CIO priorities according to Gartner are as follows:
Top 10 Business Priorities
1. Business process improvement
2. Reducing enterprise costs
3. Improving enterprise workforce effectiveness
4. Attracting and retaining new customers
5. Increasing the use of information/analytics
6. Creating new products or services (innovation)
7. Targeting customers and markets more effectively
8. Managing change initiatives
9. Expanding current customer relationships
10. Expanding into new markets and geographies
The technology priorities are as follows:
1. Business intelligence
2. Enterprise applications (ERP, CRM and others)
3. Servers and storage technologies (virtualization)
4. Legacy application modernization
5. Collaboration technologies
6. Networking, voice and data communications
7. Technical infrastructure
8. Security technologies
9. Service-oriented applications and architecture
10. Document management
Some key insights from the Gartner press release:
“Senior enterprise executives ….. expect IT to play a role in reducing enterprise costs, not merely with cost cutting but by changing business processes, workforce practices and information use. “
"It's time for CIOs to develop business process improvement capabilities as part of the core of IT….. to respond to executive expectations that see business processes as important to business performance, as closely associated with application systems and as a responsibility of the CIO and IT."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Top 10 disruptive technologies 2008-2012
Gartner's top 10 disruptive technologies:
1. Multicore and Hybrid processors
2. Virtualisation and Fabric computing
3. Social networks and social software
4. Cloud computing
5. Web mashups
6. User Interface
7. Ubiquitous computing
8. Contextual computing
9. Augmented reality
10. Semantics
For a definition and example of each of these terms go to the following blog which I found to be really informative:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/top-10-technolo.html
1. Multicore and Hybrid processors
2. Virtualisation and Fabric computing
3. Social networks and social software
4. Cloud computing
5. Web mashups
6. User Interface
7. Ubiquitous computing
8. Contextual computing
9. Augmented reality
10. Semantics
For a definition and example of each of these terms go to the following blog which I found to be really informative:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/top-10-technolo.html
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Will financial crisis impact India growth story?
US financial crisis is definitely going to impact the India but the seriousness of this impact is what needs to be ascertained. Few factors to keep an eye on while discussing are:
1. Indian IT companies have ~30% of their revenues from financial services(source: http://www.economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Et_Debate/Will_financial_crisis_derail_Indias_economy/rssarticleshow/msid-3515559,curpg-1.cms)
2. Real estate sector growth story was dependent on the FII investment; credit crisis may cause the investors to convert the assets into cash thereby reducing the available funding.
3. Inflationary pressures are easing with lower commodity prices.
4. Indian banking system has been well regulated and the exposure to the credit crisis in US is minimal though there would be some indirect impacts as in UK there might be flight of capital from the local banks like ICICI with people rushing to withdraw there savings and convert it into cash.
5. Political uncertainty with elections looming next year and therefore, unwillingness of the government to take hard decisions like reducing fiscal burden by reducing subsidy on petro products and penchant for populist measures.
6. Savings rate has been robust and therefore, the banks should be flush with funds.
Given that India is largely a domestic economy with only 17% of GDP contributed by exports, the adverse impact in the short term on the IT industry should be balanced out by correct policy measures. Given that FII investment will be slow, the domestic savings should fuel the investment and to further give impetus to this growth catalyst, RBI has rightly reduced the CRR by 50 basis points. Only dark horse that remains is the political uncertainty which will keep hovering like Damocles sword till the elections are done away with. In my view India will still grow but the stock markets will continue to be underperforming for another year or so.
1. Indian IT companies have ~30% of their revenues from financial services(source: http://www.economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Et_Debate/Will_financial_crisis_derail_Indias_economy/rssarticleshow/msid-3515559,curpg-1.cms)
2. Real estate sector growth story was dependent on the FII investment; credit crisis may cause the investors to convert the assets into cash thereby reducing the available funding.
3. Inflationary pressures are easing with lower commodity prices.
4. Indian banking system has been well regulated and the exposure to the credit crisis in US is minimal though there would be some indirect impacts as in UK there might be flight of capital from the local banks like ICICI with people rushing to withdraw there savings and convert it into cash.
