Of People and Technology

The Man or the Machine?Analyze this...

There is an organization called Dell Computers which "was" market-leader in the PC business.There is an organization called Toyota Motor Corp. which "is" a market-leader in the Automotive business and by-far the most profitable auto-maker in the world.While the former is panting for breath with the competition catching up with it (or otherwise), the latter is rolling like a juggernaut.

Why this uncanny comparison between two non-competing entities?The point is this...Both Dell and Toyota are names to swear-by when it comes to supply chain efficiencies.Both have pioneered such great processes by virtue of which they had the competition running for cover.

Direct model from Dell was such a brilliant strategy that it threw the likes of IBM out of Business.And contrary to the popular misconception, there is something that is actually perfect in this world and that's the Toyota Production System.

While Dell's innovation relied mostly on Technology, Toyota relied on its people.Dell had almost everything going right (which is against the laws of nature).If everything is going right...something has to go wrong and wrong it went.The competition soon caught up with the Lenovos and the HPs quickly realizing the benefits of mimicking the Dell model and the whole competitive advantage of Dell is fast fading away.

On the other hand, Toyota has proved to the world that smart people come in small packages and are not too abundant.Inspite of the huge consulting assignments that Toyota has done with a number of American companies on its production system, the world is yet to see anything even close to Toyota.No complex softwares for inventory optimization and Production Planning for Toyota.Just an inclusive manpower and some excellent execution strategies at its perusal.

Technology is definitely something but man seems to be everything for he clearly, still, seems to be the Master!

Its all about Money...Honey!!!

My favourite story of cricket is from another generation: In 1956, India defeated New Zealand in four days in a test match. The team, which was paid Rs 50 per day at the time, did not receive an allowance for the fifth day. When one of the players dared to ask a cricket official for an additional fifty rupees, he was curtly told: "Who asked you to win the match in four days!"

The world has changed for the good, since then. As the cricketers went under the hammer, one couldn't help thinking how dramatically the sport has been transformed. As business tycoons and film stars bid furiously for the big and not so big names in the game, a revolution seemed to be in the making. The sport finally was becoming a part of the great Indian bazaar.

Cricket, unlike a few other competitive sports, has been burdened with the myth that the men who play it do so for the “love” of the sport (I speak of world cricket…).While footballers were being traded places for millions, F1 drivers and Golfers were millionaires, cricketers were expected to bask in the sheer joy of playing the game. Which other sport would allow teams to play each other over five days, at the end of which there could be an "honourable" draw? Which other sport was played with such an insistence on the "rules" and "traditions" of the game? Soaked in romantic prose, cricket was branded for decades as the "gentleman's game".

In a way, all Indian sport has suffered in a model of socialism in which all big businesses were “evil” and sport was a only a distraction from professional activity. When did sports then, particularly cricket, start hogging the front page? From a feudal sport to being the great Indian dream, the transformation has been gradual and fuelled by the convergence of sports, entertainment and most importantly corporate India. 1983 victory was a landmark as it coincided with the onset of colour television and the sudden realization that cricketers are commodities (marketable…).From Kapil’s shaving cream ad (“Palmolive ka jawab nahin”…remember) to Dhoni’s hair gel to music endorsements ???(Royal Stag…mega music…just in case u wavered J), it’s come a really long way.

The IPL, as I see it, is a brilliant example of the 21st century business enterprise. It may have raised eyebrows as to whether its worth the hype, but, I would definitely like to give it the benefit of doubt. After all, do we want to slip back to the era where talented cricketers were treated as daily wage labourers and expected to pay obeisances to the officials for being selected? Or do we want to see the talented cricketers demand their rightful place in the market? Talent should never come and most importantly “go” for cheap…

picture abhi baki hai...mere dost!

Why is it that some movies get me? And I mean, get me hook, line and sinker? And a very tiny few of them? I am a Bollywood buff. But that's not to say I watch all the movies (actually, I do watch a lil more, but just because I have an unlimited internet connection to d/l the choicest of movies :-)

But why is it that those few movies get me? By the end of when I watch such movies, I go hyper! Not hyper in the sense of jumping around on a pogo stick but hyper mentally. I think more and surprisingly seem to think more clearly at the same time after I have seen such a movie. What is more surprising is that, the people that I watch such movies with, come out of the theatre with a "well, it wasn't as great as I expected it to be" or "that piece could have been handled deftly" kind of look on their faces. I mean, don't they get it? Or 'am I the odd one out? I dont know.

I remember this altercation I had with a dude who had issues with "Rang De...". At that time (even today), I wouldn't buy anything against such a brilliant movie...brilliant not coz it had a message et al...but for the simple reason that while watching the movie, I could relate and would have done exactly the same things.The issue that this guy had was that it promoted violence. Gimme a break...we're humans...unless we're shown sex and violence...we aren't excited.So why crib?I asked him if he liked "Swades"...he said it was boring...precisely for the lack of "action".I mean...either I'm nuts or this guy is so open-minded that his brain has started falling out.

Remember when we were kids, we used to read so many stories? And remember how all those stories had an ending. When we were tiny toddlers, almost all those endings were the "and they lived happily ever after" type. And as we grew older, we came across endings which were not necesarily happy but the story still had an ending. Is it not possible for a person to direct a movie and resist the temptation to put an 'ending' into it? Its not about just trying to be different from the rest of the film-makers...but the devotion to the original concept so that nothing sways it."Mithya", I thought, was a courageous attempt.

So, all you creative people...the proposition is this..."Succumb to the Temptation" (remember the brilliant Kwality Walls' Campaign) and execute it with a twist!!!