“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin
27 children died in a small village in Bihar, India when they consumed poisoned or spurious food served in school - courtesy a govt. run welfare program called "mid day meal".
This tragic incident has ripped apart many families and shocked the entire nation. People fail to comprehend how this can happen and who is to "blame" for this tragedy. Witch hunt has begun where local villagers are baying for the blood of the school Principal in who's house the food was presumably stored.
The govt. of the state is leaning on political conspiracy angle where it sees sinister political opponents destabilizing the govt. by murdering 27 innocent kids and sending away scores to the hospital. Then there are wise people of media who think that the failed distribution and storage system is to be blamed, some others blame the inefficient supply chain and the govt. agencies that execute such welfare programs, but no one has hit the nail on the head and blamed the wisdom of having such programs in the first place!
Why ? Because it is politically incorrect and mighty cynical to criticize programs that are supposedly designed to help "poor" kids to attend schools and get fed
No one knows the exact cause what happened, whether the food was contaminated by poor storage because of negligence, or spurious ingredients were procured because of "corruption" or some daring political group poisoned the food to get rid of the govt. of the day
Whatever the real cause was, the underlying reason for this kind of tragedy is the gigantic welfare program that is run by a very large and highly unaccountable bureaucracy where multiple govt. and semi govt. agencies work in tandem to achieve social utopia like feed all the starving kids in the country on their way to get educated.
When you get "free" food, you actually cannot question what is being fed to you, you just suck up and dig in. Its a perfect mouse trap - no tax payer dare question such program lest he be called out heartless capitalist pig who grudges free meals to starving kids and the ones who are fed the crap cannot say much because its free ! Between the guilt ridden section that funds and very weak section that survive on this handout is the mammoth and parasitic and ever expanding bureaucracy, not for profits and politicians who thrive at cost of the two. The only reason why such programs survive and outlive its utility is to feed the monster that run these programs
In more developed and nuanced society - very recently Mayor Bloomberg of New York City made it his business to regulate soda intake of people in his city.
He felt perfectly within his right to dictate the dietary habits of residents since the govt was funding public healthcare for the city of New York. When people "take" from the govt and expect the govt to provide for their basic needs they sign off their freedom and in case of Bihar their children's life
I am really disappointed that the tragedy has kicked in all sorts of debate but none that is focused on the true cause of this tragedy - the role that govt plays in people's life and the limits to that
Govt's role is not to run people's lives but to provide security and rule of law. But India's tragedy is that despite the democratic framework it never got to experience true "freedom"
India's post colonial destiny was sealed by the founding fathers who were enamored by "socialist" European model. Universal suffrage coupled with urge for politicians to help people by feeding them gave rise to a political structure in the country where demagoguery in name of "helping poor" gained unprecedented currency. Govt ran airlines, factories, railways, buses and everything possible under the sun and eventually people's life. Egged on by Soviet Russia India's rulers created a socialist economy run on centralized planning. For more than 40 years the country did not flinch from its commitment to socialism even when it was quite evident that its a failing model. It was only in 1990's when exogenous and endogenous factors created a perfect storm, country under PVR first experimented with limited de-regulation with astounding results. But still the structure that was created post independence persisted because it was key to survival of a political-bureaucratic class that had thrived on soviet modeled socialism.
There has been numerous public protest against "corruption" in India. Most of the rabble rousing is around stricter laws to prevent corruption and punishing the corrupt. None of the debate focused on true cause of corruption - expanded govt and its role in the society. Ironically the solutions touted by torchbearers of anti corruption crusade is to expand govt even further - in name of "common man" - something that reminds us strongly about the Bolshevik Soviet revolution or early 20th century that brought untold misery to East Europe for nearly a century. The public discourse today is replete with rhetoric and superficial arguments, mostly vexing on symptoms than the malaise
The villagers, where the midday meal tragedy struck have pleaded the govt to end the program for good of everyone - perhaps they are for more enlightened than the so called urban "intellectuals" who are shaping the debate today
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Hollow words
When India's home minister threaten Pakistan with dire consequences of any more attacks on India's soil, it tells Pakistan how desperate and weak a nation's govt has become that it has to come up with some sound bites for domestic consumption and to make people believe that we are some how the nation of strong an brave, when actually our action belies bravery and fortitude completely.
To simply put we since last 40 yrs every time in face of a terror attack we have acted like impotent, soft and gutless nation that has no stomach for a fight. We have made it abundantly clear to the world that we are vulnerable and do not have the power and conviction to protect what is important to us from external or internal enemies. As a nation we are a bunch of cowards looking for an escape route and as long as we can get one and get to make a brave speech now and then we are happy with that
The chronology of some important events should help put mirror on our face
(1940 - 1990) - Hazratbal, Kashmir, Rubiya Sayeed and all the other incidents where we let terrorists walk away....
- 1992 Bombay bomb blast, no one is convicted and Dawood is living a luxrious life in Pakistan and mid east while running his empire in Mumbai. Small crooks like Sanjay Dutt are caught and then left off the hook as he has gained stature as a henchman of "bhai". The nation looks on as no one is brought to book
- 1999, Kandahar, we respectfully escort terrorists to Afghanistan to their handlers to secure release of prisoners
- 2002, Parliament attack, one person is convicted and he is left off the hook. One professor is deeply involved but gets off on technicality, we look on and no one dares to attack actual culprits sitting in Pakistan
- 2002 - 2008, series of bomb blasts in Mumbai, Jaipur, Bangalore and all the other places in India and no one gets punished...
- 26/11, we are attacked in media glare and we have a sissy HM telling Pakistan that it is ok this time but we will not tolerate next time..
