Technology doesn’t redesign businesses, competition does that…
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 5th March 2016
One of the favourite theme now in media seems to be digital technology driven change. There seems to be sudden burst of ideas regards how technology is changing the way business in organizations is transacted or alternatively how it can potentially bring such a change. We off course have some gung ho news about restructuring of business organizations being attempted so as to incorporate digital technology related gains, however these may be mostly related to private commercial organization rather than government own business entities or government’s own service delivery structure at any level be it local government/panchayats, state level government or select departments thereunder or some central government machinery or self-regulated/autonomous but national institutions e.g. MCI/ BCCI/ Sundry Commissions/ Sports, Cultural bodies or public funded NGOs etc.
We again have no dearth of lectures or lecturers who would now make passionate lectures about technology or honesty of their intent or the tremendous hard work, which is put in with regularity by these ‘’leaders’’. However most of such intents remain in the lectures with the followers remaining struck to these dreams with no idea how to carry these forward to people, but only with more lectures and ‘’shradhanjalis’’ in praise of such netas. This of course is supported by commercial news media stuck with idol worship in celebration of neta-dom. Any genuine effort of change made anywhere is either made to look insignificant or given a miss by the media. Off course, to speak on the side of the media, we do have a lack of impact analysis studies or say before after studies from independent professional bodies/experts which may be taken as some sort of credible feed by the commercial news media to be taken to people.
What the private sector is doing in this regard comes to people through media as well as direct connect/ contact of the organization with public. It is then for the public to appreciate the effort or wait to adopt or decline the ‘change’. Such trends would continue to shape the private organizations, their reach, management styles and policies or leaderships at helm etc. This is normal business and what we need is a robust framework where in competitive ideas thrive and are carried to people who can exercise genuine free choice/s again within a suitable facilitative framework. The business of the government is to ensure that such a broad supportive framework exist wherein competition and choice thrive and trust the natural instinct of the people to make ‘’right’’ choices for themselves as well as for the society. Of course the government/leaders need to continuously make people aware of risks associated with the choice/s as well as highlight unscrupulous or undesirable elements within the society and continue to improve the framework, sometimes in order to bring the unregulated to regulation, improve controls, empower people etc. Given adequacy of competition as well as competitiveness, such an ecosystem has potential to thrive on its own, may be with limited supervision. The purpose of this article is not to concentrate on the private businesses but the government business and competition around the same which matters in electoral gambits.
On the whole there has been some change, even if not much. There has been noise about government changing processes and procedures to facilitate start-ups or improve competition although David vs goliath news is still not heard barring from mobile instruments, health care/hospitals and FMCG (very limited) businesses. One would just hope that such stories may be in making in electronics, consumer electrical and other sectors as well within our domestic as well as international markets. Some news trickling in about government intending to repeal outdated legislations or simplifying government to people. Some push though not sure how much different from past is being pushed for public consumption in order that they are convinced that credit is becoming more available to small businesses (organized as well as unorganized) who have been deprived of credit including reigning in excesses by large businesses on this count. This is even as government efforts to support large businesses are quite visible like focus on large infra projects, red carpet to welcome foreign monied investors with assurances that government will smoothen entry and these generally tie-up with domestic large players et al and this is happening at both central and state level including some states where we have different governments. How many domestic entrepreneurs are rising up and which small entrepreneurs have been facilitated/empowered to move to next level growth due to government policies is still not visible and media doesn’t feel its duty to reach out to these sections (with background description) and get their views. It feels duty bound to telecast fixed matches of political parties (irrespective whether they are due to structural composition or nefarious designs). Efforts to recapitalize banks continue while banks own effort for recoveries from defaulters is still not visible otherwise we would be having news of industrial plots (and other collaterals) of defaulters on auction very often, due to large number of such defaults. The actual number of new business entities coming up in states and potential new employment being generated by these entities is still not the focus, though leaders will take pride in thousand crore projects being launched (without employment generation of course).
