How do you quantify knowledge? From the Board to rank and file, there seem to be a lack of understanding in grasping with the value of knowledge, especially regarding technologists. I’ll attempt to simplify my logic.

A few years ago, after a serious car accident, I was forced to limit my driving to five miles radius around home, so extreme was my panic of being behind the wheels. Those essential trips were to doctors’ offices, hospitals and school. It took over a year of therapy, medication and self-determination to venture beyond that radius and brave Atlanta‘s heavy traffic. I undoubtedly owe my recovery to the medical professionals. Their combined final bill was over $25,000. Simply put, I purchased their knowledge, expertise and services. It was essential for my recovery.

I was reluctant to visit referred specialists: neurologists and orthopedics. I fumed at their high hourly rate of $350-450. My silent rage: why should I pay for an hour when the actual time the doctor spent with me was less than half an hour, rest being filled by their nurses and PAs? Now, my physicians were leading neurologists and orthopedics, which translated to best care. There were, no doubt, many other doctors with much less fees. The questions were: what ‘s the price of my health? Should I save money now and see other doctors even if not commanding in their fields? Would that not mean risking permanent nerve and bone damage, ultimately spiking medical bills, perhaps for life? Or, should I continue with trusted physicians, best possible care and expert knowledge? I opted for the latter. End result? Best possible and fast recovery.

Like my physicians, many technologists too command lead in knowledge and expertise in their fields. Unfortunately, people outside technology often fail to fathom the value of those expertise. What price should be put on intellectual property? Is it fair to expect knowledge-share or pick experts’ brains without engaging their services? Could I have chatted endlessly with the doctors and expected them to share all the procedures with me before becoming their patient – could I even have had access to them without an appointment, essentially $350-450? Ridiculous? Yes, it is preposterous. Just as absurd is to expect the same from technologists.

Intellectual property is valued by result, expert knowledge, credentials, to name a few. If Apple* would not let consumer test run a product before purchase but provide guarantee, technologists too shouldn’t be expected to share their knowledge and/or intellectual property without signing a contract. It is their bread and butter, as are payslips for most. Would you apply your knowledge and skills at work if your employer doesn’t pay you, even for half an hour? The irony is that technologists themselves often fail to draw the line as when to stop sharing. One of the challenge is the industry itself – technology is very fast moving, most other business sectors trailing far behind. Thus the dilemma of putting value to a product/service that has no comparison – another challenge with early adopters and visionaries, attributes of highly successful experts.

In short, it is not in any business’ interest to avail their team members’ knowledge, in essence company’s intellectual property, without a commitment. The value of those knowledge varies on result – an engineer may write a ten lines code output being exactly as expected within a couple of hours, while her/his peer may get the same result after twenty lines of codes in ten hours. Needless to say the value of their knowledge would be highly contrasting and it would reflect on their payslip. Sound simple? Interestingly, not so in many sectors. When engaging a business for their service/product, client is essentially buying the intellectual property whose combined experience/expertise may exceed 150 years – to client’s utmost advantage.

Still, if you are able to buy a Bentley with a Kia budget, please share so that I too may dip into the impossible.

.

*An example to demonstrate that just as all tangible products cannot be tested before buying, non-tangible product, intellectual property, too cannot be “tested”. Guarantees are used instead.

.

Tags: Apple, Atlanta, Bentley, code, engineer, expertise, intellectual property, Kia, knowledge, technologists, Technology, value
Posted in Technology |

Change management is a natural process following mergers and acquisitions. From the Board to operations, people are required to realign themselves with the new founded entity. The process may involve reshaping, restructuring, new hires, as well as disengaging personnel, regardless of the length of their tenure or contract. These changes are not only smart but essential – as separate entities objective and goals would have been different but as one merged entity, business needs must be redefined across the board.

Most times change management is a challenge. People fear the unknown and act to preserve their interest and long-held authority within an enterprise by resisting change. The reality though is shareholders’ interest boil down to bottom-line: profitability. Rightfully so since it is their dollars on the line when businesses bear losses. Those losses, or gains, are directly attributed to how and who run the shows, from the Board of Directors to senior executives to rank and file. As owners, shareholders appoint the Board and entrust them with certain authority to execute in the best interest of the entity – ideally. Unfortunately, too often, that is not what transpires in reality, as we have seen with AIG, GM, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to name a few.