WHAT A SHAME
To simply put we since last 40 yrs every time in face of a terror attack we have acted like impotent, soft and gutless nation that has no stomach for a fight. We have made it abundantly clear to the world that we are vulnerable and do not have the power and conviction to protect what is important to us from external or internal enemies. As a nation we are a bunch of cowards looking for an escape route and as long as we can get one and get to make a brave speech now and then we are happy with that
The chronology of some important events should help put mirror on our face
(1940 - 1990) - Hazratbal, Kashmir, Rubiya Sayeed and all the other incidents where we let terrorists walk away....
- 1992 Bombay bomb blast, no one is convicted and Dawood is living a luxrious life in Pakistan and mid east while running his empire in Mumbai. Small crooks like Sanjay Dutt are caught and then left off the hook as he has gained stature as a henchman of "bhai". The nation looks on as no one is brought to book
- 1999, Kandahar, we respectfully escort terrorists to Afghanistan to their handlers to secure release of prisoners
- 2002, Parliament attack, one person is convicted and he is left off the hook. One professor is deeply involved but gets off on technicality, we look on and no one dares to attack actual culprits sitting in Pakistan
- 2002 - 2008, series of bomb blasts in Mumbai, Jaipur, Bangalore and all the other places in India and no one gets punished...
- 26/11, we are attacked in media glare and we have a sissy HM telling Pakistan that it is ok this time but we will not tolerate next time..
WHAT A SHAME
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Nation's character
"Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike"
— Theodore Roosevelt, American adventurer and 26th president (1858-1919)
Manmohan Singh's recent statement has generated lot of debate on PM's weakness and India's response to terror and Pakistan in general. Most of what has been published and spoken at different forums have not addressed the core of the issue and have largely remained confined to spine of an individual and his diplomatic and political acumen, which we all know does not amount to much.
What has been largely ignored is the fact that statement itself does not count for much, you can make most pacifist statement and still aggressively pursue your interest and you may give most daring and outrageous statement and bend over when faced with a challenge.
I believe that any Indian politician or leader would essentially tow a predictable line when it comes to taking any challenge to India's security head on - they will seek a safe and soft escape route and try to save face with some strong words and actions lacking conviction and certitude to carry them out to the end and feverishly hope that people forget the outrage till other one happens, hopefully when they are not in the hot seat - for some other bugger to face the devil.
Weather it is BJP or Congress or any other national and regional party we can actually predict what will happen when our people are taken hostage, our cities are bombed and our neighbor violates our security. If we look at the cronology of events in last 60 years we see a pattern of weakness, leaders and people want to be happy putting outrage behind them and moving on..
India as a nation does not have spine - we have lacked national character since 300 BC when Greeks invaded us and ruled a large part of the nation, since then we made our rear available for the pleasure of invaders, marauders and aggressors.
Since then India's character (mainly Hindu character) has been defined by defeatism, delusion, pettiness and narrow mindedness. Nothing much has changed from 3 century BC till now! We lack the courage to overcome our own prejudices and weaknesses so we lack courage to face adversity and give in to the weakest of adversaries. Bangladesh killed and maimed and dragged our security forces all the way to the border and dumped them right on our face and we caved in - if we do not have the balls to defend ourselves and seek vengeance against Bangladesh we send out a strong signal to the world that we are same vulnerable and soft state that we have been for last 5000 years and nothing much has changed
Unless there is transformation in national character there is not much hope that we will prevent another 26/11 or collapse of Indian (Hindu) civilization in the long run. If we have to take some lessons we can look at Jews and how they transformed from a defeatist community to a small but strong and assertive force in the world, but the price they paid to realize their folly was holocaust - annihilation of 6 million of their brethren in Europe (50% of their community). We will be foolish to pay that kind of price to learn a simple but critical lesson - national character is the only defense against extinction as a community and country!
— Theodore Roosevelt, American adventurer and 26th president (1858-1919)
Manmohan Singh's recent statement has generated lot of debate on PM's weakness and India's response to terror and Pakistan in general. Most of what has been published and spoken at different forums have not addressed the core of the issue and have largely remained confined to spine of an individual and his diplomatic and political acumen, which we all know does not amount to much.
What has been largely ignored is the fact that statement itself does not count for much, you can make most pacifist statement and still aggressively pursue your interest and you may give most daring and outrageous statement and bend over when faced with a challenge.
I believe that any Indian politician or leader would essentially tow a predictable line when it comes to taking any challenge to India's security head on - they will seek a safe and soft escape route and try to save face with some strong words and actions lacking conviction and certitude to carry them out to the end and feverishly hope that people forget the outrage till other one happens, hopefully when they are not in the hot seat - for some other bugger to face the devil.
Weather it is BJP or Congress or any other national and regional party we can actually predict what will happen when our people are taken hostage, our cities are bombed and our neighbor violates our security. If we look at the cronology of events in last 60 years we see a pattern of weakness, leaders and people want to be happy putting outrage behind them and moving on..
India as a nation does not have spine - we have lacked national character since 300 BC when Greeks invaded us and ruled a large part of the nation, since then we made our rear available for the pleasure of invaders, marauders and aggressors.
Since then India's character (mainly Hindu character) has been defined by defeatism, delusion, pettiness and narrow mindedness. Nothing much has changed from 3 century BC till now! We lack the courage to overcome our own prejudices and weaknesses so we lack courage to face adversity and give in to the weakest of adversaries. Bangladesh killed and maimed and dragged our security forces all the way to the border and dumped them right on our face and we caved in - if we do not have the balls to defend ourselves and seek vengeance against Bangladesh we send out a strong signal to the world that we are same vulnerable and soft state that we have been for last 5000 years and nothing much has changed
Unless there is transformation in national character there is not much hope that we will prevent another 26/11 or collapse of Indian (Hindu) civilization in the long run. If we have to take some lessons we can look at Jews and how they transformed from a defeatist community to a small but strong and assertive force in the world, but the price they paid to realize their folly was holocaust - annihilation of 6 million of their brethren in Europe (50% of their community). We will be foolish to pay that kind of price to learn a simple but critical lesson - national character is the only defense against extinction as a community and country!
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Great Chasm
Organized retail in India which got off a very promising start some years back is now fighting for survival.
Today we see a "great chasm" between what constitutes a fully operational and organized retail sector and what we have in India currently - a fractured, disorganized and bruised industry running like a headless chicken. The pundits have come up with diverse reasons for this debacle of an entire sector, some of the reasons are core and many are symptomatic.
Some such popular myths are
- Inability to compete with mom and pop stores, who have very strong ties with local community and customers (where family ties with micro short term credit are the bonding agents) and are well entrenched
- Lack of supply chain infrastructure
- In case of stores which ran into financial trouble, high debt and low gross margins
- Govt regulation to freely let foreign players enter the market that constrained easy capital - a key to starting and running large chains
I would like to dispel some of these widely held beliefs before presenting what I believe may be the key reasons why organized retail has largely fared badly
Inability to compete with mom and pop stores
Customers switch for value, the switching is sustainable when the value is real and not just perceived. Consumers may flock a store if it represents novelty but will not stick to it. I believe lack of competitiveness of organized retail store has been their inability to create distinct and differentiated value for customers. This is more relevant in case of grocery retail than in other categories.
For retail consumers value is price, quality, ease, experience, customer service, no hassle purchase and return. Low price, high quality is something that is always a "work in progress" and chains need to make it a central factor in their operations. Ease is something that chains overlook - ease of buying, selecting, returning, replacing etc increases customer satisfaction. Mom and Pop stores will not be able to compete if chains can deliver on overall value.
Lack of supply chain infrastructure
This belief is reinforced when we tend to compare India to retail sectors in other developed countries where superior infrastructure strengthens the supply chain components and makes operations more efficient. But retail is a local phenomenon and stores compete locally not globally. Presence of infrastructure or lack thereof impacts all players equally. So its impact on competitiveness is minimal. Most of the chains have failed in India not because the infrastructure was not present to make them operate like an American or a European store, but because they tried to operate like one in absence of it!
US stores operating model is based on local factors like sprawling and cheap developed real estate and hence large parking space, distributed population, cheap and big cars, cheap gas, extensive road network where people do not mind driving 20 miles for a bargain.
Indian stores cannot operate on the same model and must take into consideration local conditions and realities. They cannot operate like a loss leader for initial years and then turn in profit (when the supply chain is in place), for the operating model and core assumptions are flawed. Stores in India have to face some tough realities
- lack of space and expensive real estate
- lack of road infrastructure and expensive fuel - so if you open a store in wilderness no one will come driving because there is a deal on marshmallows!
This is a classic paradox since there has to be a fine balance in cost of real estate vs. the location. Many chains failed because they focused on only one factor at a time. While it is essential to open store with critical mass of target demography, it does not make sense to open up a store on most expensive real estate just because it draws lot of crowd (or footfall). Chains should not just focus on "who comes" to the location but also on "why they come". I am sure most of the families when they visit a multiplex for watching a movie or a family dinner will hardly want to club an evening of entertainment with grocery shopping. On the other hand they would like to buy groceries from locations near their residence. Hence a grocery retail chain ought to be located in thick residential areas where real estate is not so expensive while fashion and high end departmental stores can be located in malls etc, where high cost of real estate is justified by high margins.
High cost of debt/capital
Though India has higher cost of capital than other countries but there are many indigenous businesses catering to the local market that have done well, by creating the value and by running on a model that helps them make money without eroding the intrinsic value (what ever that may be). Most of the retailers failed as their unit margins, gross margins and store level operating margins were out of whack, coupled with heavy investment in things like real estate and store interiors, which left less money for investments in areas like technology, supply chain etc that can help them outsmart the local mom and pop stores.
The holy grail for Indian retailers was, "number". Large number of stores will create brand and pull, which subsequently will increase leverage over supplier and hence better prices etc etc.
Having more number of stores do not necessarily create value for the consumer, intuitively it seems like the more stores you have better you will be, but it is not actually true.
The fact is that more stores you have with a bad operating model, the higher the risk of going belly up - which eventually many Indian retailers did. The money that retailers raised by debt or by equity was largely to expand the number of stores and thereby invested in their own doom. The money was not spent in investing in IT and systems to understand consumer buying behavior and cater to them more intelligently, it was not spent in introducing innovative products and delivery mechanisms - but just lifted ideas, concepts and models from west, which was like a double whammy!
Does anyone recall that Walmart failed big time in Mexico? It is a B School case study!
They did not fail because they lacked capital (or raised capital at high cost), or that they did not have as many stores, or for that matter that supply chain was not in place (Mexico is like another state south of Texas/California). They failed because they did not catch consumer fancy!
Which brings us to the last falsely perceived factor
Govt regulation on FDI
Let me start with a disclaimer - I inherently and thoroughly despise anything to do with the government!
Yet I believe in case of failure of Indian retail chains, it would be unfair to single out the government. Though they have contributed to the overall misery in the country in terms of abdicating responsibility to govern and protect, yet in case of Indian retail story they may not be the "1000 pound Gorilla" in the room. They may have tried to level the playing field in some way and protect the small and medium traders in a myopic way that it always see the reality, via prism of votes and popularity, but essentially that is not what contributed to the decline of the retail hype.
I believe the presumption that organized and large players hurts smaller and mid sized players in the industry and cannibalize their share of business is flawed.
Yes, they do create competitive pressure and weaker players exit faster than they would otherwise but smaller need not be weaker! McDonald does not kill business of small family owned restaurants, serving burgers as long as the burgers they serve are better (even if pricier) than McDonald. If an entity is able to attract customers and give them tangible value it will be profitable, however small it is. Any entity that forget the customer will close its shop eventually however big it is.
You cannot protect yourself by wishing away competition. Consumer may stick to you for lack of alternatives but this state is neither desirable nor permanent.
Having said that in case of Indian retail the small guys (mom and pop stores) took the big guys to the cleaners. I do not see in all this how entry of foreign players or direct investment from them would have helped our already limping friend to get ahead in the race.
When Subhiksha fell, some people in media woke up from the slumber but I am sure its customers or an everyday consumer who look out for best deals would have sensed the fall long back (definitely much before Premji could smell it) and had abandoned the much hyped retailer months before the hell broke loose.
You cannot restructure a company by negotiating with suppliers and injecting new funds - you cannot resurrect a corpse that way. Injecting funds and keeping suppliers at bay may buy you some time but it will not make customers buy from you.
As one of my friend said that businesses that run on strategy might fail but the ones run on principle never fail, I believe the failure of the sector and lack of success for many of its players stems from the fact that customer is not central to their core principles and hence planning. When you go shopping for your kid or spouse, don't you have their picture, preference and lack of it before you buy the stuff? How many buyers at retailers have the same approach when procuring from suppliers?
The chasm that exist today in the sector is not because of govt regulation or millions of mom and pop stores that operate at lower cost. The chasm is the metaphoric distance that the key strategist in these organizations have created between the way they run the business and what the customer really values.
Today we see a "great chasm" between what constitutes a fully operational and organized retail sector and what we have in India currently - a fractured, disorganized and bruised industry running like a headless chicken. The pundits have come up with diverse reasons for this debacle of an entire sector, some of the reasons are core and many are symptomatic.
Some such popular myths are
- Inability to compete with mom and pop stores, who have very strong ties with local community and customers (where family ties with micro short term credit are the bonding agents) and are well entrenched
- Lack of supply chain infrastructure
- In case of stores which ran into financial trouble, high debt and low gross margins
- Govt regulation to freely let foreign players enter the market that constrained easy capital - a key to starting and running large chains
I would like to dispel some of these widely held beliefs before presenting what I believe may be the key reasons why organized retail has largely fared badly
Inability to compete with mom and pop stores
Customers switch for value, the switching is sustainable when the value is real and not just perceived. Consumers may flock a store if it represents novelty but will not stick to it. I believe lack of competitiveness of organized retail store has been their inability to create distinct and differentiated value for customers. This is more relevant in case of grocery retail than in other categories.
For retail consumers value is price, quality, ease, experience, customer service, no hassle purchase and return. Low price, high quality is something that is always a "work in progress" and chains need to make it a central factor in their operations. Ease is something that chains overlook - ease of buying, selecting, returning, replacing etc increases customer satisfaction. Mom and Pop stores will not be able to compete if chains can deliver on overall value.
Lack of supply chain infrastructure
This belief is reinforced when we tend to compare India to retail sectors in other developed countries where superior infrastructure strengthens the supply chain components and makes operations more efficient. But retail is a local phenomenon and stores compete locally not globally. Presence of infrastructure or lack thereof impacts all players equally. So its impact on competitiveness is minimal. Most of the chains have failed in India not because the infrastructure was not present to make them operate like an American or a European store, but because they tried to operate like one in absence of it!
US stores operating model is based on local factors like sprawling and cheap developed real estate and hence large parking space, distributed population, cheap and big cars, cheap gas, extensive road network where people do not mind driving 20 miles for a bargain.
Indian stores cannot operate on the same model and must take into consideration local conditions and realities. They cannot operate like a loss leader for initial years and then turn in profit (when the supply chain is in place), for the operating model and core assumptions are flawed. Stores in India have to face some tough realities
- lack of space and expensive real estate
- lack of road infrastructure and expensive fuel - so if you open a store in wilderness no one will come driving because there is a deal on marshmallows!
This is a classic paradox since there has to be a fine balance in cost of real estate vs. the location. Many chains failed because they focused on only one factor at a time. While it is essential to open store with critical mass of target demography, it does not make sense to open up a store on most expensive real estate just because it draws lot of crowd (or footfall). Chains should not just focus on "who comes" to the location but also on "why they come". I am sure most of the families when they visit a multiplex for watching a movie or a family dinner will hardly want to club an evening of entertainment with grocery shopping. On the other hand they would like to buy groceries from locations near their residence. Hence a grocery retail chain ought to be located in thick residential areas where real estate is not so expensive while fashion and high end departmental stores can be located in malls etc, where high cost of real estate is justified by high margins.
High cost of debt/capital
Though India has higher cost of capital than other countries but there are many indigenous businesses catering to the local market that have done well, by creating the value and by running on a model that helps them make money without eroding the intrinsic value (what ever that may be). Most of the retailers failed as their unit margins, gross margins and store level operating margins were out of whack, coupled with heavy investment in things like real estate and store interiors, which left less money for investments in areas like technology, supply chain etc that can help them outsmart the local mom and pop stores.
The holy grail for Indian retailers was, "number". Large number of stores will create brand and pull, which subsequently will increase leverage over supplier and hence better prices etc etc.
Having more number of stores do not necessarily create value for the consumer, intuitively it seems like the more stores you have better you will be, but it is not actually true.
The fact is that more stores you have with a bad operating model, the higher the risk of going belly up - which eventually many Indian retailers did. The money that retailers raised by debt or by equity was largely to expand the number of stores and thereby invested in their own doom. The money was not spent in investing in IT and systems to understand consumer buying behavior and cater to them more intelligently, it was not spent in introducing innovative products and delivery mechanisms - but just lifted ideas, concepts and models from west, which was like a double whammy!
Does anyone recall that Walmart failed big time in Mexico? It is a B School case study!
They did not fail because they lacked capital (or raised capital at high cost), or that they did not have as many stores, or for that matter that supply chain was not in place (Mexico is like another state south of Texas/California). They failed because they did not catch consumer fancy!
Which brings us to the last falsely perceived factor
Govt regulation on FDI
Let me start with a disclaimer - I inherently and thoroughly despise anything to do with the government!
Yet I believe in case of failure of Indian retail chains, it would be unfair to single out the government. Though they have contributed to the overall misery in the country in terms of abdicating responsibility to govern and protect, yet in case of Indian retail story they may not be the "1000 pound Gorilla" in the room. They may have tried to level the playing field in some way and protect the small and medium traders in a myopic way that it always see the reality, via prism of votes and popularity, but essentially that is not what contributed to the decline of the retail hype.
I believe the presumption that organized and large players hurts smaller and mid sized players in the industry and cannibalize their share of business is flawed.
Yes, they do create competitive pressure and weaker players exit faster than they would otherwise but smaller need not be weaker! McDonald does not kill business of small family owned restaurants, serving burgers as long as the burgers they serve are better (even if pricier) than McDonald. If an entity is able to attract customers and give them tangible value it will be profitable, however small it is. Any entity that forget the customer will close its shop eventually however big it is.
You cannot protect yourself by wishing away competition. Consumer may stick to you for lack of alternatives but this state is neither desirable nor permanent.
Having said that in case of Indian retail the small guys (mom and pop stores) took the big guys to the cleaners. I do not see in all this how entry of foreign players or direct investment from them would have helped our already limping friend to get ahead in the race.
When Subhiksha fell, some people in media woke up from the slumber but I am sure its customers or an everyday consumer who look out for best deals would have sensed the fall long back (definitely much before Premji could smell it) and had abandoned the much hyped retailer months before the hell broke loose.
You cannot restructure a company by negotiating with suppliers and injecting new funds - you cannot resurrect a corpse that way. Injecting funds and keeping suppliers at bay may buy you some time but it will not make customers buy from you.
As one of my friend said that businesses that run on strategy might fail but the ones run on principle never fail, I believe the failure of the sector and lack of success for many of its players stems from the fact that customer is not central to their core principles and hence planning. When you go shopping for your kid or spouse, don't you have their picture, preference and lack of it before you buy the stuff? How many buyers at retailers have the same approach when procuring from suppliers?
The chasm that exist today in the sector is not because of govt regulation or millions of mom and pop stores that operate at lower cost. The chasm is the metaphoric distance that the key strategist in these organizations have created between the way they run the business and what the customer really values.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
It doesn't feel good to be vindicated
Sometimes it doesnt feel too good when your statements are vindicated and proven right
An article in Financial Times by Razeen Sally, (Director of the European Centre for International Political Economy) has hit the nail on the head by stating that the current economic mess in India should be squarely blamed on Manmohan Singh, who plunged Indian economy into a chasm largely on account of political expediency. It has rightly criticized his lack of political leadership (despite excellent academic credentials) as being largely responsible for failure of Indian economy and end of India hype that was peddled around the world.
I had posted a blog in July 2007, a short comment on how govt headed by Manmohan Singh will lead India to an economic catastrophe. I am no expert of economics but a common sense and idea of right and wrong was good enough for anyone to see where India was headed since 2004. That many sections of corporate India did not see it coming only tell 2 things
A. most of Indian corporate honchos lack common sense
B. they were also part of the team peddling Chindia story at Davos and all other forums for raking short term gains
Media has been largely trying to deflect blame of economic chaos from Manmohan Singh, projecting it as part of global economic downturn (now media has as much vested interest as Congress party in propagating this myth).
Nothing can be far from the truth. The crisis faced by global financial institutions in west owing to toxic assets (worth more than USD2 trillion) did not impact financial institutions in India. It just acted as a trigger to expose and jolt already fragile economic super-structure, which had weakened since 2004 (actually the process of strengthening which was less than a decade old stopped and the decay started) failed under the impact of a seemingly distant crisis.
During last 5 yrs Manmohan Singh's so called dream team was busy marketing and branding themselves as harbingers of economic reforms and liberalization, while their govt was undermining the very spirit of free market economy by:
a. stopping all reforms (now Sonia Gandhi, who is surely no expert in economics have enough galls to say that lack of reforms actually helped India avert the global crisis and her mother in law, Indira Gandhi was a visionary who saw this coming 40 yrs, way back in 1970s and hence she had the bright idea to nationalize every institution in the country)
b. wasting money and creating a huge fiscal deficit by unimaginative but populist acts like employment guarantee scheme (like Soviet Union had)
c. halting all major infrastructure development projects (while PM projected himself as messiah of development and media cheered on when he staked his govt on a nuclear pact with US, commercial impact of which can be felt only 25 yrs from now - which is also doubtful as some other renewable energy source may very well replace nuclear energy)
d. weakening all good professional educational institutions by curbing their autonomy and destroying them by forcing reservation at cost of merit, where everyone will loose other than politicians who can claim they did all this for lower caste people. Who can forget what havoc this govt created for IITs, IIMs and AIIMS
e. pushing entrepreneurs to the edge by arm twisting them on affirmative action, while abdicating govt responsibility to provide a secure and stable environment and reliable infrastructure to do business
All this and many more acts, primarily for political gains have eroded the competitiveness of the country. India unlike US and other western countries has been largely playing a catching up game, trying to come out of years of poverty and stupid economic policies which had rendered country and its business establishment in abysmal state. No one should be under illusion that next 2 decades of back breaking work would be needed to extricate country out of poverty and wretchedness completely and build a society that is at par with developed world
Manmohon Singh (who is an eminent economist) knew very well the cost the country would pay by abandoning the pursuit of creating a workable free market economy and prosperous society (unlike people like Lalu and Mulayam who are also ignorant not just crooks). That he did all this with the knowledge of what it will lead to makes it more un-pardonable and repugnant.
In the globalized world every country with a meaningful leadership is seriously seeking to expand its market, acquire best resources and be competitive. Those who aspire for position of leadership are not complacent but critical of their short comings and try to offset them. India unfortunately had a weak Prime Minister who had no equity in India's growth, he was just carrying out instructions of his boss, whose family's vested interest has always been in India that is fragmented, poor and underdeveloped where the they can rule like a medieval clan over a servile and weak populace.
Anyone who rejoice and celebrate after completing first 100 mts ahead of the pack in a marathon is not just a fool but also delusional. A leader who makes the country believe that we have achieved when we have hardly begun is trecherous.
Every politician and industrialist and bureaucrat who helped contributed towards creating the illusion while turning a blind eye to the reality played into Manmohan Singh's hand.
The country needed (and needs it more now) a leader who has the passion and obsession to realize the vision of a strong and prosperous country, which evidently Manmohan Singh does not have. He is a go-fetch person for Sonia Gandhi and her family and who can hardly think on his own.
And anyone who wants to absolve Manmohan Singh and his govt of the blame is ignorant or a partner in the crime.
An article in Financial Times by Razeen Sally, (Director of the European Centre for International Political Economy) has hit the nail on the head by stating that the current economic mess in India should be squarely blamed on Manmohan Singh, who plunged Indian economy into a chasm largely on account of political expediency. It has rightly criticized his lack of political leadership (despite excellent academic credentials) as being largely responsible for failure of Indian economy and end of India hype that was peddled around the world.
I had posted a blog in July 2007, a short comment on how govt headed by Manmohan Singh will lead India to an economic catastrophe. I am no expert of economics but a common sense and idea of right and wrong was good enough for anyone to see where India was headed since 2004. That many sections of corporate India did not see it coming only tell 2 things
A. most of Indian corporate honchos lack common sense
B. they were also part of the team peddling Chindia story at Davos and all other forums for raking short term gains
Media has been largely trying to deflect blame of economic chaos from Manmohan Singh, projecting it as part of global economic downturn (now media has as much vested interest as Congress party in propagating this myth).
Nothing can be far from the truth. The crisis faced by global financial institutions in west owing to toxic assets (worth more than USD2 trillion) did not impact financial institutions in India. It just acted as a trigger to expose and jolt already fragile economic super-structure, which had weakened since 2004 (actually the process of strengthening which was less than a decade old stopped and the decay started) failed under the impact of a seemingly distant crisis.
During last 5 yrs Manmohan Singh's so called dream team was busy marketing and branding themselves as harbingers of economic reforms and liberalization, while their govt was undermining the very spirit of free market economy by:
a. stopping all reforms (now Sonia Gandhi, who is surely no expert in economics have enough galls to say that lack of reforms actually helped India avert the global crisis and her mother in law, Indira Gandhi was a visionary who saw this coming 40 yrs, way back in 1970s and hence she had the bright idea to nationalize every institution in the country)
b. wasting money and creating a huge fiscal deficit by unimaginative but populist acts like employment guarantee scheme (like Soviet Union had)
c. halting all major infrastructure development projects (while PM projected himself as messiah of development and media cheered on when he staked his govt on a nuclear pact with US, commercial impact of which can be felt only 25 yrs from now - which is also doubtful as some other renewable energy source may very well replace nuclear energy)
d. weakening all good professional educational institutions by curbing their autonomy and destroying them by forcing reservation at cost of merit, where everyone will loose other than politicians who can claim they did all this for lower caste people. Who can forget what havoc this govt created for IITs, IIMs and AIIMS
e. pushing entrepreneurs to the edge by arm twisting them on affirmative action, while abdicating govt responsibility to provide a secure and stable environment and reliable infrastructure to do business
All this and many more acts, primarily for political gains have eroded the competitiveness of the country. India unlike US and other western countries has been largely playing a catching up game, trying to come out of years of poverty and stupid economic policies which had rendered country and its business establishment in abysmal state. No one should be under illusion that next 2 decades of back breaking work would be needed to extricate country out of poverty and wretchedness completely and build a society that is at par with developed world
Manmohon Singh (who is an eminent economist) knew very well the cost the country would pay by abandoning the pursuit of creating a workable free market economy and prosperous society (unlike people like Lalu and Mulayam who are also ignorant not just crooks). That he did all this with the knowledge of what it will lead to makes it more un-pardonable and repugnant.
In the globalized world every country with a meaningful leadership is seriously seeking to expand its market, acquire best resources and be competitive. Those who aspire for position of leadership are not complacent but critical of their short comings and try to offset them. India unfortunately had a weak Prime Minister who had no equity in India's growth, he was just carrying out instructions of his boss, whose family's vested interest has always been in India that is fragmented, poor and underdeveloped where the they can rule like a medieval clan over a servile and weak populace.
Anyone who rejoice and celebrate after completing first 100 mts ahead of the pack in a marathon is not just a fool but also delusional. A leader who makes the country believe that we have achieved when we have hardly begun is trecherous.
Every politician and industrialist and bureaucrat who helped contributed towards creating the illusion while turning a blind eye to the reality played into Manmohan Singh's hand.
The country needed (and needs it more now) a leader who has the passion and obsession to realize the vision of a strong and prosperous country, which evidently Manmohan Singh does not have. He is a go-fetch person for Sonia Gandhi and her family and who can hardly think on his own.
And anyone who wants to absolve Manmohan Singh and his govt of the blame is ignorant or a partner in the crime.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Is India Democratic?
The big question is - Can a country be democratic if the very organizations that form the political landscape are NOT?
Before you read any further, pl visit this link.
Here is a senior cabinet Minister in India publicly and on record stating that he is devotee of Sonia Gandhi and in future anyone who is in position of head of Gandhi family. He further goes on to say that practically every Congress party worker (for there are no leaders) has the same servile attitude, from PM of India Manmohan Singh (who refers to Sonia as his Guarding Angel) to every low life in the Congress party, who feeds on morsels thrown by party bosses.
It will actually be waste of space to be rhetorical about something that is a common knowledge and something which has never been contended by Congress party itself, rather I believe that almost all the parties (major ones that matter at national/state level) are more (not less) the same - undemocratic, ruled by an individual like a family holding, opportunist and filled with crooks and back-kissers; except may be 2 political organizations; ironically on two opposite side of spectrum.
All others SP,LJP,BSP,DMK,Shiv Sena,RLD,BJD,AIADMK,TDP (you can name any that I might have missed and they will all pass litums test of being run by individual/family writ)
BJP and Left are the only 2 political establishments where the individual whims do not steer the organization and some form of structure and decision making process exist (however crude it is - in case of left parties which still run like Communist party in Soviet Union). Left as everyone knows is comprised of bunch of fools who live in denial that world has moved on and that communism will never revive as it revolts against the very spirit of humanity - individual enterprise, competitiveness, a spirit to grow and excel. So that necessarily leaves only one organization that actually befits a democratic nation and that's BJP. With all its flaws - real and media created, it is the best amongst the worst that we have. To be very honest there seems no viable alternative to an uncomplicated mind.
But elections are won and lost not by logic of an uncomplicated mind but by successfully maneuvering the million currents (religious, social, regional, linguistic etc etc) that flows in all directions. It is this complexity that does not make Indian election a "no brainer" and actually makes it a "rocket science".
This brings us to another aspect, which undermines democracy in India and that is importance of political arithmetic and lack of representation, in some other form it is also called "first past the post"
Some shrewd politician who can strike on a strategy to leverage one current and get 10% of the vote in some clusters can actually be a king maker (or king himself). Unfortunaltely we do not have too many bright people, since for last 15 yrs practically every non-BJP party has been largely trying to attract muslim votes and lower caste Hindu votes by some very-very un-imaginative ways. Muslims never vote for BJP and will continue in the same way, but hyper-competitiveness of non-BJP parties actually create a very big dilemma for them to select which way they should turn around. Traditionally they have voted en-block for candidates that have best chance to defeat BJP, but this time around since the landscape is so murky they have no clue where to cast their lot with.
Now where does this leave major issues and agendas that are must for development and growth of a nation? I believe no one actually bothers or talks about it since these factors are not part of the equations that help candidates and parties win election.
Elections are won and lost in India on basis of individuals winning and loosing seats on very localized issues (or national level issues that are easily deconstructed at local levels by cunning politicians) that hardly adds up to a significant national level movement and hence issues like economic reforms and lack thereof, will never become a winner. Every individual or formation that wins are then out in open market for trade and trade offs to form the government.
This brings us to the third most important aspect that renders govt formation in India as undemocratic - the "post election bazaar".
Who had voted for Manmohan Singh as PM, no one I am sure, since he was not in picture till Sonia decided to play the "Christ"! For that matter who had voted for Deve Gowda or ChandraSekar or IK Gujral - who all evenetually became PMs and then there are scores of others like Lalu, Paswan, Mayawati, Jyoti Basu (used to think he can spring from CM to PM without effort), Arjun Singh, Pranab Mukherjee and many others whose name I do not even know, who suddenly become hopeful of filling the top spot as a "compromise candidate". It is a shame that a PM of the country has to be a "compromise candidate" rather than "Best Candidate". Healthy democracy has no space for mediocrity.
It is not just the office of PM that is compromised but every democratic institution that is controlled directly or in-directly by executive. So we have had ministers like Taslimuddin from RJD, who has numerous cases of murder, extortion etc and runs an organized mafia. Shibu Soren - who actually got convicted of murder etc. Arms of govt that should inspire confidence in people by impartiality and propriety like CBI, Judiciary, EC etc, becomes slave to their political masters. There are endless number of components in the chain that have become junk over the years because of abuse by the govt in power and have become appandages or are largely ineffective.
When international media hails India as the largest democracy - there is something that stirs inside all of us, for we know that nothing can be further from truth. If something does not stir then we are actually living in denial or are as un-connected with India as the foreign press.
We cannot excuse all this as part of evolving democracy, when we know that all the politicians are conniving to weaken it further, rather than trying to strengthen it.
How can something get better if all the constituents are trying their best to destroy it! How can a family prosper when the head of household is an alcoholic maniac who is selling family silver for carnal pleasure?
Coalition politics actually represent the worst form of democracy since it represents lack of leadership, absence of vision and visionaries and no cohesion in the society.
India does not show signs of an evolving democracy working hard to overcome teething challenges, rather represents a decaying one, on last stages of a terminal illness. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling oneself.
Before you read any further, pl visit this link.
Here is a senior cabinet Minister in India publicly and on record stating that he is devotee of Sonia Gandhi and in future anyone who is in position of head of Gandhi family. He further goes on to say that practically every Congress party worker (for there are no leaders) has the same servile attitude, from PM of India Manmohan Singh (who refers to Sonia as his Guarding Angel) to every low life in the Congress party, who feeds on morsels thrown by party bosses.
It will actually be waste of space to be rhetorical about something that is a common knowledge and something which has never been contended by Congress party itself, rather I believe that almost all the parties (major ones that matter at national/state level) are more (not less) the same - undemocratic, ruled by an individual like a family holding, opportunist and filled with crooks and back-kissers; except may be 2 political organizations; ironically on two opposite side of spectrum.
All others SP,LJP,BSP,DMK,Shiv Sena,RLD,BJD,AIADMK,TDP (you can name any that I might have missed and they will all pass litums test of being run by individual/family writ)
BJP and Left are the only 2 political establishments where the individual whims do not steer the organization and some form of structure and decision making process exist (however crude it is - in case of left parties which still run like Communist party in Soviet Union). Left as everyone knows is comprised of bunch of fools who live in denial that world has moved on and that communism will never revive as it revolts against the very spirit of humanity - individual enterprise, competitiveness, a spirit to grow and excel. So that necessarily leaves only one organization that actually befits a democratic nation and that's BJP. With all its flaws - real and media created, it is the best amongst the worst that we have. To be very honest there seems no viable alternative to an uncomplicated mind.
But elections are won and lost not by logic of an uncomplicated mind but by successfully maneuvering the million currents (religious, social, regional, linguistic etc etc) that flows in all directions. It is this complexity that does not make Indian election a "no brainer" and actually makes it a "rocket science".
This brings us to another aspect, which undermines democracy in India and that is importance of political arithmetic and lack of representation, in some other form it is also called "first past the post"
Some shrewd politician who can strike on a strategy to leverage one current and get 10% of the vote in some clusters can actually be a king maker (or king himself). Unfortunaltely we do not have too many bright people, since for last 15 yrs practically every non-BJP party has been largely trying to attract muslim votes and lower caste Hindu votes by some very-very un-imaginative ways. Muslims never vote for BJP and will continue in the same way, but hyper-competitiveness of non-BJP parties actually create a very big dilemma for them to select which way they should turn around. Traditionally they have voted en-block for candidates that have best chance to defeat BJP, but this time around since the landscape is so murky they have no clue where to cast their lot with.
Now where does this leave major issues and agendas that are must for development and growth of a nation? I believe no one actually bothers or talks about it since these factors are not part of the equations that help candidates and parties win election.
Elections are won and lost in India on basis of individuals winning and loosing seats on very localized issues (or national level issues that are easily deconstructed at local levels by cunning politicians) that hardly adds up to a significant national level movement and hence issues like economic reforms and lack thereof, will never become a winner. Every individual or formation that wins are then out in open market for trade and trade offs to form the government.
This brings us to the third most important aspect that renders govt formation in India as undemocratic - the "post election bazaar".
Who had voted for Manmohan Singh as PM, no one I am sure, since he was not in picture till Sonia decided to play the "Christ"! For that matter who had voted for Deve Gowda or ChandraSekar or IK Gujral - who all evenetually became PMs and then there are scores of others like Lalu, Paswan, Mayawati, Jyoti Basu (used to think he can spring from CM to PM without effort), Arjun Singh, Pranab Mukherjee and many others whose name I do not even know, who suddenly become hopeful of filling the top spot as a "compromise candidate". It is a shame that a PM of the country has to be a "compromise candidate" rather than "Best Candidate". Healthy democracy has no space for mediocrity.
It is not just the office of PM that is compromised but every democratic institution that is controlled directly or in-directly by executive. So we have had ministers like Taslimuddin from RJD, who has numerous cases of murder, extortion etc and runs an organized mafia. Shibu Soren - who actually got convicted of murder etc. Arms of govt that should inspire confidence in people by impartiality and propriety like CBI, Judiciary, EC etc, becomes slave to their political masters. There are endless number of components in the chain that have become junk over the years because of abuse by the govt in power and have become appandages or are largely ineffective.
When international media hails India as the largest democracy - there is something that stirs inside all of us, for we know that nothing can be further from truth. If something does not stir then we are actually living in denial or are as un-connected with India as the foreign press.
We cannot excuse all this as part of evolving democracy, when we know that all the politicians are conniving to weaken it further, rather than trying to strengthen it.
How can something get better if all the constituents are trying their best to destroy it! How can a family prosper when the head of household is an alcoholic maniac who is selling family silver for carnal pleasure?
Coalition politics actually represent the worst form of democracy since it represents lack of leadership, absence of vision and visionaries and no cohesion in the society.
India does not show signs of an evolving democracy working hard to overcome teething challenges, rather represents a decaying one, on last stages of a terminal illness. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling oneself.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
IT Industry - Changing Dynamics
IT outsourcing and BPO Industry that has rapidly grown and evolved in last 10 years is poised for another major transformation. Some of the outstanding aspects of the transformation are
- Billion plus club (companies with billion plus revenue) market share will shrink and they will try to consolidate to counter the decline
- Traditional business models and operating models are not suitable for the new market dynamics, where customers will demand better economics (than what is provided by labor arbitrage)
- Global companies like HP, IBM and Accenture will increase the gap further from Indian outsourcing companies that will find it hard to penetrate emerging markets like Eastern Europe, South America and Asia, where currency and labor arbitrage does not translate into economic benefit for customers
- Mid sized companies will either consolidate with large ones or transform into niche players, as competing as an end to end service provider will render them uncompetitive
- Product and application vendors will increase their service pie and eat into traditional IT services areas as customers will rapidly adopt to On Demand and SAS kind of applications
- American and European customers (Fortune 1000 companies) will also give ascent to expanding globally and will localize more than centralize "glocalize".
What might succeed..
- Companies will need to be decentralized and should be able to cater to local markets more effectively (specially true for non American/European locations)
- Global delivery model will no longer be the holy grail and can only be applied selectively
- Companies will have to deconstruct the centralized operations, which rely heavily on expensive infrastructure etc and will need to invest more in technologies that facilitate mobile workforce and virtual teams
- Companies that can change the rules of engagement and create significant customer value will do better than others
- Acquisition and mergers will not add much value and will erode shareholder value in long term, companies that rely on acquisition will largely be the ones that are looking for a band-aid solution to more serious ailments
- Companies will need to be more global and transnational in operations and mindset. Diversity will be a key factor
- Large capital investments on infrastructure and operations will lead to negative ROA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