This happens even with newbie party/leaders, led mainly by thoughtful professionals at helm, have at best made only mediocre ‘’presence felt’’ in this regard (not counting on advertorials). So ‘’changing the polity’’ remains firmly in hands of social media/alternative politics rather than any political party though political parties as well as individual leaders remain in contention; not by virtue of some ideology but because of perceived ‘’win ability’’ factor, it brings with itself. It is important to make a summary of the ‘’change’’ that it has brought forth in the middle of the tenure especially when elections in some states have been announced. What is visible to public through its very own commercial news media, is efforts from some of the pedantic (ones who would resist change and remain trapped in past) governments / parties and netas, attempting to make connects with public through the promise of service delivery especially digital service delivery (I would agree with some of the observers/analyst that quite a few such cases may be only noise rather than genuine efforts). This actually may be the overall gain, however what we need is a more circumspect analysis coming from media, and I would just hope that common people’s parties or leaders rise up to the occasion (rather than taking position in midst of catfight between more established parties) and of course it continues to bring them that much cherished win ability.
We are again witness to rise of paper tigers or bayan veers. This happens across party lines whether in government or elsewhere including newbie party. The leaders in government seem to have trouble with some educational institutions, but they refuse to spell out those institutions which may be better than troubled ones in terms of better quality of education, infra and faculty. Similarly opposition parties backing some of these institutions do not feel any need to justify why these institutions are better (or intellectually more enriching) than some others say from the likes of D’ School (from where the author picked up some lessons). This bayan veer phenomenon is again witnessed in legislatures as well wherein we again have little clarity on positions of different parties with reference to legislations and policies say like bankruptcy or aviation or telecom related policies. We had near unanimity on net-neutrality say for example but it almost took a year for TRAI to come out with suitable rule which again seems to be getting challenged. How a particular party’s position will benefit or impact the population and why would political parties not want such positions be known and scrutinized by public in this age of internet and hyper communication.
We are subject to the daily ragas from both sides with commercial news media playing the role of dumb carrier of the designed news, rather than asking some tough questions on both sides, which is where the polity would change. Let people desiring change be very sure that the next change is likely and this happen only with some tougher questions rather than a show of dumbness, that we are so accustomed to; because these articles have proven that newbies siding on the side of ‘’game’’ have a greater potential win ability factor than otherwise. Watch the ‘’game’’ evolve further….
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 5th March 2016
One of the favourite theme now in media seems to be digital technology driven change. There seems to be sudden burst of ideas regards how technology is changing the way business in organizations is transacted or alternatively how it can potentially bring such a change. We off course have some gung ho news about restructuring of business organizations being attempted so as to incorporate digital technology related gains, however these may be mostly related to private commercial organization rather than government own business entities or government’s own service delivery structure at any level be it local government/panchayats, state level government or select departments thereunder or some central government machinery or self-regulated/autonomous but national institutions e.g. MCI/ BCCI/ Sundry Commissions/ Sports, Cultural bodies or public funded NGOs etc.
We again have no dearth of lectures or lecturers who would now make passionate lectures about technology or honesty of their intent or the tremendous hard work, which is put in with regularity by these ‘’leaders’’. However most of such intents remain in the lectures with the followers remaining struck to these dreams with no idea how to carry these forward to people, but only with more lectures and ‘’shradhanjalis’’ in praise of such netas. This of course is supported by commercial news media stuck with idol worship in celebration of neta-dom. Any genuine effort of change made anywhere is either made to look insignificant or given a miss by the media. Off course, to speak on the side of the media, we do have a lack of impact analysis studies or say before after studies from independent professional bodies/experts which may be taken as some sort of credible feed by the commercial news media to be taken to people.
What the private sector is doing in this regard comes to people through media as well as direct connect/ contact of the organization with public. It is then for the public to appreciate the effort or wait to adopt or decline the ‘change’. Such trends would continue to shape the private organizations, their reach, management styles and policies or leaderships at helm etc. This is normal business and what we need is a robust framework where in competitive ideas thrive and are carried to people who can exercise genuine free choice/s again within a suitable facilitative framework. The business of the government is to ensure that such a broad supportive framework exist wherein competition and choice thrive and trust the natural instinct of the people to make ‘’right’’ choices for themselves as well as for the society. Of course the government/leaders need to continuously make people aware of risks associated with the choice/s as well as highlight unscrupulous or undesirable elements within the society and continue to improve the framework, sometimes in order to bring the unregulated to regulation, improve controls, empower people etc. Given adequacy of competition as well as competitiveness, such an ecosystem has potential to thrive on its own, may be with limited supervision. The purpose of this article is not to concentrate on the private businesses but the government business and competition around the same which matters in electoral gambits.