5. Political uncertainty with elections looming next year and therefore, unwillingness of the government to take hard decisions like reducing fiscal burden by reducing subsidy on petro products and penchant for populist measures.
6. Savings rate has been robust and therefore, the banks should be flush with funds.
Given that India is largely a domestic economy with only 17% of GDP contributed by exports, the adverse impact in the short term on the IT industry should be balanced out by correct policy measures. Given that FII investment will be slow, the domestic savings should fuel the investment and to further give impetus to this growth catalyst, RBI has rightly reduced the CRR by 50 basis points. Only dark horse that remains is the political uncertainty which will keep hovering like Damocles sword till the elections are done away with. In my view India will still grow but the stock markets will continue to be underperforming for another year or so.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Indo-US Nuclear co-operation
It is almost an year since I last wrote on this blog about the 123 agreement. Much has happened since then, better sense prevailed and on 27th Sep 2008, US House of representatives finally approved the deal. Time now to think what is the best way going forward.
Some points to ponder over:
1. Utilisation of the installed capacity
2. Research on Thorium based reactors
3. Politics of the deal and impact on the regional power imbalances
4. Nuclear waste and the strategies to deal with it
Russia, France and US will be falling head over heels to cater to this new found opportunity of enhancing the nuclear power generation capacity of India. It is good that two of the three (France and Russia) have historically enjoyed good relations with India. Therefore, they would expect a share in the pie. However, US having taken the lead in ensuring that the deal is passed, would certainly like to ensure that its share remains the largest. The key issue here would be how the alignment with either nation affect the regional balances. China has already shown its wariness of the deal and does not want a strong neighbour. Growing proximity with US will only "antagonise" China (to which I would say...Oh really!...I don't care) and further lead to weakening of any small links that have developed between the two most populous nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement
Some points to ponder over:
1. Utilisation of the installed capacity
2. Research on Thorium based reactors
3. Politics of the deal and impact on the regional power imbalances
4. Nuclear waste and the strategies to deal with it
Russia, France and US will be falling head over heels to cater to this new found opportunity of enhancing the nuclear power generation capacity of India. It is good that two of the three (France and Russia) have historically enjoyed good relations with India. Therefore, they would expect a share in the pie. However, US having taken the lead in ensuring that the deal is passed, would certainly like to ensure that its share remains the largest. The key issue here would be how the alignment with either nation affect the regional balances. China has already shown its wariness of the deal and does not want a strong neighbour. Growing proximity with US will only "antagonise" China (to which I would say...Oh really!...I don't care) and further lead to weakening of any small links that have developed between the two most populous nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement
Leadership Conundrum
Volumes have been published on this subject and millions have been spent on either defining Leadership or seeking to understand the meaning of this term. Well after twelve eventful years in corporate world and some centuries on this planet ( I am a firm believer in re-incarnation), I feel obliged that I submit my two cents on this subject. My submission is based on my experience with "Leaders". I will define leadership by what one should not do as a leader.
Leader is one who leads (how intelligent!) and by definition "To Lead" means to show direction or to guide. In the corporate scenario, a manager is seen as one who will also act as the leader, leading his team on the growth path. I can at best term this as a serious misconception. I had an opportunity to work for a manager who seemed more concerned saving his backside than actually contributing to the collective goal. In fact, I learnt more from him on how not to manage your team than I did from anyone else. For example, he would never give a clear direction to his team members. Any sort of discussion would leave the person more confused than before. Any discussion on growth path would result in a judgemental discussion with end no-where in sight. I, therefore, learnt that an individual should be given clear and unambiguous message so that he/she can take appropriate action to move forward.
