Oh boy. Looks like I’ve hit a nerve by taking Startup Riot as an example under “Ambiguity” category in my last post. I confess I’m flattered that my two cents caused such a stir. Thank you for listening and for expressing your views. But, I’ll attempt to clarify a few points in order to eliminate any confusion and/or anger for daring to be vocal. Hopefully, comments with profanity will not need to be moderated – it’s not asking too much to be civil even in disagreement. Is it?

Firstly, I or my company, Simply Web, Inc. does not in any way benefit commercially from Atlanta technology startups scene. It simply isn’t our market – Startup Riot being one of them. Neither am I affiliated with any of the startups and/or individuals mentioned. My personal interest in technology leads me to attend startup events nationwide – call it a hobby. Some of the best minds can be found in these unstructured events which often lead to innovation, another of my passion.

So, if I’ve no vested interest why the write-up? Because, that allows me to be objective but, more importantly, I’d like Atlanta to lead technology innovation in the Southeast. The chance of that is slim when closed door policies, unfairness and/or favoritism are practiced. It is very easy to agree or be popular – it takes courage to voice difference. Criticisms are designed for improvement and not personal attacks – unless you choose to take it so. Or, just ignore.

Apart from the comments, I was made aware that there apparently is a huge buzz around my post on Twitter. Since I don’t know who or what they are I cannot address them. But, debate is always welcome – it illustrates enough people are listening.

THEOLOGY

a) Established: Both TAG (Technology Association of Georgia) and TechLinks newsletters used to include Breakfast Bible Study (or similar) serieses. Since I’m not a reader of newsletters any more because of time constraint, I’m not sure if it’s still practiced. Religion should not be included in technology scenes. b) Startups: Founders of various organizations often mention religious services – church services, High Tech Breakfast, Bible breakfast meetings, etc. What a person does during his or her personal time is private, but, when wearing a company and/or organizational hat, he or she must be neutral. That takes me back to my original question: what does religion have to do with technology? Nothing.

Conclusion: Religion is heavily embedded in Atlanta technology scene. It’s a fact – I’m often asked about my faith first in these gatherings, before any conversation starts. I’ve not encountered the same in tech scenes in other cities. Not only is the question rude but is irrelevant. Although I’ve adapted to these ignorant questions, these practices simply cannot continue for the community to lead.

UPDATE: I was asked by the executive editor of a local tech blog if they could post a rebuttal I may write in response to the buzz created by my last post. I agreed but was vetoed by their CEO and editor, one of the five reason being -

3) How exactly does the South’s Christian-slant on religion hurt our (technology hub’s) international stance and talent pool?

Does any one else in the Atlanta tech scene see a problem with that question itself? It should be noted here my suggestion was to exclude any and all religion (non-religion) from tech scenes simply because, again, religion has absolutely nothing to do with technology. If no one else can see the danger in bringing religion (and politics) in the tech scene, then we have much bigger a problem than I thought and much work lies ahead to eliminate those challenges.

AMBIGUITY

Startup Riot

a) I initially took an interest because I was told, repeatedly, that it was THE Atlanta tech startup event to attend. b) Some of the people attending were from the service industry. At the same time, it came to my attention that many people from the exact same industry (staffing companies, angel investors, seed funding, social media, marketing/sales) were not allowed. c) Not knowing much about the event/organization or organizers, I turned to their web site to learn more. Sure enough there was a “Who can’t attend” section with service industry excluded. Having confirmed unfair practices, I simply chose not to participate. d) Why was Startup Riot an example? That was the first event that came to my mind, perhaps because it had taken place recently as were the complaints made. e) Why did I hear alarm bells? If that was THE event where double standards were practiced, then we have a problem. Something must be said – who better to say it than someone who is neutral and has nothing to gain? f) Why the public post? To quote someone (?) at a conference call with SAP, “if you see unfair practices, raise your hand and scream, if discussion through private channels doesn’t work“. Numerous private conversations with influential people didn’t receive as much attention as this blog did. Perhaps going public is needed for change. g) This event/organization is merely an example of what’s ailing startup tech community in Atlanta. Some organizers doing it right are user groups/barcamps – Atlanta Web Design Group, Atlanta Mobile Developers Group, Atlanta PHP User Group and many others.