The question then is what steps should shareholders take to protect their interest and essentially, the business? How are they assured that past mistakes will not be repeated by the Board and their executives? Owners are not involved enough to ensure success, regardless of the reason(s). On the other hand, executives who are hired and entrusted with the well-being of an enterprise must make executive decisions that exclusively benefit the business. If that process require re-aligning their own positions and/or compensations, engaging independent entities for objectivity and proficiency and/or new hires as well as disengaging people, so be it.

People mistakenly credit their positions more than what they really are. The longer a position is held, the more that misconception. Extremely few people are indispensable in the working world. The sooner people grasp this concept, the stronger and more efficient the work force will be. Carl Icahn said it best -

…….. managers have been awarded lavish retention bonuses. In my view, very few managers are irreplaceable, especially in this economy.

On the other hand, shareholders may boost their work force by assuring easy access to them by all on board, be it at AGM or direct discreet communication without the fear of retaliation and/or loosing their jobs. Not the complaint department, where it’s essentially handled by legal to avoid lawsuit, but direct access to share ideas and/or to present business proposition for profitability. Wouldn’t owners (shareholders) be open to ways their business may reach greater heights by accelerating performance, doing more with less (cutting cost), boosting efficiency? As a shareholder, I would.

Mergers and acquisitions bring forth complex problems because the competition within is doubled to protect own self interest – human nature. Shareholders must be more involved, demand more answers – at least during the months following the acquisition. One greatest tool to their advantage is technology – it should be used to strategize, partner and execute.

Tags: acquisition, AIG, Business, change management, enterprise, entity, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Goldman Sachs, mergers, Morgan Stanley, owners, shareholders, Technology
Posted in Best Practices, Business, Technology |

My quick thought on people often feeling the need to owe their own worth to someone else.

I receive many thank you emails and notes for jobs, opportunities, connections, so on and so forth. As much as I’m humbled by these gestures my response remain the same: opportunities are created by each individual, him or her -self, by their own credentials, experience, knowledge. My or my team’s role is to identify the inner attributes and maximize those capabilities. Sometimes those steps require refinement, encouragement, exposure and education for sustainability and helping them reach greater heights. The core attributes of those talents, however, are exclusive parts of an individual without which there simply would not be any aspect for us to utilize. Simply put, if you are seeking to be indebted to someone for jobs and/or opportunities, look no further than in the mirror. It’s your own abilities that largely contribute to your success – the rest merely work in concert on that foundation.

On the other hand, businesses prosper by successfully identifying and engaging the right talent for the right role. In short, our actions are business decisions – we require the knowledge and capabilities for our own sustenance and profit while in return we offer compensation. While I appreciate the kind notes and thoughts, I encourage highly talented work force to appreciate their own worth, first and foremost – personally, that would please me the most.

Tags: Business, credentials, experience, knowledge, Sustainability, sustenance, talent, work force
Posted in Business, Talents/Expertise |

Like many others, I too am sometimes confronted with the dilemma to push back or to let things slide, more when it involve livelihood, not mine alone but an entire team of people and their dependents, so on and so forth. Push back demonstrate how strong or weak you are in the business world as interpreted by both proponents and opponents. My motivation, however, is slightly different and simple: not putting up with nonsense, whatever that maybe. Donald Trump said it best -

It’s smart to know when to push back. Competitive edge is not merely an attribute but essential in business. If you allow yourself to be walked over once, be assured that will become your signature and you simply will not survive.

Learn from the best, be it Icahn, Trump, Jobs, or whoever, regardless of their life philosophy. Their commonality? Experience and success. If that is your objective, then learning from them is smart, even if that means making executive decisions contrary to your own advisors’ and team executives’ opinion.

Why think small, when you can think big? Learn the art of push back and be a success.

Tags: Business, Donald Trump, Icahn, Jobs, push back, think big
Posted in Best Practices, Business |