For a manager to become leader, he or she has to first become acceptable to his team; positional power does not make one a leader. I have been in the field of Quality Management for almost 10 years now. A Quality professional has to be a self starter and be able to effect change without wielding any direct influence over the people whose function he is trying to improve. I have seen quite a few quality professionals fall into the positional power trap using the bait of escalation to get things done. Many would realize that the threat of an NC (non-conformance) would move even the most "incorrigible" managers. However, I had the opportunity to work with a quality professional who had such a good rapport with the Project Managers that he could things get done without resorting to the arm twisting. In situations where he did have to employ the threat, it was a lesson in subtlety. Second lesson, leadership equation comprises of interpersonal skills and subject knowledge as its X's.
Leader is one who leads (how intelligent!) and by definition "To Lead" means to show direction or to guide. In the corporate scenario, a manager is seen as one who will also act as the leader, leading his team on the growth path. I can at best term this as a serious misconception. I had an opportunity to work for a manager who seemed more concerned saving his backside than actually contributing to the collective goal. In fact, I learnt more from him on how not to manage your team than I did from anyone else. For example, he would never give a clear direction to his team members. Any sort of discussion would leave the person more confused than before. Any discussion on growth path would result in a judgemental discussion with end no-where in sight. I, therefore, learnt that an individual should be given clear and unambiguous message so that he/she can take appropriate action to move forward.
For a manager to become leader, he or she has to first become acceptable to his team; positional power does not make one a leader. I have been in the field of Quality Management for almost 10 years now. A Quality professional has to be a self starter and be able to effect change without wielding any direct influence over the people whose function he is trying to improve. I have seen quite a few quality professionals fall into the positional power trap using the bait of escalation to get things done. Many would realize that the threat of an NC (non-conformance) would move even the most "incorrigible" managers. However, I had the opportunity to work with a quality professional who had such a good rapport with the Project Managers that he could things get done without resorting to the arm twisting. In situations where he did have to employ the threat, it was a lesson in subtlety. Second lesson, leadership equation comprises of interpersonal skills and subject knowledge as its X's.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
ABC of 123 Agreement
What is 123 Agreement?
Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954, titled "Cooperation with Other Nations", establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation. The US has entered into several (20+) other agreements under this section. United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act provides the legal basis for the Section 123.
Salient features of this agreement:
1. US and India will enter into a peaceful nuclear co-operation for civil purposes. US will help India acquire nuclear supplies to meet its growing energy demands. This is especially significant since India was a virtual pariah in the nuclear world because of its refusal to sign the NPT.
2. The above agreement will not impinge in any way on India’s other nuclear programme.
3. The agreement will last for 40 years and either party can terminate it giving the other notice of one year.
4. In the event that the US terminates this co-operation, US will help India locate other suppliers amongst NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) who will continue to supply to India.
5. In the event of termination, the party choosing to terminate may seek to recover all the nuclear material that has been transferred as part of this agreement. However, if such a case occurs, the other party may claim adequate compensation for the loss that may occur as part of this recall.
6. India will have to bring such civilian nuclear facilities that have been developed using the material transferred as part of this agreement, under the purview of the IAEA.
Benefits to the US:
1. India and China, the world’s two fastest growing economies have been clamoring for more than their fair share of the world’s energy resources. With India looking at nuclear energy to part fulfill its energy requirements, it will help the US secure its energy needs from fossil fuels.
2. US gets a strong ally in the region and a strong counter balance to China.
3. US and India share common problem of terrorism and both are vary of a strong China. Hence it is in US interest to have India on its side.
4. US expects that the $150 billion investment that India plans in upgrading its nuclear energy portfolio from 4000 MWe to 20000 MWe, US will get a share of the pie.
Benefits to India
1. India gets access to world class nuclear technology and supplies without worrying about giving up its closely guarded position that it will not stop its nuclear program and will not sign the NPT.
2. The repeat of 1974 situation is prevented by building in the stoppage of supply clause in the agreement.
3. India has a huge import reliance on the fossil fuels and to meet its growth needs, nuclear energy provides a safe way going forward.