As I mentioned in earlier post, more pointers are forthcoming. Why? Perhaps I want to share my experience and my observations because I myself was a startup once and know the challenges all too well. Unfortunately, not much mindset has changed in the last three years or so. It will happen – it’s simply taking a little longer than I had predicted.

Tags: Atlanta Mobile Developers Group, Atlanta Web Design Group, startups, TAG, tech, TechLinks, Twitter
Posted in Best Practices, Technology |

Not quite….yet.

Although Atlanta is home to numerous talented and brilliant minds – fresh graduates from the likes of Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University and outside-the-box thinking young entrepreneurs – the challenges facing young technology startup companies are quite steep. I’ve narrowed down some pointers which I consider foremost for  Atlanta to overcome these challenges that are hindering Atlanta’s growth as a technology innovation hub of the Southeast.

THEOLOGY

Theology, or religion, does not have anything to do with technology and yet it’s heavily embedded in Atlanta’s technology scene. Should theology be the foundation for technology and innovation? More importantly, should it be practiced in a field that require pure science? How do you decide which school of theology will be embraced and which will be rejected given ideas arise from minds that may or may not practice diverse schools of theology? Ideas thrive in openness and has little, if any, boundary. Ideas cannot be predicted or controlled. Nor can any one entity, individual or organization determine the source of next best idea. It may originate from a completely unforeseen or unheard of source – a nobody is a somebody in waiting, to quote Guy Kawasaki (?). It’s only smart to nurture and encourage ideas in an open, transparent and fair environment. An idea by itself is useless if not executed. Compelling ideas must be embraced, supported, nurtured and advocated for success and sustainability, regardless of the person’s gender, race, religion (or non-religion), social and economic status.

Atlanta’s challenge: Eliminating theology from technology scene. It’s easier said than done, but, it’s possible. When theology is embedded in organizational structures, both established and startups, it limit possibilities.

Solutions: Provide and practice an environment and build a foundation that is completely devoid of religion and politics – that is if you are an organization claiming to serve the technology community at large. Limit religious breakfast classes and/or weekly religious practices to personal choice and not be a sponsor/supporter of any one religious institution – it opens the gate for more questions than provide solutions/support, rightfully so. Otherwise, it may be perceived as favoritism and those technology institutions and/or organizations does not serve the community at large but special interest group(s).

AMBIGUITY

There is confusion and ambiguity in distinguishing between technology innovation and marketing/sales initiatives as well as “service”, “solutions” and “products”. Same may be said of differentiating between investors and startups seeking funding. Both established and startup organizations discourage and/or exclude people from “service” industry. What does that mean? Does IBM fall in that category, given a large sector of their business is service? How about technology staffing firms and companies that provide social media services? Are all of these service-oriented businesses excluded? Not exactly. Companies and individuals are randomly included (or excluded as may be the case), effectively by organizations (who themselves fall under service industry) contradicting their very own statements. It is so in both established and startup organizations.

Example: Startup Riot*. On their FAQ page, it clearly states “Who can’t attend”. Now if service industry is excluded, IBM, staffing companies (or their representatives), social media providers should have also been excluded. But, they were not. What’s more confusing is, if an industry is excluded, how can organizers expect that same industry to be sponsors? Is that not a contradictory statement? Now to be fair, I’ve not attended any of their events and am unaware of unpleasantness that may have transpired in 2008 (as an inclusive person, I’m reluctant to attend or support events/organizations that exclude people). But, FAQs pages should be designed to clarify and not confuse – that is if events are open to the general public and not to a selected few.

Atlanta’s challenge: Avoid ambiguous statements and practices that hinder growth. Embracing of certain personalities from the same industry (service, just as an example) while rejecting others of similar and/or equal strengths send discouraging message and create obstacles for innovation not to mention unfair practices.

Solutions: a) Clearly define technology innovation and marketing initiatives. