just need to know where to look.

(This was first published at DNA on October 10, 2015.)

Mobile operators complain that spectrum prices are too high in India. Of course, the government policy of releasing small chunks of scarce spectrum at irregular intervals and setting high reserve prices is faulty. But that has not prevented mobile operators from bidding huge, unviable amounts to corner that spectrum even if it has come at the cost of required investments in network expansion. Indeed, there are now demands that spectrum in 700MHz be released by the government for which there would presumably be a mad rush. Some industry insiders say that the leading operators would rather wait to invest in building networks in the more efficient 700 MHz spectrum than in 1800 and 2100 MHz. Naturally that begs the question why so much money was spent in acquiring the latter spectrum.

There can be no denying that a lot of spectrum in India remains underutilized by the defence and other government bodies. But it is also true that private mobile operators have been extremely inefficient in using the spectrum for which they have paid huge amounts. A recent audit by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has reportedly  shown that better optimization of the network could result in dramatic improvements in quality of service. It has also been found that operators have set aside spectrum for data capacity expansion at the expense of their voice quality. And then we have the spectacular case of spectrum inefficiency: an operator who acquired 20MHz of pan-India spectrum in 2010 for Rs 12840 crore has not launched services even five years later.

An additional issue that has prevented network roll-out, at least in some cases, is that of permissions for tower infrastructure. Recent push-back amongst municipal authorities in permitting cell-sites in dense urban locations coupled with unnecessary and unscientific scare-mongering about the impact of radiation have added to the problem. The government needs to create certain national guidelines for critical infrastructure like cell-sites and fiber networks. The ambitions of a Digital India cannot be held ransom to by local municipalities, building societies and activists.

The suggestion in the TRAI consultation paper that operators should not charge for calls that are dropped is welcome: why should customers pay for a service that they did not receive? Unfortunately, the devil would be in the detail of its implementation. Envisage a scenario of a customer of Operator A calling the customer of Operator B and the call drops in the 50^th second of a minute; how is it established which operator dropped the call? Should both operators not charge for that minute, in which case the more efficient operator would lose revenue due to the failure of the other? How do customers keep track of this? TRAI should provide clarification on the mechanisms for not charging and compensating customers for call drops.

The most important action, however, that the DoT and TRAI must take is to examine the real causes for the deterioration of voice networks in India by doing an actual technical audit of all the mobile networks. Instead of being pressured into giving out more spectrum to those who are seeking to corner it, they must ensure effective utilization of spectrum that has already been allocated. If commensurate capital expenditure in network expansion does not follow spectrum acquisition, then a question must be raised about the underlying strategic logic of such investment. Further, the TRAI must study if a few players are blocking effective competition by pricing spectrum out of reach of the others. Do customers really have competitive choice in terms of enough differences in service offerings, quality and prices between various operators? Are call-drops just a symptom of a bigger structural problem in the Indian telecom industry?

(Disclosure: I was associated very closely with the Tata group's telecom business for many years. I continue to remain engaged in advisory services (mostly, teaching/training) with the Tata group telecom companies and other mobile/tech companies.

Last night saw one of the longest keynote announcements from Apple. At over 2-hours, it packed in updates to all their major product categories except computers. John Gruber has a nice summary of the event that you should read.

I wanted to share a couple of observations:

New iPad

When the original iPad was unveiled in 2010, I wrote that this was a computing device for the GAAKS - Grandparents, Aunties, Average J at work, Kids and Students. Over the years, the iPad evolved into a highly capable computer, replacing the use of a PC for many. But for some segments, it was still a media/reader accessory to the traditional laptops. While the iPad offered the great advantage of touch and easy access, it lacked some of the features that power users normally sought. In the business world, it's surely the physical keyboard. In some of the creative fields, perhaps the ability to have precision inputs. The size of the screen and the tablet's computing power were also "weaknesses", for many.

Apple has now made a major push into the enterprise, through partnerships with IBM and Cisco. So it was but natural that iPad would evolve into a device targeted at professionals. The iPad Pro appears to address the "shortcomings" of the previous iPads with its larger screen (13") and a processor that is superior to that of most PCs! More interesting were the two input accessories that were launched - the Smart keyboard and the Pencil. One would need to experience them before getting to a verdict but the videos and demos were superb. 

Nearly two years ago while watching the Indian super-hero movie (Krrish 3), I couldn't help but feel sad that Bollywood movie-makers weren't thinking big enough. I had suggested that if 100-million middle class Indians spent $1 each, a movie could garner Rs 600 crore ($100 million then) -- at that time, Krrish 3 had become the second-highest grossing Indian movie with just Rs 250 crore.

This year, Baahubali crossed Rs 500 crore in India collections, the only movie to do so.  

Let's take this Rs 500 crore number. Assuming an average ticket price of Rs 100 (using a 25:75 split between multiplexes and single screen theatres), it means 50 million tickets sold. Anecdotal evidence (including my own behaviour) suggests that many people watched the movie 2-3 (or more) times. That would mean fewer than 50 million unique viewers, perhaps 30 million or so. Imagine... the most successful Indian movies have less than 3% market penetration! Even if we considered the 140 million cable/DTH (subscription TV) households as the addressable market based on affordability, we are looking at a 5% penetration.

On the other hand, in the US market, a highly successful movie like the Avengers grossed upwards of $600mn, translating into about 75 million tickets sold (at just over $8 per ticket). As such, the ticket numbers (75mn in USA vs. 50mn in India) don't look very different but given the vastly different denominators (population: 319mn vs. 1267mn), one would expect much larger numbers here. 

There are probably two major reasons why Indian movies have such low penetration:

1. Content is not universally acceptable. Even in a highly fragmented market such as cinema, it is tough to believe that the most successful product appeals to just 5% of the market. Different languages spoken in India adds to the challenge. Just 45% of the population knows Hindi, thus ruling out the most popular Bollywood movies to a majority of the market. 

2. Reach of cinemas is still very low. India has 9000 cinema screens, giving it a density of just 8 per a million population. On the other hand, the US has 117! Therefore, even if a good movie with universal appeal were to be made, access would still be a huge issue. Obviously, cable & satellite TV has much greater reach but far less monetization (on an average about Rs 50 crore per movie). Further, most Indian movies have also not been very creative or aggressive in the after-movie market of accessories, merchandising and digital content/games. 

On the first factor, Baahubali has made an interesting beginning* by releasing Hindi, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam versions simultaneously, thus addressing over 60% of the market. Even the theme - an Indian super-hero movie on the lines of popular mythology / historical stories - probably had wider appeal. The cast included well-known stars from the southern states; if there had been a recognized Bollywood star, I guess the Hindi version would have done much better. This could hold the formula for future, large budget Indian movies: 

* Stories that can connect across cultural groups (fantasy / mythology / patriotism / kids)

* Dubbed simultaneously in all major languages (Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati, Malayalam... would hit almost 75%)

* Multi-starrers with leading actors/actresses from various regions

On the second factor, it would be interesting to see if Baahubali can revive an interest (and value) of TV rights for a movie. There hasn't been much to see on the merchandising front too.

The profits from the first Baahubali should give its makers (and other producers) the confidence to push the boundaries next year. It would be exciting to see an Indian movie cross Rs 1000 crores ($150mn now) in revenues soon. There, that's the new target!

(* Other movies like Roja, Robot and Bombay were also released in multiple languages earlier. Baahubali is the only one amongst the all-time box office leaders.) 

It is college admission time and we are outraged (again) as various Indian colleges announce their cut-off levels. A few at the Delhi University are at 100% and most are above 90%. So we will rant for a while, and like our friend Ali Haider sang many years ago say, "Yahan ka system hi hai kharab!" 

Why is the cut-off at 98% or 100%? Obviously, these colleges have received applications from a sufficient number of students with those marks - else why would they create an artificial entry barrier. Earlier, these colleges didn't have such high thresholds for entry, as confirmed by a celebrity media anchor (rather modestly): 

Next on news today at 9: crazy cut offs. 98 per cent needed to get into a top Eco college. I certainly wouldn't have made it!

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) June 25, 2015

So why have the cut-offs crept up? 

Maybe the kids are getting brighter - they have many more avenues to learn from and are therefore, smarter than ever before. Perhaps the exams are getting easier, in an attempt to make education easier and more inclusive. Whatever the reason might be, we now have a greater demand from youngsters who have scored high marks in their school exams and are seeking higher education amongst the top Indian colleges. 

How can a large and increasing demand be a problem? Under normal market circumstances, more demand is good. But in education, we don't have a normal market. While there are many colleges (supply), the problem is that there are just not enough good quality ones. Due to various regulations and controls, only the politically connected or the unscrupulous seem to be investing in expanding education facilities. The situation is so bad that many folks who have young children are wondering how much they have to save every month if they had to send their children for studies overseas.

Given that education is so fundamental to our thinking and the choices we make, I believe that no government - irrespective of ideology - will give up control . So is there no way out? 

The answer could be IIN. 

Is that a joke!? Wait, before you fall off your chair... here's what I mean... let us consider the IIN concept (as shown in the ads) - that you don't necessarily need to go to a formal college to learn the skills that are required to succeed in life. There are several, emerging options - many enabled by technology - which can substitute formal college education... it's just that you will not get the degree.

And it is the degree granting authority of the universities / colleges that give them the power, why they are in so much demand. The degree matters, partly for the social recognition (remember that photo with a funny hat and gown), but mostly because the job market demands a degree, creating yet another entry barrier. Rarely do you come across a job that is not qualified by the degree that is necessary for it. So you see that the limited or controlled access that begins at high school continues all the way to the job market.

But, WHAT IF, what if some large company came forward and said, you know what - these degrees don't matter much. Most of what you learn in college for 3-4 years is outdated or not connected to the job. We will test you on basic aptitude, specific skills and attitudes; we will anyway train you for a while to get you up to speed. WHAT IF a few other companies followed suit. WHAT IF the degree was no longer an entry barrier or gatekeeper to the job market. 

So here's my disruption scenario (and I wish Idea Cellular had actually, publicly played this out)... one or more corporates build institutes (or portals) of learning and certification but not degree granting. Anyone above a certain age is eligible to join based on an aptitude test, irrespective of how much they scored in any school exam (or whether they went to a school or not!). Since there is no degree, no government or university approval is required. They offer to hire all those who qualify through the programs. Soon, other corporates seeking to tap into this qualified talent pool would make competing offers to these students or set up their own such institutes. Or, as is more likely, entrepreneurs will create a mix of online/offline models of certification (think MOOC++) on the basis of demand from these corporates.