Grounds for opposition in India:
1. Left parties hold that India is giving up its sovereign right to remain non-aligned by signing the 123 agreement. In embracing unto US, India may lose the right to independently decide the future course of its nuclear program. This objection is founded on the grounds that Hyde Act requires the US president to certify each year before congress that India is conforming to the requirements of the 123 agreement. In the eventuality that US feels India is not keeping its part of the bargain, the US may recall all its technical and material support that it may have provided to India. Further India will have to bring its civil nuclear facilities that use the material supplied in this agreement, under IAEA’s purview.
2. The other key element of the argument against the treaty is that by signing this agreement, India would be forced to toe the US line in foreign policy matters as it was in recent case related to vote against Iran.
3. Some scientists have written to the parliament that by signing this agreement, India may be actually sidelining some of the research that is currently being undertaken to explore usage of Thorium in place of enriched Uranium as the nuclear fuel. India has the world’s largest reserves of Thorium and relies on external supplies for Uranium as it has very little reserves of Uranium.
My view on the agreement:
1. The view that India is giving up its non-aligned stance is misplaced on two counts. Firstly the NAM has lost its relevance in the modern day scenario when world is no longer bipolar. NAM has lost steam since the late 80s when USSR was broken up. Secondly, India has to safeguard its interests. US has always done that and it is not suddenly that US has woken up and decided to take sides with India. They see lot of opportunity in this for their own self interest. So should India. Further, there are enough safeguards built into the agreement to guard against the 1974 situation.
2. India can still follow its own Foreign policy without succumbing to the US pressures. In case of Iran, India has still not been able to close the gas deal even after such a long time. The disagreement on price and the risk of the pipeline going though Pakistan are preventing any sort of a solution in the short term. The foreign policy towards Iran took this aspect in mind and it was not just arm twisting that led to India voting against Iran in the IAEA. As a matter of fact, almost all the countries voted against Iran at IAEA. In fact, nuclear co-operation will bring India the much needed recognition amongst the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
3. There is not enough evidence to either refute or accept the claim of the scientists. It is a genuine concern and Indian government should definitely not stop the research on using Thorium as it is in India’s national interest to reduce any kind of external reliance as far as its energy needs are concerned.
Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954, titled "Cooperation with Other Nations", establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation. The US has entered into several (20+) other agreements under this section. United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act provides the legal basis for the Section 123.
Salient features of this agreement:
1. US and India will enter into a peaceful nuclear co-operation for civil purposes. US will help India acquire nuclear supplies to meet its growing energy demands. This is especially significant since India was a virtual pariah in the nuclear world because of its refusal to sign the NPT.
2. The above agreement will not impinge in any way on India’s other nuclear programme.
3. The agreement will last for 40 years and either party can terminate it giving the other notice of one year.
4. In the event that the US terminates this co-operation, US will help India locate other suppliers amongst NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) who will continue to supply to India.
5. In the event of termination, the party choosing to terminate may seek to recover all the nuclear material that has been transferred as part of this agreement. However, if such a case occurs, the other party may claim adequate compensation for the loss that may occur as part of this recall.
6. India will have to bring such civilian nuclear facilities that have been developed using the material transferred as part of this agreement, under the purview of the IAEA.
Benefits to the US:
1. India and China, the world’s two fastest growing economies have been clamoring for more than their fair share of the world’s energy resources. With India looking at nuclear energy to part fulfill its energy requirements, it will help the US secure its energy needs from fossil fuels.
2. US gets a strong ally in the region and a strong counter balance to China.
3. US and India share common problem of terrorism and both are vary of a strong China. Hence it is in US interest to have India on its side.
4. US expects that the $150 billion investment that India plans in upgrading its nuclear energy portfolio from 4000 MWe to 20000 MWe, US will get a share of the pie.
Benefits to India
1. India gets access to world class nuclear technology and supplies without worrying about giving up its closely guarded position that it will not stop its nuclear program and will not sign the NPT.
2. The repeat of 1974 situation is prevented by building in the stoppage of supply clause in the agreement.
3. India has a huge import reliance on the fossil fuels and to meet its growth needs, nuclear energy provides a safe way going forward.