On the whole there has been some change, even if not much. There has been noise about government changing processes and procedures to facilitate start-ups or improve competition although David vs goliath news is still not heard barring from mobile instruments, health care/hospitals and FMCG (very limited) businesses. One would just hope that such stories may be in making in electronics, consumer electrical and other sectors as well within our domestic as well as international markets. Some news trickling in about government intending to repeal outdated legislations or simplifying government to people. Some push though not sure how much different from past is being pushed for public consumption in order that they are convinced that credit is becoming more available to small businesses (organized as well as unorganized) who have been deprived of credit including reigning in excesses by large businesses on this count. This is even as government efforts to support large businesses are quite visible like focus on large infra projects, red carpet to welcome foreign monied investors with assurances that government will smoothen entry and these generally tie-up with domestic large players et al and this is happening at both central and state level including some states where we have different governments. How many domestic entrepreneurs are rising up and which small entrepreneurs have been facilitated/empowered to move to next level growth due to government policies is still not visible and media doesn’t feel its duty to reach out to these sections (with background description) and get their views. It feels duty bound to telecast fixed matches of political parties (irrespective whether they are due to structural composition or nefarious designs). Efforts to recapitalize banks continue while banks own effort for recoveries from defaulters is still not visible otherwise we would be having news of industrial plots (and other collaterals) of defaulters on auction very often, due to large number of such defaults. The actual number of new business entities coming up in states and potential new employment being generated by these entities is still not the focus, though leaders will take pride in thousand crore projects being launched (without employment generation of course).
This happens even with newbie party/leaders, led mainly by thoughtful professionals at helm, have at best made only mediocre ‘’presence felt’’ in this regard (not counting on advertorials). So ‘’changing the polity’’ remains firmly in hands of social media/alternative politics rather than any political party though political parties as well as individual leaders remain in contention; not by virtue of some ideology but because of perceived ‘’win ability’’ factor, it brings with itself. It is important to make a summary of the ‘’change’’ that it has brought forth in the middle of the tenure especially when elections in some states have been announced. What is visible to public through its very own commercial news media, is efforts from some of the pedantic (ones who would resist change and remain trapped in past) governments / parties and netas, attempting to make connects with public through the promise of service delivery especially digital service delivery (I would agree with some of the observers/analyst that quite a few such cases may be only noise rather than genuine efforts). This actually may be the overall gain, however what we need is a more circumspect analysis coming from media, and I would just hope that common people’s parties or leaders rise up to the occasion (rather than taking position in midst of catfight between more established parties) and of course it continues to bring them that much cherished win ability.
We are again witness to rise of paper tigers or bayan veers. This happens across party lines whether in government or elsewhere including newbie party. The leaders in government seem to have trouble with some educational institutions, but they refuse to spell out those institutions which may be better than troubled ones in terms of better quality of education, infra and faculty. Similarly opposition parties backing some of these institutions do not feel any need to justify why these institutions are better (or intellectually more enriching) than some others say from the likes of D’ School (from where the author picked up some lessons). This bayan veer phenomenon is again witnessed in legislatures as well wherein we again have little clarity on positions of different parties with reference to legislations and policies say like bankruptcy or aviation or telecom related policies. We had near unanimity on net-neutrality say for example but it almost took a year for TRAI to come out with suitable rule which again seems to be getting challenged. How a particular party’s position will benefit or impact the population and why would political parties not want such positions be known and scrutinized by public in this age of internet and hyper communication.
We are subject to the daily ragas from both sides with commercial news media playing the role of dumb carrier of the designed news, rather than asking some tough questions on both sides, which is where the polity would change. Let people desiring change be very sure that the next change is likely and this happen only with some tougher questions rather than a show of dumbness, that we are so accustomed to; because these articles have proven that newbies siding on the side of ‘’game’’ have a greater potential win ability factor than otherwise. Watch the ‘’game’’ evolve further….