Is this feasible? I think so... there are many IT services companies which (each) hire thousands of "engineers" and then put them through months of training. What if TCS, Infosys and Wipro that hire over 50,000-70,000 freshers annually said that in 2016, 25% of our entry level hires will not require any degree, just the appropriate skills? I can tell you, just like the IIT coaching cottage industry bloomed, we will have private tutors, entrepreneurs and portals coaching young people for the job interviews. Five years ago, I wrote briefly about the need for corporates to do something about it... it's still not too late.

One might argue that this is a very materialistic view of education; there's more to it than just getting a job. True, and I am not asking that colleges and degrees be done away with. Just that for a majority of the student body, the primary purpose of education is to enable a livelihood. We need to ensure that their access to the job market through good quality education is not blocked because they haven't scored 98% or their parents cannot afford to send them overseas.

It is fashionable nowadays to write about the first week or first month anniversaries with gadgets, as well as publicly break-up with them. So, let me join the fray! To be fair to myself, though, I had written about my expectations and first impressions of the iPad - therefore, this is not something new. 

This note is based on personal experiences and should not be seen as applying to everyone. I will try to highlight, objectively, why the Apple Watch works and where it needs improvement. For some, it will work more and for others, it won't at all. 

A few quick, initial comments:

First off, the Apple Watch (in its current avatar) requires an iPhone. That, in itself, is a limiting factor on whom it's meant for. Yes, you could be so impressed with the Watch that you ditch your Android or Blackberry and jump on to the iOS side but that's highly unlikely. (Although for those still on Blackberry phones, just jump on to something else, watch or no watch!)

Secondly, for those in India, it is probably going to be a while before the Watch is available locally. Unless you are willing to jump through hoops to get it from some other country, you have some time to make your decision.

Finally, I would say the Apple Watch (at its price - in INR equivalents) is for the enthusiasts, those early adopters that like to experiment with and experience new products. The inflection point should happen, I believe, this fall when the new Watch OS (and apps based it) become available. 

What worked for me

1.  Reduced the distraction of the iPhone

We have to admit it - most of us are addicted to the iPhone (or any other similar smartphone). Constantly checking for new messages, mails, alerts or tweets - our eyes remain glued to the phone. I have often, while working or in meetings, wanted to put the phone on silent and leave it in my bag, but there's this fear (or desire!) of that urgent call or message that might be missed. So, the phone remains handy and with that, its constant distraction. The iPhone is great because it allows you to do so much with it; that's also its weakness.

With the Apple Watch, my phone has been on silent mode for the most of last month. When I am walking, working or in meetings, the phone is rarely in my hand or within eye-glance. When I want to, I can now focus on the task. Let me give you an example.

I would always carry my phone in my hand while walking outdoors. Perhaps to check time (I had stopped wearing a watch) or to ensure that I didn't miss an 'important' call or message. And since the phone was handy, why don't I quickly check my Twitter feed or oh, there's a notification on FB, let's see what that is.... Before I knew it, my eyes were on the phone even as I was crossing the street or navigating broken pavements. Last week, I was walking somewhere and suddenly it struck me that I hadn't looked at my phone for nearly half an hour! It was in my jeans pocket and I had forgotten that it was there. So what changed?

The Watch has this wonderful wrist tapping mechanism of alerts. I have set it to notify me (and only me) under specific circumstances. Most calls or messages can be ignored for a while; even if a message is urgent, the most likely response is Yes or No. In an exceptional situation, I can answer the call on the Watch itself or send a voice message in response if the canned options don't suffice. 

2. Made me stand up more often

Being very active (physically) doesn't come naturally to me. My work, when I am not teaching in class, requires me to mostly sit in meetings or in front of a computer. Sitting is the new smoking, they say. And all we do is sit (or sleep!). In spite of this knowledge, our lifestyles haven't changed much. It is so easy to continue the status quo.

Unless, there's a tap on the wrist and you are told that it's "Time to stand!" Fifty minutes into an hour, if you've not stood for at least a minute, the Watch prompts you to get up and move about a bit. Standing for one minute per hour can't be such a big deal, you may think. Believe me, even a month later and after being more conscious about the need to stand, I get this alert at least twice a day. The Watch also aids the iPhone's activity tracking - I am more likely to have my Watch on when moving than to have the phone in my pocket. 

While I have not seen any dramatic fitness or weight loss results during the past month, I do check daily how active I have been. Hopefully, results will show soon. Here's an interesting post by someone who used the iOS HealthKit and the Watch to lose a lot of weight!

3.Told me the time

 The Apple Watch also tells the time. With a turn of the wrist or the raise of my arm.

The question is - are the above "benefits" worth the $350 starting price. "Not being distracted by the phone" might appear to be a double-whammy: pay a huge price for the smartphone and then get this watch to reduce distraction! True. But if you are already on the smartphone distraction boat, then the Apple Watch will feel like a liberating force. Yes, you can get activity/fitness trackers for much less, but then they are what they are: bands.

The Watch is a beautiful piece of hardware - not at all geeky. The digital crown and the various straps are very cleverly designed. Yes, it could be thinner but the Apple Watch doesn't feel out of place on the wrist. 

There's a lot that needs to improve with the Apple Watch to make it attractive and value for money for a wider audience. Most of that change is software based, so it can happen without having to wait for the next hardware iteration of the device. The new OS that was demonstrated at WWDC appears to address many of the problems and also opens the Watch up for innovation by app developers. I am waiting to see some good apps that go beyond a miniature version of the iPhone app. My friend Sajith Pai has an interesting idea about leveraging the signaling prowess of the Apple Watch. Time will tell. (Oops, sorry, I couldn't resist that!)

One more thing: I believe the Apple Watch will have serious implications for watch manufacturers, maybe not so much for luxurious, hand-crafted Swiss watches but for the mid-range quartz watches that are in the $50-300 range. How so, when the Apple Watch starts at $350? 

The Apple Watch may focus on its well-crafted, premium segment but it is helping shape a new market category. It's a matter of 12-24 months before competitors and imitators create wonderful looking, good enough, Android-based smartwatches. The traditional watch will then be left with just price as a competitive variable. Try competing on price with Micromax and Xiaomi. 

(Updated: Earlier I had referred to Canvas as distinct from Micromax. Thanks Farhan for pointing it out.)

Anyone who has taken Gallup's Q12 employee engagement survey would have recognised that this post is about the most controversial question of the twelve. Employees are required to rate, on a 5-point scale, if they have a best friend at their work place. Most respondents read this question literally and reply that their "real" best friends are not their colleagues. Some others question the relevance of such a question and seek to keep their personal lives separate from the professional.

In fact, I recall this NYT article about the difficulty of making new friends once you are in the thirties and forties. A subsequent discussion about this article with several colleagues revealed that there could be a western / eastern divide on this topic. For instance, in India, the workplace is often a seamless extension of the personal space / family. Many Indian organisations refer to themselves as families. On the other hand, the (typical) western view of a job is led by the employment contract. (As always exceptions exist.)

But this post is not really to discuss the Gallup survey or west/east divides. It is about friends. And some reflections on the topic during my 24 months out of a workplace.

Many of us, over the course of our careers, give all our time to our job. This comes at the cost of our personal relationships, including a connection with the self. As we jump from one role to another and hop from one airport to the next, friends and family take a hit. Somehow, due to greater proximity and responsibilities, we might keep the family ties alive but friends from yester-years (childhood, school/college, first job) are forgotten. Yes, Facebook might remind us of their birthdays and a Whatsapp group creates an illusion of fun and conversation but the connect is lost.

Meanwhile, we build new relationships with colleagues and others whom we meet in the context of work. Or parents of our kids' friends. Yet, very few of them rise to the best friend category. The NYT article mentions three conditions that are essential to creating friendships: proximity, repeated/unplanned interactions, and a setting that enables people to confide in each other. I believe that the first two conditions are enablers whereas the third seals the bond. That's the reason friends from childhood (age of innocence) or hostel life (high level of dependence on each other) are often in the BFF category. On the other hand, even as corporate relationships provide opportunities for meeting frequently, most organization cultures (or politics) prevent the confiding from happening.

So we end up with this set of highly transactional relationships with colleagues. Meanwhile, lack of proximity and/or repeated interactions with our original best friends weakens the bond of trust. When we change jobs, new work relationships replace the old ones, and the illusion of company continues. The hollow nature of such existence is most felt when we quit a job for a solo gig (like I did)... there may be no 'workplace' nor are we surrounded by constant emails and meetings that have come to define our social life.

I was fortunate that some of my work relationships did turn into good friendships - perhaps it was the challenging journey at Tata Communications or it was just a coincidence. Even though we lived in different cities/countries, work created sufficient opportunities to meet frequently; shared passions (like gadgets and innovation) and values (like humility and respect) helped transcend age / hierarchy barriers. Now, we meet less often... will this also go the school/college friend way?

The last two years have taught me a lot about relationships, in both professional and personal lives. The achievements that we care about so much - grades or earnings or deals concluded or goals overachieved - matter very little beyond the immediate. People stay in touch (or not) because of their experience of who I was as a person. My former colleagues might have all but forgotten what I did at the company for ten years; however, they probably have a vivid recollection of how I made them feel during our interactions. 

Take a minute to answer these (or any similar) questions:

When was the last time you went on an impromptu road-trip with your school friends?

When was the last time you surprised your parents (or grand-parents) with an unplanned visit?

When was the last time you cuddled with your spouse on a weekday because the weather was such?

When was the last time you began (and continued) a new hobby?

If you cannot remember the answer, note that your friends & family cannot too.

It is not possible to turn the clock back on what we did or didn't do in the past. But we can surely work on the present and future. We must change the way we measure our life and (re-)allocate our resources accordingly. Now, pick up that phone...

Following my earlier post on FoE, one question that remained unresolved in my mind: does FoE automatically granted everyone the freedom to insult. Rajeet raised a similar issue in his comments on that post. Here I try to (somewhat) address that question and also share some more ideas and information that I have come across.

It appears that the United States has taken an extreme position on free speech, through its interpretation of the First Amendment that there shall be no law abridging the freedom of speech. The US Supreme Court, in a landmark case in 1969, went so far as to permitting even "hate speech" as protected by Constitution unless it presented the possibility of "imminent lawless action." This formulation, referred to also as the Brandenburg test, looks for "imminence, intent and likelihood" of the speech leading to violence or violation of laws.

Another recent US Supreme Court judgement in Snyder vs. Phelps reaffirmed this "extreme" view on protecting speech, thereby enabling the Westboro Baptist Church to make offensive statements at a soldier's funeral... as long as it was speech in public interest, made at a public location. Essentially, as long as a particular speech is not personal in nature nor delivered to a "captive audience," the state has no right to prohibit it, subject to the Brandenburg test. In an earlier case, Cohen vs. California, the USSC struck down a law that tried to regulate content of speech, whereas the state may be within its right to determine conduct (timing, location, etc.) Even with regards to restrictions on conduct, the USSC had issues with a law that was "vague" and did not specify what citizens could do or not. They said that the words "offensive conduct" alone cannot "be said sufficiently to inform the ordinary person that distinctions between certain locations are thereby created." Justice John Marshall Harlan II famously wrote, in the context of a four-letter expletive in this case, that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Therefore, my understanding of the US position is that insulting a religion is permitted under FoE because it is a matter of public interest, but insulting someone personally - the fighting words doctrine - would not be protected speech.

So, should you punch someone in the face because he/she insulted you or your family? Clearly Pope Francis believes, yes, in spite of what Jesus suggested about turning the other cheek. Ironically (because of the context of the statement), another spiritual leader, Swami Vivekananda also expressed similar sentiments about what he would do in such a situation. Beyond the rhetoric, the legal position appears to be quite clear: a violent reaction to a verbal insult will put you on the wrong side of the law. So while one would have legal recourse against verbal abuse, particularly if it is threatening or defamatory in nature, giving it back in the same vein might be a more prudent response, if at all. The issue with laws that start encroaching on the verbal insult / abuse territory is that politicians / police officers / lawyers won't know when and where to stop. In fact, faced with (often silly) distorted implementations of the law against insulting, England recently removed the restrictions on using insulting language (unless it is specifically personal) in its Public Order Act.

Given how the US laws treat free speech, it is quite clear that freedom of expression is severely, and vaguely, restricted in India, because of the First Amendment (how ironic!) to its Constitution.

Just take another recent issue around the Censor Board... while its official name is the Central Board for Film Certification, it actually acts as a guardian of morality and a state-enabled filter for speech. Isn't it strange that a nation of such complexity, diversity and size has allowed a few people, sometimes with no appropriate qualification, to determine what movie content is officially available to be watched. Unfortunately, not only has it been taken for granted that censorship will exist, the new chief of CBFC wants to extend this policing to other forms of content. Incidentally, the US does not actually have a censor board equivalent... the closest they have is the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which is a private trade body and administers the MPAA Ratings that are voluntary for film-makers to use.

Finally (for this post), I want to share this post by Nitin Pai which provides great clarity on the liberal nationalist position on free speech. Here's a portion that I found very interesting:

How much merit is there to the movement for a complete libertarian state where speech is truly free? Is it even possible?

There cannot be a complete libertarian state, as that is an oxymoron. A state involves a social contract where some liberties are traded away for the privilege of enjoying the rest of them. So we give up the right to violence to the state, so that we may enjoy the right to life, property, free speech and so on. 

A figure of merit, therefore, is how few of our liberties do we need to give up in order to enjoy the rest. North Koreans give up 90% of their liberties to enjoy the remaining 10%. North Americans give up 10% of their liberties to enjoy the 90%. I think India should aim to move towards the North American standard, rather than the North Korean standard.

As usual, I am learning more on this topic... please feel free to share your views and suggestions.

Freedom of Expression is being feverishly discussed and debated around the world, particularly in the context of the gruesome terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. In India, the discussion has taken the usual political connotations... and in all this freedom of expression, so much is being said that very little is being heard and understood. 

Here are some observations from my side... I am sharing these partly to clarify my own thoughts and partly in the hope that they will help some others in developing their point of view.

1. India does not really have FoE

While there is a lot of discussion around various people's tolerance levels for expression, FoE is not primarily about how each of us react to others' expression. FoE is foremost about how the state (government) treats expression by its citizens. Does it permit, nay encourage, individuals to express what they have in their minds? It appears that most countries / governments accept some form of restrictions on free speech, particularly around speech that harms or offends others. 

The issue in India is that the caveats on free speech give enough leeway to the government to act in a highly subjective manner:

These rights are limited so as not to affect:

• The integrity of India
• The security of the State
• Friendly relations with foreign States
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation or incitement to an offence

If there is one thing that must be debated, it is the First Amendment to the Constitution of India that added "reasonable restriction on freedom of speech" -- it has led to additions in the Indian Penal Code that ensure that true freedom of speech does not exist in India. Anything meaningful that you say will offend someone else and therefore, can give rise to a criminal offense.

The first amendment was brought about, soon after the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, because the then government was unable to silence a critical magazine. All subsequent governments have just enjoyed this cover without questioning it.

2. FoE is not a one-way street

It is amusing that most of us latch on to the FoE bandwagon when it suits us. If we believe in the absoluteness of this freedom, then we must be ready for its consequences. As I mentioned above, any meaningful opinion could offend somebody or the other. If I want to be able to express my views, I should be prepared that others may also say things that I might dislike. By the way, accepting FoE does not mean I have to agree with the content of what others say... this implies that I should be prepared for others to criticize me. 

Content creators like authors, painters, movie-makers, etc. seek absolute freedom to say what they want, however, they should then be ready to accept criticism, in whatever (legal) form it takes. If you are not ready to accept people protesting your content, calling you names or filing legal cases against you (not difficult, given point 1 above), then you should not exercise your freedom of expression. Strangely, journalists who believe in the God-given right to ask questions of anyone on any topic are the first to block others' freedom in asking questions or commenting on them. 

3. FoE is just an excuse 

Many folks asked if Charlie Hebdo should not have been so irreverent about Islam, particularly when they were aware of the violence threats. Why would you go and provoke somebody who has a different thought process / cultural background? 

To this, I will paraphrase something that I wrote during a Facebook discussion on the topic:

Take the "let's not provoke them since they don't like it" argument further ... those who are aggressive and violent will win; those who fear such violence will be silenced. Don't know how this will ever end well. 

Further, I don't think the jihadis really care about the cartoons or the "western" notion of FoE. They probably don't understand religion (else why would they kill other Muslims!?)... I think they just want to provoke everyone else into a "war"... Everytime something like this happens, a few people on the other side get pushed to an extreme, will call all Muslims names or make it tough for them; this provokes some of the moderate Muslims into extremism and creates a fresh source of recruits for the jihadis. It's just a power game... God / faith is just a potent fig-leaf. 

But the problem with becoming silent / withdrawing expression is that it doesn't matter, no? If the goal is to find some excuse for provocation, then it will be found, how much ever accommodating you are. If somebody wants to be aggrieved, they can bring anything up from anywhere / anytime.

In my earlier post, I shared how Uber, Ola and other similar service providers have the potential to disrupt the local travel market. I am a regular user of their services, as are many others with whom I engage online & offline. The benefits and potential are clear, yet some concerns persist. In particular, I worry that a western market approach to growth is being adopted by Uber/Ola. Let me explain.

In general, there are two major differences between developed markets like the US and emerging markets like India: one, weaker basic infrastructure, and two, insufficient skilled manpower. Infrastructure, in the context of Ola/Uber pertains not only to physical stuff like roads, public transit facilities, good quality taxis, etc. but also to related systems like traffic management, police and credit verification, licensing. By skills, I refer to trained drivers, customer service ethics, customer education, etc. When markets open up, like they did in the past decade in India, everyone goes after the gold rush... but, many hit the tripwires of inadequate infrastructure and skills. Telecom and financial services industries are good examples; other consumer services industries face similar risks.

Keeping the above in mind, here are a few suggestions for Ola/Uber; these are in two categories, the first are immediate fixes to improve customer experience and the second are to build sustainable businesses.

Customer Experience Fixes

1. Fix your location tracking

A typical use case... I'm in a meeting and about 10-15 minutes before it ends, I go to the Ola app and order a cab. Since the app works quite well, it's a matter of a few seconds and I get it done without much distraction. However, in a couple of minutes, the driver calls because he wants to know where exactly I am and/or where I want to go. Obviously the phone is on silent and I have no way of answering the call. He calls a few times and often, does not move from his current location till I have called back and confirmed the pick-up. 

Even if I were not in a meeting, I may not want to have that conversation... the reason I am using a mobile app is because it is easy and super quick. Why would you spoil that with the follow-up call? The driver should reach the pick-up point based on the GPS / location from the app. Many drivers have complained to me that they don't get a clear location or a route map on the app. Similarly, the driver tracking on the customer app is often delayed or inaccurate... in my experience, Uber has the best, real-time tracking, Ola is accurate but not real-time and Meru has the worst location tracking.

This tweet from Bhatnaturally summarizes the problem:

Hi @Olacabs in your 'reason for cancellation' option in the app, please add 'Driver clueless about pick up location despite GPS' as option

— bhatnaturally  (@bhatnaturally) January 15, 2015

2. Penalize errant drivers

The other day, a cab showed up as being 5 minutes away - it was less than a kilometer from my place. I ordered it and went down immediately since I was in a hurry. Ten minutes later, there was no sign of him, so I called his mobile. He answered disinterestedly and said that he was in the queue to fill CNG, so it would take him 15-20 minutes to reach. I asked him why he was showing up online if he was not able to respond to a request... he kind of murmured that that's how it was, and asked me to cancel the booking! 

In order to increase the availability of the cabs, the service providers (Ola/Uber) give them a bonus for being online for a certain time daily or weekly... I believe Uber's incentive kicks in at 12 hours per day. Therefore, many of the drivers keep their apps turned on even when they are unavailable to respond to a request. They are willing to take the chance of turning away a customer in order to add to punch in more hours. Also, some drivers refuse to show up when they realize that the destination is not very attractive to them.

Such behavior by drivers defeats the core value proposition of convenience and availability. Not all service providers capture this information (e.g. reason for canceling a confirmed booking); even those that capture it, are they taking prompt action? If a driver refuses a ride - without a legitimate reason, he should perhaps be blacklisted for the day (or more)... 

Don't let your core value proposition be diluted.

3. Set an example on the roads

Sometime ago, I was in one of the cabs going to the airport at night. The driver's mobile phone rang and he looked at the screen to check who was calling. Just at that moment, the car ahead of him braked suddenly because an auto came in its way. Since my driver's eyes had moved away from the road, his reaction was a second late and the cab hit the car in front of it. Luckily, there wasn't much damage and we moved on, but there is no doubt that accidents are waiting to happen on the road if you lose focus.

While there has been much discussion on improving security / transparency through better verification of drivers, an equally important expectation from Ola/Uber is that they would follow safe traffic practices. No mobile phone while driving, following speed limits, obeying traffic lights, using a seat belt, using turn indicators while shifting lanes / turning... these have to become standard driving practice. If Ola/Uber cannot have better driving practices than the regular taxis, autos and buses, then what's the point?

Make safe driving a standard practice. Specifically seek customer feedback about it.

Building the Business

This is where Uber / Ola will have to customize their business model for Indian (and other similar markets) context. Yes, they are aggregators / marketing agents that are connecting drivers and commuters... but that is not sufficient. They need to consider investing significant resources towards capability development, even if it means moving (slightly) away from an asset-light model. All the private equity funding need not go in discounting fares / price wars... there is no brand creation due to lower prices. I have three different apps that I check every time I need a vehicle - price is no longer the choice factor; it is availability. And if there are two different cabs available at similar times, I choose the operator whose vehicles are cleaner, drivers appear to better behaved and GPS works better. If you want the customer to consistently choose you over the others (i.e. create competitive advantage), price is not going be the primary factor. Here are a few things that could help build a brand:

1. Invest in driver training

Over the last few months I have encountered at least a hundred different drivers in Mumbai and spoken with many of them. Apart from an  induction program that many of them had attended, there was no other training mentioned. Wouldn't the drivers be able to better represent your brand if they were trained in customer service, communication, driving skills, routes & places of interest, etc.? Take the latter item, for instance. Quite a few of the drivers (in Mumbai) that I met have migrated here because of the increasing demand - their knowledge of many suburbs and roads is quite weak. As a passenger, I shouldn't be expected to guide the driver to my destination. A few times when I got distracted on the phone, I would find that we were on the wrong road or flyover... 

Customer engagement or experience in this business has three major touch points - the booking app (automated), driver and billing (automated). The only possible opportunity for differentiation is in the human, driver interface. 

2. Complement the fleet

I get a sense that the Ola/Uber encourage a wide distribution of the cabs across major locations to ensure availability; however, at the end of the day, the vehicle owner/driver will try be located at obvious demand points. Hotelling's law would suggest that there would be a concentration of cabs in some locations during peak hours and none at other locations. Imagine the customer at this other location unable to find a cab for 15 or 20 minutes - that's not the experience you want to provide. At the same time, you cannot force the drivers to go to these other locations where they may nor may not find any customer. 

Therefore, an option for Ola/Uber could be to invest in their own complementary fleet of vehicles to fill the network gaps. Of course, they have to be careful not to cannibalize business from their partners, and use their vehicles as queue busters. In addition, these vehicles could be used for training and demonstration purposes. Another idea could be to have these as high-end vehicles that are occasionally sent to frequent customers as "free upgrades" (similar to the Uber India launch strategy of using Audis and Mercs). Once the network is stable, these vehicles can be moved to other upcoming locations.

3. Think about your enablers

The other day, I was in an Ola cab and at the destination, the driver tried to end the trip. The mobile signal was probably poor, and it took a couple of minutes for the trip summary to show up (zero bill because I had enough money in the pre-paid wallet). While two minutes may not be much, it is surely an irritant if you are running late or the cab is awkwardly parked on the road. [The Uber model of compulsorily using a wallet avoids this issue.] Similarly, another driver complained - at the end of the journey - that the mobile phone or network had failed en-route and therefore, he needed to estimate the fare using Google Maps route distance.

If you want to build a sustainable business, you have to think far beyond the contours of your current business scope. What could derail you? For instance, good quality mobile data networks are critical to Uber/Ola, as they are to several other new businesses. Without a data network, the measurement, billing and payment aspect of the drive would fall apart. Without good quality / efficient cars and roads, your cost structure could take a hit. I am not suggesting that Uber/Ola should become mobile operators or auto manufacturers, but they should surely work towards building alliances & capabilities to ensure that the supporting eco-system remains vibrant and competitive. 

I am confident that many of the teething issues that Ola/Uber/Meru face would soon be overcome... local transport / conveyance in the second half of this decade will be far superior to what we have ever experienced.

Do you have any other suggestions... please feel free to share them in your comments below.

During the last three months, I have almost stopped driving for intra-city (Mumbai) travel. In particular, I don't take my car out when I am alone and traveling for work-related meetings. Being driven helps me gain that extra 30-60 minutes to prepare for a meeting or to respond to missed calls / emails after a meeting. It also helps that I can save 10-15 minutes in not having to look for some place to park. And I have email invoices that I can use for expense reimbursement or management without having to keep tab.

Yes, I have discovered the benefits of Uber and OlaCabs. 

Not only do I have a chauffeured vehicle when I need it but I often spend less than if I used my own car. With the frequent discounts and offers (thanks to private equity funding!), I can get a car on demand at about Rs 15 per kilometre... my own car costs me Rs 12 to 15 / km for fuel, it would be much more. Things can't be better!

There is obviously some sort of a break-even point here, of owning a car and hiring a driver vs. using services like Ola/Uber. Consider a typical use case: drive 25km daily to office and back, plus 20km every weekend for shopping / entertainment... that's 630km per month. Fuel cost for a mid-size car would be Rs 5-7 per km but a driver's salary at Rs 6000-8000 adds Rs 9-12 per km. Therefore, the marginal cost of using a vehicle would be at least Rs 15 per km. So, even if you own a car, and you want to be driven, unless you use it for 700-1000km every month, it would make sense to use a Uber/Ola like service.

I have not done the supply-side economics yet... from my conversations with the car drivers, it appears that they (the vehicle owners) are making good money. In fact, many of them are buying new cars so that they can add to their Ola/Uber fleet. But I have a sense that they are currently being subsidized by the service providers (trip bonus, being online for 12 hours bonus, etc.) I wonder if this is sustainable. 

Some more thoughts on the disruption that we are observing in the transportation / automobile industry (note, I am not referring to a "taxi service" market here).

Behaviour Shift

The value of Uber or Ola is not just that they are taking share away from traditional metered taxis but also expanding the market. They are essentially getting more people to use a "taxi service". If you had a car, you were earlier not a likely customer for the taxi market. But as I (anecdotally) demonstrated above - and I hear many of my colleagues/friends reinforce the point - non-users are being brought into the "taxi market". The initial discounts helped - for a while I was using Ola & Uber at prices lower than the regular yellow cabs. Now, prices have gone up, yet I am so used to the convenience that I am willing to pay even Rs 20 per km for the service. 

Also, while auto manufacturers need not worry as yet about lost sales, I would wager that, in metro markets which are also seeing improvement in public transit facilities, some impact would be felt soon.

They two key drivers (pun unintended) for the growth of Ola/Uber are:

1. Convenience - The ease of service discovery, purchase and consumption is a clear draw. The mobile apps are extremely easy to use and the payment mechanisms (using a pre-paid wallet) are highly convenient. Being able to track your driver and ride makes the process transparent. The invoices sent to your email are detailed and efficient. 

2. Availability - The tip-off point for the new taxi services is their ready availability. A lot of local travel (except perhaps airport drops) is unplanned and subject to the vagaries of moving schedules. Earlier, the service providers required you to book a taxi at least an hour in advance and that restricted their appeal. Uber entered the Indian market with immediate availability and its competitors have followed suit. As the popularity of these services grows, more drivers are signing up, consequently, availability improves and therefore, more customers feel encouraged to use the service. There is a clear network effect at play here. 

There is another important factor at play here which relates to the business model of network aggregation. Uber/Ola are intermediaries that are enabling vehicle owners/drivers and commuters to discover and transact with each other. Their asset-light model has the ability to scale very fast (riding on others' capital investments); their focus remains on innovation and marketing.

Ben Thompson has this wonderful post at Stratecherry where he explains density and network effect as liquidity of the car service... he also uses this to describe why it might be a winner take all market. I am not sure if the Indian cities have reached that stage of maturity -- as long as there is scope for significant growth, I can see the opportunity for at least 2-3 players. My dipstick analysis reveals that most drivers are today exclusively working for a provider, except in the Prime (SUV/Innova) category where I have found a few drivers two-timing. Further, given the lack of existing (quality) infrastructure, Uber and others would need to (directly or indirectly) invest in adding more vehicles and drivers on the streets, thus preventing the creation of a virtual monopoly.

(By the way, these three factors -- Ease of Use, Density and Network Aggregation -- are applicable to many other industries. Financial services sector could surely learn a thing or two from them... given that the banking business is nothing but intermediating between savers / investors and borrowers / investees. The recent success of Lending Club provides an indication of the possible unraveling of the traditional banking models. It would be worthwhile thinking about other blue oceans that can be created by adopting these three factors.)

Even as Ola, Uber, Taxiforsure and others bring in huge investments in this space, they have a long way to go. They must not repeat the mistakes that many others have made in India before... chasing growth without creating infrastructure and skill foundations. In the follow-up post, I will share a few suggestions for Ola/Uber to improve customer experience and to build sustainable businesses.

As a corporate strategist, one of my biggest battles was to avoid the extremes of cynicism and idealism.

In every organization, you will find people who will put their hands up and say that nothing can be done. They will gladly recount all the problems and challenges but will not care to think about solutions. Moreover, they will work hard to dissuade anyone else who wishes to move forward. Often, they are charming and witty, with funny comments about the futility of doing anything. These guys are the most dangerous for any organisation, they suck all positive energy out of the system.

Not so dangerous, yet problematic for progress are the idealists. They are the dreamers who seek perfection everywhere. Every organisation has a few of them and they are surely needed. They set the bar high on what is needed to be achieved. Where these guys go wrong (sometimes) is their belief that things must change immediately and anything otherwise is worth nothing. Instead of using their dreams to set direction for the future, they mope about the present and find fault with everything / everyone. Or they come up with crazy solutions to shake everything up ("let's fire everybody" "let's sell that business").

Both the cynics and the idealists are elitists on their respective high-horses, disregarding the reality of the rest of the organization that wants to patiently move forward. The reality of every organization is between "nothing can be done" and "everything should be perfect". A good leader will be guided by the idealist's dreams and will weed out the cynicism.

As we look around in India, ahead of the national elections, I see a lot of people undecided about what to do. As I wrote earlier, exercising the NOTA (till such time as it counts as a "vote") is a cop-out towards one of these two elitist extremes.

Let us all have fiercely ambitious dreams of what we want India to be like but let not cynicism or idealism cause us to separate ourselves from the reality of today.

A few weeks ago, I requested my Facebook friends to help me in drafting a manifesto of expectations. I wrote:

I am planning to write an economic manifesto (demand) from the next government. I would like to use that to evaluate/choose the national party that comes closest to what I care about. Obviously, it will be an economic right manifesto, and my sympathies are very clear. But I want to do this objectively so that it can help other like-minded (or undecided) people make their choice. If you'd like to collaborate on this, please let me know.

Many of us have already made up our minds about which party to vote for, but there are quite a few who appear (based on their public pronouncements at least) undecided. For the former group, this manifesto would be a way of putting pressure on the chosen party to take cognizance of our demands. For the latter group, this may be a way to evaluate the various options available. 

As I warned at the outset, this is an economically right manifesto. Also, please note that this is not a fully-baked document (some points have more detail than the others) and reflects the views of a few people who helped me in this effort. You are free to pick and choose topics from the below as your manifesto, or add new topics. Please share your feedback in the comments below so that I can update this post with more content.

Manifesto 2014

• Prohibit uncapped spending on any account.

• Force the government to establish a priority order for expenses in the budget

• Prohibit fraudulent accounting by the government and force it to adhere to GAAP

• Ensure that government servant's salaries are costed correctly, including the full cost of pensions, accommodation and other perks. 

• Ensure that no government servant earns more than the median wage in the private sector for a similar function on a total comp basis. Offer government servants all cash packages (with monetized perks).

• Remove “Socialist” from the Preamble.

• Repeal the First Amendment regarding restrictions to freedom of speech. The only restriction should be regarding any incitement to violence and threat to national security (which should get covered under normal criminal codes)

• Provide validity to same-gender relationships and marriages. (may not require Constitutional amendment and just a change in CPC) 

• Introduce a Uniform Civil Code

• Treat all individuals equally before the law and not as members of groups

• Scrap the Directive Principles of State Policy

• Propose a realistic road-map (as envisaged by the founding fathers) towards ending of all reservations in Government education and jobs. No new reservations (particularly in private sector education or employment) to be introduced.

One of the question that I have heard on Twitter and elsewhere is regarding the importance of a stable government. It is quite clear that no political party or formation appears to be strong enough pan-India to expect a clear majority. In fact, in the last 30 years, it was only in 1984 on the back of a Congress sympathy wave that any single party had obtained a clear majority (INC: 404). The only other time somebody got close enough was in 1991 (INC: 244), again due to another sympathy wave. 

If a party/pre-poll alliance has 200-240 seats, they might hope to stitch together the support of a few other regional parties to get to the 272 majority mark. Any alliance that appears close enough will try and seek to inch closer - the request would be for a majority mandate in the name of stability. For the other groups that are unlikely to form a government by themselves, the strategy would be to gain as many seats as possible to prevent a stable majority government. In this election, as per most opinion polls and general perception, the BJP-led NDA is in the first category; the INC-led UPA, the rag-tag Third Front and the dark horse, AAP are in the latter group. 

For me, and most people I know, the debate was earlier simply between the UPA and the NDA. Now, after the Delhi elections, AAP has emerged as an option in several urban constituencies. There are broadly four types of people:

1. Clearly support UPA: Tough for me to articulate why, so let me share what the CEO of a media company has written on his Twitter bio: "A Congress supporter, primarily because of its right-of-center economic beliefs, its secular credentials, and the stature of its senior most leaders".

2. Clearly support NDA: Fond memories of 1999-2004 NDA rule; Enamoured by Modi and his Gujarat story; Economic right-wing/free market liberal; possibly an Internet Hindu / Right-winger

3. Clearly support AAP: Can't stand the INC or the BJP (the old world politics); want to participate in changing the face of Indian politics; economic right-of-center beliefs; anti-corruption

4. Undecided / Search for Perfection: Best described by this tweet: "i like the idea of kejriwal not the person, the idea of modi not the person. dont like the idea of rahul but like the person. now what to do"

(Note: these categories are not necessarily exhaustive nor are these descriptions universal of all such supporters... please feel free to suggest changes.)

In this post, I am not going to discuss the relative pros and cons of each of these formations. But the key question is this... should we seek to vote in a government that will remain stable for the next five years, or not? Irrespective of which party that is.

As I alluded to in my previous post, and described in greater detail earlier, five years can do a lot of good or damage to a country. Just a few years ago, India was the darling of global investors; all of us were taking 8-9% GDP growth rates as given and there was talk of double digit growth. We are now at half those levels. For a poor country like India, rapid growth is the only way to increase per-capita income levels. The question is simple: at a time when global and Indian investors are shying away from the Indian markets, domestic demand (our greatest strength) has slowed and demographics (our other so-called strength) could become a liability, can the country afford 1-3 years more of uncertainty?

One view, held mostly by Type 3 and 4 above, would say, Yes, it doesn't really matter. In the long run, what are a few years more. We cannot let the corruption-tainted UPA come back to power and surely don't want a divisive Modi-led government. I paraphrase the ending of this 2011 Outlook article: Nevertheless, India can survive poor governance for the next few years but what it cannot survive is [insert your cause/concern]. Even if the promise of high (..) growth is accepted at its face value, it is simply not worth risking the [inexperience / corruption / dictatorship / polarization]. 

The other view would say that it is already too late. Undoing the poor governance of the previous five years will take a few years of decisive action and it will take more than five years to recover lost ground. These views come from people who should know a thing or two about India's economic situation. The Economic Times wrote a few months ago: 

"In India, a potential additional source of uncertainty is the coming general election,'' said (Raghuram) Rajan in his foreword to the latest Financial Stability Report. "A stable new government would be positive for the economy." 

The same article goes on to say: 

"The negative outlook indicates that we may lower the rating to 'speculative' grade next year if the government that takes office after the general election does not appear capable of reversing India's low economic growth,'' Standard & Poor's, a rating company, said on November 7, reiterating its negative outlook.  

Referencing John Gruber's post on Working Backwards to the Technology.

This is a wonderful story about the core of Apple / Jobs' philosophy. The post quotes from a 1997 video of Steve Jobs, soon after he returned to Apple and started to change its strategy:

Jobs:

What about OpenDoc? What about it? [Audience laughs.] It’s dead, right? Let me say something that’s sort of generic. I know some of you spent a lot of time working on stuff that we put a bullet in the head of. I apologize. I feel your pain. But Apple suffered for several years from lousy engineering management. I have to say it. And there were people that were going off in 18 different directions doing arguably interesting things in each one of them. Good engineers — lousy management. And what happened was you look at the farm that’s been created with all these different animals going in different directions and it doesn’t add up. The total is less than the sum of the parts.

And so we had to decide, what are the fundamental directions we’re going in? And what makes sense and what doesn’t? And there were a bunch of things that didn’t. And microcosmically they might have made sense; macrocosmically they made no sense. And you know, the hardest thing is… you think about focusing, right? You think, “Well, focusing is saying yes”. No, focusing is about saying no. Focusing is about saying no. And you’ve got to say no, no, no. When you say no, you piss off people.

Everyone who wants to understand strategy should know this. Focus (or choices) is really about saying No. Particularly when there are so many things that one can possibly do (or one is already doing). Even at the cost of pissing off some people.

And if you click on the link at the end of that post, you will come up with this Apple video. Almost every company has a vision, mission, values statements typed out on posters and screen-savers, but unfortunately, their employees or other stakeholders don't know what it means. But this video, in 90 seconds, tells all of us what Apple stands for.

General elections are expected to be announced within a couple of days. In the next 6-10 weeks over 700 million people in India will have to make up their minds about whom to vote as their representative to the Lok Sabha. That decision would surely impact India for the next five years (unless, God forbid, we end up with a situation that calls for a re-election even earlier; more on this later) and possibly set the direction for several years after that. We know how much havoc can be created in just five years, so we surely cannot afford another such five years. 

Over the course of a few posts, I would like to share some thoughts on the decision problem facing us. Those of you who engage with me on Twitter or Facebook probably know where my vote is headed, but nothing is written in stone. I hope that this process of discussion will also help me either confirm my choice or make a new one. It is always good to keep an open mind, even if you are extremely committed to a philosophy / ideology. The process of inquiry can only help: if there's no change, it will reinforce your commitment; if there's a change required, it will convince you to make the shift.

The first debate / issue / question: Do I vote for my MP or do I vote for a party at the national level? 

As a parliamentary democracy (following the British model), the system is that we should choose the best person to represent us at our constituency and the chosen MPs will essentially select the government / executive. Unlike the American presidential system, we do not vote for a Prime Minister or a national winning party. This is an issue that has vexed me the most. At a national level, I might support a party but when I look at their (or their ally's) candidate in my constituency, I am loathe to vote for such a person because of his/her record. I might find some other person on the ballot sheet more appealing as my MP; what should I do?

The idea of a representative democracy, unfortunately, was severely impacted by the 1985 52nd Constitutional Amendment, also known as the Anti-defection Law (see here for a good overview / analysis of the law; pdf). On all essential matters, an MP is just a representative of his/her party, with limited scope for truly representing the constituency. Therefore, when we vote for a candidate, we are actually voting for that candidate's party. Till this law is amended in some form giving MPs greater freedom in the creation of a government or the passage of laws, your vote is for a party.

So, I am going to choose a party that I support at the national level and will vote for that party's candidate in my constituency, irrespective of who he/she is. One, I hope that the party I choose will nominate a candidate that I will not mind supporting (the onus is now on that party). Two, the choice of the candidate has greater local impact in municipal and state elections; the direct impact of an MP on real micro issues is quite limited, I suspect.

PS. I wish I had (formally) studied more about politics, governance, the Constitution, etc. but I haven't... my knowledge is based on my limited, spare time readings and discussions I observe on Twitter. I am treating these blog posts as part of my learning process and look forward to comments from those who know better. 

Recently I realized that the number of Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) has grown to 13 from about 6 at the turn of the century. And there have been discussions about creating more IIMs, one for every state (that will take the count to 29). I was at an IIM last week chatting with some faculty members and we felt that the biggest constraint (amongst several) in creating these new IIMs will be the absence of good quality faculty.

The number of management PhDs being awarded every year must be rather small, a few dozen I suspect, with probably just a dozen or so coming from the original, more established IIMs. So how do you staff all these new institutes, how do you attract good teachers to move to non-metro / smaller town locations across the country (where the new IIMs are likely to be set up)?

It would be unreasonable to believe that you could suddenly attract many young MBAs to take up a regular PhD program, particularly with its 4-6 year cycle time. At the same time, you cannot teach an MBA program with mostly (corporate) guest faculty who have not received any academic teaching skills. The middle ground could be as follows:

The (first 6) IIMs should create a new 1-year faculty development program aimed at professionals with at least 10 years managerial work experience. Like the Post-graduate Diploma (instead of MBA) that they offer at the graduate level, this could be called the Doctoral Diploma or something similar. This 1-year full time program could consist of a quick overview of the MBA program (like a 3-month management development program), learning and teaching skills (including case teaching methodology), basics of research methodology, a few electives in the chosen area of specialization and an internship (teaching an MBA elective as an under-study). 

Would many professionals be interested in such a program? I don't know for sure but it can be easily tested. It is anecdotal, but there are already many who are teaching on a part-time basis and may be willing to explore full-time teaching positions. Also, even those that are teaching as visiting / guest faculty could benefit significantly from such a program. 

Also, the Government (or the UGC or the IIMs, whoever makes those rules) should treat this Diploma as an entry-level equivalent of a PhD; subsequent promotions / raises should anyway be based on teaching, research and consulting performance.

The best researchers and academicians may still come from the (Indian & overseas) PhDs but this approach will ensure that we have adequate, good quality people standing up to teach the thousands of students who will be signing up at these new IIMs.

More thoughts about the management education space, as I spend more time understanding it, soon.

Over the last few months, several friends and colleagues have asked me for tips on becoming an independent consultant, a euphemism for being unemployed :) Many others have asked me how one can prepare for the life beyond a regular job. It made sense to share my thought process while it is still fresh in my mind, and not coloured by the eventual outcome of the decision.

In my experience, there are three major steps. (Please note that these may be relevant if you are turning towards entrepreneurship too, but I wouldn't know for sure. My thoughts are about the process of moving from corporate employment to being self-employed.)

1. Financial Planning

One of the certainties of having a job is the pay-check at the end of each month. Over time, as the salary increases, your monthly earning is easily much more than what you need to spend. But you stop caring. Of course, many of us plan for the future and make investments / retiral funds, etc. However, the reality is that you don't know how much money you need. You earn X and as long as you are spending / investing less than X, you are OK. (By the way, when I say "you", I am referring to all the earning members of your family; depending on the composition of the earning, some of the below may not be relevant to you.)

The day you become self-employed, the X vanishes. Now you have an income stream that could vary considerably month to month. The approach now has to be, what is the Y that I must earn every month in order to live a decent life. For that, you have to first define what "decent life" entails... what are your unavoidable expenses, E1 (e.g. society maintenance, electricity, school fees, groceries, phone bills, insurance premiums, etc.), what are your basic lifestyle expenses, E2 (e.g. eating out / movies once in a while, fuel and driver expenses, new handset once in x months, clothes & accessory shopping, replacement of consumer durables, repairs & maintenance, etc.) and finally, what are your luxury lifestyle expenses, E3 (e.g. family vacations, new gadgets, new jewelry, saving more for future, etc.). Believe me, getting to an estimate of these numbers is not easy since most people don't track their expenses at this level. Once you have an estimate of E1, E2 & E3 (all converted to a monthly equivalent), you can decide where to draw the base-line. I would believe that E1+E2 (net of what other members of your family earn) would be the minimum line and E1+E2+E3 is the earning goal.

As I said earlier, some months, particularly in the initial months may not get you E1+E2, maybe not even E1. So you have to be prepared for it, with liquid funds available to take care of the short-fall. Also, in order to ensure that E1 is not a humongous scary figure, the following assets should have been already paid for: the house you live in and the car that you drive. With the big ticket items out of the way, you should have liquid / near-liquid funds equivalent to at least 18 months of E1+E2. That will give you the freedom to experiment with your new career/life without worrying about basic necessities. The 18 month funda is simple... 12 months to experiment without any tension and 6 months to find a new job, if you eventually decide to give up.

The biggest learning of this exercise is that you will now be able to earn what you need rather than spend what you earn.

2. Make a Positive Change

Self-employment is not a solution for a job gone wrong. Don't take a negative decision to quit your job out of frustration and think that being self-employed will give you joy. Not only will your monthly pay-check vanish, but also many other things that you take for granted will go with your job. As I wrote in my earlier post, the biggest issue will be to answer the question, "What do you do?" Try explaining to your grandmother or the nosy neighbor why you don't go to office any longer. You were used to people listening to you when you spoke as the 'so&so' of this big company; now, you represent yourself and it is a very different thing. Being self-employed will also mean a whole bunch of new administrative things that you never worried about earlier. Get yourself registered for service tax and professional tax; raise invoices; collect your dues; pay service tax and advance tax quarterly; track all your business expenses and create your P&L... the list goes on! 

The only reason to still go through with it is because you care about what you are doing. The passion to do something different should drive you to make the change and will help you through the uncertainties and challenges of carrying it on. So, make a positive change.

Another thing: if you have to ever give up your new endeavor and go back to your job, it would help that you didn't hate it in the first place!

3. Test Market your Passion

It is one thing to believe that you like something and another to live your life doing it. One way to know for sure is to of course, do it. But that need not be the only way. Why not test it out, if possible? How would it feel when you actually pursue the new career idea? And more importantly, would others (say, your prospective customers) accept you in that role? In my case, I got several opportunities to test out my interest in teaching, both within my corporate environment as well as outside, in the academic world. 

Since it was "teaching" (seen as a 'noble' activity), I was able to do it while keeping my day job but it may not be possible for you to moonlight as a consultant. An alternative test would be to write out your "pitch" - why should anyone engage you? If you want to be a strategy consultant, make your brochure or pitch presentation. Ask your friends if they would engage you (instead of say, a consulting firm) for any project? Would you, objectively, engage yourself for your current employer?! Writing out your value prop and perhaps, your business plan, will help you clarify your thoughts and build confidence about what you are about to embark on. You may, in this process, even identify your early / anchor clients and start focusing on the first income stream.

The other benefit of doing this, in case you decide to progress, is that you have already begun your preparation for your next avatar, and can get off the ground running. (Note, you have to ensure that you are not violating any rules / codes of your current employment - as mentioned above, you want to leave your job on a positive note!)

Those are my three preparatory steps towards making the transition from corporate to self employment. You would have noticed that I put the financial planning up front, even above the passion bit. In that sense, it is different from becoming an entrepreneur. Becoming self-employed, I have felt, is just another form of career progression (towards Maslow's self-actualization level); it's mostly a low-risk move and at the same time, it isn't aimed at very high returns or wealth creation. Also, to be professionally self-employed, one needs to have built some credibility and a good network that can only come with time. 

Hope this helps; I would be happy to hear from others who have taken or are contemplating similar moves. It is still early days for me and I am eager to learn more.

It's one of the biggest technology deals of recent times and there's some worry if we are seeing a repeat of the late 90s dot-com bust. (Remember, many of the 20-something old entrepreneurs were at school then and probably don't have any recollections of that euphoria and bust.)

First, about the valuation. We all know there's really no foolproof, scientific method to value many businesses, particularly in the hi-tech / nextgen space. Like art, it is often in the eye of the beholder. The best way to evaluate a valuation is to to see the most critical assumptions that one has to believe in. Let us peel it down...

Facebook has a Enterprise Value to Revenue ratio of nearly 20. In case of Google, which is obviously more mature than FB, the ratio is about 6. So, to justify the Whatsapp (WA) valuation, first of all we would need to believe that it could generate revenues of $1 - 3 Billion. Is that possible?

WA has 450mn active users and is likely to add a few hundred million new users annually. Is it reasonable to believe that it could touch 1bn users in a couple of years? Smartphone numbers are estimated to be 1.75Bn in 2014, perhaps 3bn by 2017. Can WA achieve 30% penetration? Likely. Remember, already Facebook has nearly a billion mobile users.

So, with a billion user base, WA would have to generate $1-3 per user per annum. Is that inconceivable? No, that's just about Rs 10 per month: all those forwarded jokes are worth that much, right?

Strategically, buying WA makes a lot of sense for FB. As Rene Ritchie points out, Facebook's primary business is to catch our attention (and subsequently monetize it). It was clear that people were spending a lot of time on Whatsapp; most private and small group conversations had moved there and probably FB Messenger was not having the desired impact. WA was multi-platform and easy to use (no login; no "adding"). FB cannot let people's attention wander away from any of its products; so it bought out a competitor.

Then what could go wrong?

For starters, the valuation multiples we started with could be too optimistic. Compared to other, "traditional" technology companies (Apple, IBM, Microsoft, AT&T -- their EV to Revenue ratio is 2 to 3 times), FB appears overvalued, probably Google too. So, if you took a 2X multiple, WA would have to generate $9 per user per annum, which is obviously tougher than $1-3.

The bigger issue is about the monetization strategy. Will a billion people pay a buck every year to keep Whatsapp or will they move to the next free messaging app? What caused it grow exponentially (no login, no "adding") could also be its weakness - mobile number based connections can be replicated on any other app almost as easily. Whatsapp groups will need to be recreated by the admins and profiles will need to be updated but don't underestimate the effort people are willing to put in to save a buck! As several hundred millions come up for their first payment shortly, WA will need to justify why it is better than many other multi-platform, free messaging apps (including BBM which still has many dedicated fans). And of course, the fear of advertising always lurks around the corner.

Overall, I believe it is a good, strategic move by Facebook. By paying only $4Bn (20%) in cash, and the rest through stock, FB has used its highly valued stock to make this risky move. Not only have they purchased a potential billion-dollar revenue product, they have also gained control over a major competitor that somebody else could have acquired. 

Not a day goes by on Twitter (or in the "real" world) without somebody complaining about the deteriorating traffic situation in <insert city name>. Mumbai is no exception; it is not just that getting from one place to another takes much longer but it has become rather unsafe to drive around. When we are busy e-mailing or tweeting in the backseat of our cars, we don't really realize the latter issue. It's only when you are at the wheel (like I have been in the last 12 months) that you see how blatantly traffic rules and safe driving norms are being violated. 

Often, we tend to blame the cab / auto / bus / truck drivers for rash driving, in a classic "us vs them" argument. However, just look around and you will see that drivers of luxury cars / SUVs are as much to blame for the situation as 'those' guys. I must admit, I was also part of that problem till recently - how does it matter if you jump a traffic light when there are no other vehicles around. One morning while dropping my kids to school, I stopped at a red signal wondering if I should just go ahead; it was still early and traffic was yet to build up. My daughter exclaimed, "Why are we waiting, let's go!" I was taken aback; it was only a year ago she was reciting, "Green means Go, Yellow means Slow, Red means Stop" and today she wanted me to break that rule. What lessons was she taking from my behavior?

The question that has since vexed me was, why did I / we break the rule? There are two major reasons, I believe.

Ego

Essentially - "My work is very important and I need to get to my destination quickly. That is more important than following the rules or giving way to the other vehicles on the road."

It starts as a trickle but slowly, competitive spirit catches up and everyone's trying to get ahead. This ego is usually accompanied by disdain. "I pay so much in taxes but look at the condition of the roads. Bah! Why should I follow their rules?"

Fearlessness

It might sound cynical but I have come to believe that most of us follow rules / social norms only because of the fear of opprobrium. When society fails to punish you for your "illegalities" then you have no fear of committing them. 

Take the traffic light violation. What is the penalty for jumping a signal - I don't know what the official fine is but I would imagine that a Rs 100 payment would be sufficient to let you off. But that's not the real penalty, because the chances of getting penalized are quite low, right? Only once in a while do you notice cops pulling aside violaters. The probability of getting caught are low, I'd say, no more than one in ten lights jumped. So, if you assign the probability factor, your daily penalty for committing an illegality is Rs 10. Compared to your daily fuel expenses of Rs 100 - 200, this penalty is a very small addition to your cost of travel.

What if the chances of getting caught increased dramatically, perhaps by the use of technology / traffic cameras, to 50% or even 100%? And the fine is now Rs 200 because you cannot bribe your way out. The cost of the illegality is now Rs 100 or even Rs 200 per day, a significant number that might deter many from jumping the light. 

While ego causes some people to violate rules, it is this fearlessness that prompts almost everyone to commit illegalities. And it does not just stop with traffic lights. Once we start getting away with our small 'crimes', what's stopping us from moving to the next bigger one? Our importance and our invincibility keeps getting reinforced till, of course, we are brought to the ground with a great thud!

Finally, we must, yes, speak about all the scams, corruption and crime out there, but the next time when the traffic light turns red, also think of the crime we are about to commit.

PS. It is not a valid excuse that your driver jumped the traffic light while you were busy reading this blog-post. It is your car; take responsibility.

Today's Swaminomics highlights the loss of India's competitiveness as a nation: 

GDP growth has halved to 4.5%. India has become uncompetitive in several ways. Worse, the Indian political class has stopped even trying to compete globally. It focuses on subsidies, reservations and special measures for sundry vote banks, regardless of the implications for competitiveness.

Why is this so important? Because, there are multiple options for resources (capital and labour) to be invested. Whether it is foreign investment or Indian money, if it becomes too difficult or unattractive to operate in India, poof, many other countries are waiting for that money. Similarly, the best talent will move in and out of markets. Just five years ago, I was hoping (confidently) that 30 Indian companies would be able to fulfill late Dr. Prahlad's vision of becoming part of the Fortune 100 by 2022. I wrote:

India will be the third largest economy by 2022 and will contribute nearly a billion people to the world's workforce. The market should provide adequate scale to create globally leading business models.

An additional challenge for India is to consolidate what are typically highly fragmented and unorganised markets. Leadership in the home market is essential to achieve the scale that the Indian market can provide.

Several markets, including the US and the UK, are facing an economic slowdown. Consequently, several multinational companies are seeking to get into India and other emerging markets, making these markets more competitive. We have to defend the home turf not by creating entry barriers, but by directly competing with global players.

We have already lost a third of the fifteen years, and only one company (IOC, Govt. PSU) has managed to enter the Fortune 100 (2013) and Reliance Industries is close-by at #107. Looking ahead, it appears difficult that another 28 Indian companies will be able to make that shift. As Mr. Aiyar concludes,

Neither the courts, NGOs nor the politicians seem to care. A profusion of new rules and regulations are constantly churned out without any cost-benefit exercise to judge the impact on competitiveness. The latest Doing Business 2013 report of the World Bank says India has slipped from 131st to 134th position in ease of doing business. It stands 177th in ease of starting a business, 183rd in getting a construction permit; and 186th in enforcing contracts. Yet this damning expose of our uncompetitiveness produces no political will to change. We have a deep structural problem that is not even recognized, let alone redressed. Will India have to go bust again to concentrate the minds of politicians?

Almost all the reviews of Krrish 3 that I read before watching the movie warned me against going anywhere close to it. But when has logic ever prevailed, particularly when it comes to kids. And I must admit, I had enjoyed the first two installments of this trilogy.

Since then I have been wondering if Krrish 3 (K3 henceforth; I cannot get myself to type that double-r again!) was a good movie or not. Most kids seem to enjoy it a lot and hardly anybody walked out of the theatre during the movie. It is now reported that K3 has crossed Rs 250 crore revenues in the two weeks since release, making it one of the most successful Bollywood movies ever.

This is not a review of the movie, although I must point out what I found most jarring. There is no conflict between the two personas of the super-hero. Only the mask and black raincoat separate Krishna and Krrish; in fact, you see Krishna dancing and singing around a statue of himself. Contrast that with other super-heros like Spiderman, Batman or Iron Man... they are all reluctant "heroes" often unable to reconcile between their 'split' personalities. Not just them, eventheir loved ones go through similar struggles. This, I believe, creates palpable tension in their stories, often stronger than their conflict with the villain. 

On the other hand, in Krrish's favor, his story is an emerging one. He does not have years of comic stories, back-stories, make-overs or reboots available. He is a super-hero created for movies (nay, Hrithik Roshan), one movie at a time. Maybe Marvel or better still, India Book House could adopt Krrish and make a real comic super-hero series out of him. 

Anyway... the other issue that caught my attention was the relatively small scale of Bollywood movies. A 250 crore collection has made K3 the 2nd most successful in the industry. The Avengers (similar genre, Hollywood's 3rd highest grosser ever) had a budget 5X of K3 and earnings were 37 times more! In India itself, The Avengers earned Rs 65 crore. As pointed out in this article, the pertinent question is why Indian film-makers have no apparent desire to tap the much larger movie markets overseas.

In many industries, Indian companies have globalized, even when the Indian market was big enough (& growing), so that they might become globally competitive. Recognizing that products and brands from overseas have access to Indian markets, we needed to be able to compete with them in our home turf. And of course, many industries enjoy economies of scale and increasing the addressable market is a means to improving margins. Very high fixed cost businesses like movies clearly lend themselves to 'market expansion'.

Of course, as with any cross-border expansion, you cannot just transport products across markets. With movies, it is indeed tough to "customize" the product for each culture / language that one targets; at most you can dub the movie and maybe, edit it slightly differently. At the same time, the success of Hollywood movies like The Avengers or The Avatar has shown that good quality entertainment and story-telling is universally accepted. 

So are Indian film-makers shortsighted, focusing on the 100-200 crore collections whereas much larger opportunities lie elsewhere. Will the increasing corporatisation of Bollywood lead to larger scale movies being made in India, by Indians for global movie markets? In fact, a Bollywood movie with pan-India appeal that can earn $1 from each of the so-called 100mn middle class Indias has a Rs 600 crore potential!

During my corporate career, mergers / acquisitions was an area of focus and interest. Even my first major initiative in the academic world was the IIMA course on Cross-border M&A and Integration. Whether it was in the practical realm or the "theoretical" world, it was clear that the concept of post-merger integration was critical to the success of an acquisition.

One of the best practices in this space is that you plan for integration almost at the same time as you start evaluating the acquisition deal. There are two major reasons: integration is tough and you need all the time you can to plan for it; but more importantly, how you intend to integrate has major implications for the value as well as structuring of the deal. Many deals which may be attractive on a stand-alone basis, fall apart when you consider all the implications of what needs to happen post-deal. Or unattractive deals become viable with the addition of integration benefits or synergies.

Just as the above concept is valid in the case of a merger, so is it if you intend to de-merge a business / entity. Splitting a part from the whole comes with a similar set of issues around people, infrastructure, laws / regulations, etc. You can articulate an intention to de-merge (or merge) but a decision should only be taken after the separation (or integration) issues are considered and resolved.

Imagine if this is the complexity in corporate M&A which might involve thousands of people, what it would take when millions are party to such restructuring actions. This theory (or gyan) is extremely relevant to the way the Andhra Pradesh / Telangana issue has been handled by the Indian government. Like many other decisions, the govt seems to have adopted the principle of Act (announce) Now; Think (analyse) Later.

(Disclaimer: I am not close enough to the situation to comment on the historical and current reasons for the proposed split. Nor do I have any direct stakes in whatever the outcome might be. I was born in Andhra Pradesh and spent a few childhood years there. I have family and friends in multiple cities in AP.)

There are several (recent) instances of new states being created for mostly economic and administrative reasons. I have read some articles on the historical promises made to people of the Telangana region which successive governments have failed to fulfil. So it is safe to say that there are compelling reasons to consider the creation of Telangana state.

But, before announcing the decision as fait accompli, the Government should have identified and listed the major "dis-integration" issues. A process of consultation with key stakeholders (MLAs, MPs, media, opinion influencers, etc.) from all regions would have led to some acceptable alternatives for all key issues. The cost - benefit of these 'solutions' would then have informed us if the original decision was still worth pursuing.

It appears that the Srikrishna Committee did some parts of what has just been suggested. Unfortunately, the govt seems to have either completely ignored the output of that work or failed to publicly share what its resultant dis-integration plan was. The recent setting up of a GoM without any representation from the "affected parties" re-affirms the govt's disdain towards local opinions.

In my view, the people of Seemandhra who are agitating for a united Andhra really don't care about a "united" state. What they care about is the future of their jobs / investments in Hyderabad. What they want to know is that water would be available to the downstream regions. What they want comfort is on the centre's economic support to their state. Similarly, people from Telangana should be concerned about the availability of electricity for their state. They should be eager to know the economic development plan / support for areas beyond Hyderabad. These are issues that a dis-integration plan should have covered. These are issues that can be solved with some give & take, if negotiated in an atmosphere of trust.

It is still not too late. For once, can the central govt give up its unilateral behaviour and embark on a conciliatory process of de-merger? If not the PM, maybe the putative future PM can embrace the statesmanly role that is required at this time. Else, what should have been a clean de-merger will take on the ugly tones of partition.

Recently, I was associated with the launch of India's first white-labeled ATM (Indicash)... these are ATMs that do not carry any bank branding and are owned/operated by non-banking companies. One of the questions that came up from several people was, does India need more ATMs? Shouldn't the country be leap-frogging towards e-payments and m-payments? Aren't ATMs / cash the legacy "technology" in payments and transaction processing?

I can use a lot of benchmarks to show how India lags all major developed economies and even several emerging economies when it comes to banking and ATM penetration. Even countries where many people carry no cash in their wallets have more ATMs than India does. But let me illustrate my point (and the serious problem we face) through a simple example.

One of my several monthly cash expenses is towards purchasing milk. The vendor delivers 2-litres of packaged milk every morning and I pay him about Rs 2000 every month. I estimate that he has at least 100 other similar deliveries in my society complex. Therefore, he collects over Rs 200,000 monthly or nearly Rs 25 Lakhs (2.5 million) annually. However, his margin is probably only about 3-4%, i.e. Rs 100,000 p.a. 

Imagine if all the society residents decided to pay him using m-payment or cheque or credit card -- any transaction mechanism other than cash. His collection would now get into a bank account and therefore, "accountable". He will have to figure out what his tax liabilities are. Maybe he will need a Chartered Accountant to track his business income and prepare his returns. It is likely that he will eventually have no income tax liabilities but does he want to take a chance? It is the paper-work, the fear of extra hassles and possible bribe demands that makes him prefer cash any day.

Now take your grocery vendor. And your fruit and vegetable vendor. And many other local service providers. Every month, you make thousands in cash payments because the recipients will not have it any other way. In turn, they spend on housing, food and transport only in cash. 

I am not ruling out the importance of electronic / mobile transactions in India - it's a huge opportunity. But as long as there is a very large black (cash) economy out there and most small businesses are vary of the bureaucracy involved in becoming "white", we will have to make the frequent trip to the neighbourhood ATM.

Disclosure: I am associated with some companies in the payments / transaction processing business as an Advisor / Director.

In spite of its increased marketing and distribution activity in India, I don't believe Apple cares much about India, or cannot change enough to be more successful in the market.

Yesterday, Sanjay Bafna, editor of TelecomTalk tweeted about the iPhone 5s "official" pricing for India (Nov 1 launch).

I was quite surprised when I saw the prices. At Rs 52,500, the 16GB iPhone would be amongst the most expensive smartphones in the country. Not only that, it reflects a 20+% premium to its price in USA.

The unlocked 16GB phone is priced at $649 in the US; add about $40 for tax (varies by state). At today's exchange rate, that's Rs 42,675. Some states in India like Maharashtra charge higher VAT (12.5%) for mobile phones, so adjusting for that, you would get Rs 45,150.

The rumoured price is therefore a 23% premium on what it would cost in the US and about 16% premium over what it should cost (logically) in India. (I am assuming that shipping from China to India is not more expensive than China - USA.)

Recently, there was a lot of discussion about how Apple is looking to rapidly expand its presence in India. I don't think that adding to its distribution chain in 50 smaller towns is going to help much at these price levels. Undoubtedly, there are many rich Indians who live in rural India and they seek the latest / premium products but there is also a value consciousness amongst most Indians. Those who can afford to spend Rs 50-60K on a phone will have someone get it for them from the US.

Also, take the 64GB iPhone, for instance. At Rs 72,500, it would be more expensive than the 128GB 11" Macbook Air (Rs 67,900)!  

I love Apple products and am fully invested in their eco-system. Yet, I would think hard before purchasing an iPhone in India. I understand that the iPhone positioning is that of a premium product and it doesn't seek to compete on price. Apple doesn't need to do special pricing for India - just offer it at the same price levels that it does in its home market.

Note: I am still hoping that the 5s will be launched at the same price as the 5 (Rs 45,500 for the 16GB) or at most, Rs 49,999 (to account for some forex fluctuations).

Two iconic brands that most of us have experienced are now getting together. Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia's mobile phone business for Euro 5.44Bn could light a spark in an industry that has become a duopoly between Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android platforms. There is no doubt that both Microsoft and Nokia have fallen behind their peers over the last 5-8 years, failing to notice and recognize tectonic shifts in their markets. This deal could put them back in the reckoning, for at least the bronze medal.

Microsoft has traditionally been a software & services company; its recent foray into devices (Surface tablets) has not been particularly impressive. Nokia was, till 2012, the worldwide leader in mobile phones and continues to make impressive devices for all market segments. The complementarity has been further established through a 2-year long strategic alliance between them. Unfortunately, the partnership did not yield much: Windows Phone has just 3.7% share of the smartphone platform market and Nokia doesn’t even feature in the top 5 global smartphone vendor list. Will an acquisition help them achieve the magic that an alliance could not?

For Microsoft, the acquisition is not so cheap; while it gets about Euro 10Bn in annualized revenues, operating margins are at zero. Even with annual operating synergies (read: head-count reduction) of Euro 450mn, Microsoft has to believe in a major turn-around of the business. In its analyst presentation, Microsoft has assumed a 15% share of the global smartphone market to demonstrate long-term value creation potential. From Nokia’s current 3% share, it is a long journey ahead. 

In 2011, new (ex-Microsoft) Nokia CEO, Stephen Elop wrote to his team about them being on “a burning platform” and sought to “take a bold and brave step into an uncertain future”. It must be conceded that at least the fire did not consume them. Its Lumia range of phones have been well received and in several markets outside the US, they are amongst the top 5. However, with even Blackberry (the other beleaguered smartphone company) putting itself on sale, Nokia probably ran out of options. Given its reliance on Microsoft’s operating system, it is likely that the Nokia board did not explore a wide range of suitors. 

For this deal to be successful, Microsoft has to take a fresh look at its mobile device and services strategy. Competing head-on with Apple, Google / Samsung and possibly Amazon would not make much sense. Microsoft-Nokia has to create new spaces for itself, whether in terms of customer segments and / or geographies. It could become a price warrior in emerging market regions where the Nokia brand still has huge salience. Alternatively (or additionally), it could focus on its stronghold, the enterprise market; acquiring Blackberry could be the next step in such a strategy.

Nokia’s transformation from a Finnish paper production plant into a global technology major was a remarkable story. Can Microsoft help Nokia rise again from its current depths? 

BlackBerry as a B2B services / apps player would be of value... Not much left in their devices play (except the familiar qwerty keyboard). 

When I think of enterprise segment, I am not looking at the end-user mobiles as they are today... there are many Business applications that are yet to get mobile-enabled... at some point, with security and data privacy concerns, CIOs could start playing a role (again) in decisions on devices, networks and applications. For instance, BlackBerry has a major play in Automobile OS (through their QNX acquisition)... that is an example of enterprise mobility. There could be similar stuff in Healthcare, Education, etc. These can be huge markets and are not necessarily (directly) tapped by Apple, Samsung or HTC -- yet.

Maybe I expect too much disruption from MS, but let me reiterate: the enterprise mobile market is not what we see today. It is not just a smartphone / device market. It is not Office or email either. Those are being addressed quite well by Android and iOS now. Somebody will disrupt the enterprise software / mobility market. It can be transformed; folks are working on it. Good chance it will not be an insider.

Two months ago, I wrote about a change of direction in my career / life and about a month ago, I became unemployed (self-employed sounds better, no?). Here is a brief checkin of the first month. I am writing this for two reasons: one, some of my friends / colleagues wanted to hear about and (perhaps) learn from my experiences; and two, this helps me clear any self-doubts about how I am using my time.

Fourteen years after I started working – all of them with the Tata group – I have decided to take a break from full-time employment. It has not been an easy decision, and even after the decision was “finalized” it wasn’t easy to implement it. But now it is done, and I will be leaving Tata Communications at the end of July 2013.

Well, “technically” leaving; it is not so easy to get Tata Communications out of my blood stream :) During the last ten years, I have been part of an exciting roller-coaster ride with Tata Communications (earlier VSNL); I have had opportunities to work on some of the most daring, challenging and (sometimes) "stupid" things. While I cannot say, I have done it all (one can never), I have to wholeheartedly admit that I had a fulfilling career with the Tata group / Tata Communications. I will remain engaged on a part-time basis, continuing a few activities and working on some new interesting ones.

Three people had a major influence on my decision, two of whom I have not met.

Tim Ferriss’s The 4-Hour Workweek had a profound impact on me when I read it three years ago. While many of the suggestions / ideas appeared impractical, I was blown by the audacity of it all.  It helped me dream.

Clayton Christensen is most known for his work on innovation but his book “How Will You Measure Your Life” was an eye-opener for me. Six months ago, when I was laid in bed, unwell, for a couple of weeks, I read this book at the recommendation of my boss. The three basic questions that he poses at us are worth repeating:

How can I be sure that:

• I will be successful and happy in my career?
• My relationships with my spouse, my children and my extended family and close friends become an enduring source of happiness?
• I live a life of integrity – and stay out of jail?

The third question was not an immediate source of concern (thankfully!) but the first two were quite pertinent. Would I let my life be measured by my designation changes or salary growth or the list of achievements in my resume? Or should there be a different set of ‘metrics’ that focused on how happy and content my family and I were?

Don’t get me wrong - there was nothing wrong with my job. I have great expectations for Tata Communications; my job content was constantly changing & challenging; and (to Gallup’s delight) my best friends now are at my workplace. But, the job shouldn’t be the only thing in your life.

Prof. Christensen suggests that for both businesses and individuals,

Strategy almost always emerges from a combination of deliberate and unanticipated opportunities. What’s important is to get out there and try stuff until you learn where your talents, interests, and priorities begin to pay off. When you find out what really works for you, then it’s time to flip from an emergent strategy to a deliberate one.

Of course, the difficult part about this is that:

Change can often be difficult, and it will probably seem easier to just stick with what you are already doing. That thinking can be dangerous. You’re only kicking the can down the road, and you risk waking up one day, years later, looking into the mirror, asking yourself: “What am I doing with my life?”

I had made my decision, yet I was having these doubts: was I being foolish? Suman, my wife, sent me a link to an article and said that this was just for me. It was Ravi Venkatesan’s blog post “Fear of being a nobody”. I read it with fascination; finally here was somebody whom I knew and it was as if he was describing my situation!

Without a job, how will I provide for myself and others who depend on me? Work is identity. How do I introduce myself to strangers? Who am I if I am not part of an organization? Work provides purpose. Simply going to a familiar place everyday, being responsible for some things and doing these as best as you can be meaningful.

 Ravi had faced and overcome the two biggest challenges that one faces in this situation:

 Fear and confusion. As I said, these are the twin enemies that must be overcome to build a new life and a new career. I discovered that fears arise from "stories" -powerful, hidden subprograms that are in the subconscious mind and end up defining how we think of ourselves and what we allow ourselves to do in life. We are usually unaware of the stories in our lives.

 If fears arise from stories, confusion seems to stem from lack of information. We simply lack information about what we might be really good at, what opportunities might exist out there, what things might give a sense of purpose and versus other things might merely be enjoyable.

Ravi’s four-part article helped me a lot, reassuring me that I was not doing something silly. It had been done before, so it can be done again.

Suman added a huge boost to my confidence, ready to jointly take the journey towards uncertainty. Vinod, my boss, has also been a source of encouragement, willing to support my new “avatar”.

Now that August 1 is not too far away, what are my goals for this avatar? Frankly, I have not thought everything through yet. I want to use my time to experiment with a few things.

1. Teaching: I started teaching a course on M&A at IIM, Ahmedabad in 2012 and hope to continue that, and maybe expand to some other courses / institutes. I’ve also been doing a bit of corporate education and will be involved in building some leadership training programs.
2. Photography: What started out as yet another hobby has become a serious interest. Having invested a lot of time (and money!) into it, I want to take it to pro-level.
3. Innovation: My Tata Comm journey has been about taking a few bold ideas and bringing them to life. I want to use my experience and passion to help others that are looking to change the world.

More than anything else, however, I do want to re-build my relationships with family and friends. People for whom I had limited time and mind-space earlier will see a lot more of me now, so watch out! :)