Grounds for opposition in India:
1. Left parties hold that India is giving up its sovereign right to remain non-aligned by signing the 123 agreement. In embracing unto US, India may lose the right to independently decide the future course of its nuclear program. This objection is founded on the grounds that Hyde Act requires the US president to certify each year before congress that India is conforming to the requirements of the 123 agreement. In the eventuality that US feels India is not keeping its part of the bargain, the US may recall all its technical and material support that it may have provided to India. Further India will have to bring its civil nuclear facilities that use the material supplied in this agreement, under IAEA’s purview.
2. The other key element of the argument against the treaty is that by signing this agreement, India would be forced to toe the US line in foreign policy matters as it was in recent case related to vote against Iran.
3. Some scientists have written to the parliament that by signing this agreement, India may be actually sidelining some of the research that is currently being undertaken to explore usage of Thorium in place of enriched Uranium as the nuclear fuel. India has the world’s largest reserves of Thorium and relies on external supplies for Uranium as it has very little reserves of Uranium.
My view on the agreement:
1. The view that India is giving up its non-aligned stance is misplaced on two counts. Firstly the NAM has lost its relevance in the modern day scenario when world is no longer bipolar. NAM has lost steam since the late 80s when USSR was broken up. Secondly, India has to safeguard its interests. US has always done that and it is not suddenly that US has woken up and decided to take sides with India. They see lot of opportunity in this for their own self interest. So should India. Further, there are enough safeguards built into the agreement to guard against the 1974 situation.
2. India can still follow its own Foreign policy without succumbing to the US pressures. In case of Iran, India has still not been able to close the gas deal even after such a long time. The disagreement on price and the risk of the pipeline going though Pakistan are preventing any sort of a solution in the short term. The foreign policy towards Iran took this aspect in mind and it was not just arm twisting that led to India voting against Iran in the IAEA. As a matter of fact, almost all the countries voted against Iran at IAEA. In fact, nuclear co-operation will bring India the much needed recognition amongst the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
3. There is not enough evidence to either refute or accept the claim of the scientists. It is a genuine concern and Indian government should definitely not stop the research on using Thorium as it is in India’s national interest to reduce any kind of external reliance as far as its energy needs are concerned.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Size estimation in e-learning
Measuring the size is first step to estimation. E-learning industry has developed its system of sizing using learning hours (seat time) with added parameter of complexity for each of the product types ILTs(instructor led trainings), WBTs(Web Based Trainings) and Online ( simple static web pages with little functionality) courses. However, with increasing complexity of learning systems employed by customers and the vast span of services offered by the e-learning organisations, one approach fit all does not work. For example, the learning hour approach works well if an ILT with standard work outputs needs to be developed. However, if the same ILT requires customisation as per customer templates with lot of programming effort going in, then the learning hour approach does not work because now the work goes beyond the normal ID (Instructional Design).
What is, therefore, needed is not one sizing model rather an approach which will yield measures comparable across business situations. E-learning can use the Opportunities for Error (OFE) estimation approach of Six Sigma for this purpose. In this approach, every aspect of course under development is broken down into the user experience from the perspective of where things may go wrong. For example, it will estimate the number of links that need to be coded in, number of pages that need to be built, number of words/lines that need to be scripted since each of these pose an OFE. The OFE sources can be different for each type of course and scope of work. However, what it does is that brings all the courses onto the same platform without seriously being biased to any particular type of work.
What is, therefore, needed is not one sizing model rather an approach which will yield measures comparable across business situations. E-learning can use the Opportunities for Error (OFE) estimation approach of Six Sigma for this purpose. In this approach, every aspect of course under development is broken down into the user experience from the perspective of where things may go wrong. For example, it will estimate the number of links that need to be coded in, number of pages that need to be built, number of words/lines that need to be scripted since each of these pose an OFE. The OFE sources can be different for each type of course and scope of work. However, what it does is that brings all the courses onto the same platform without seriously being biased to any particular type of work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
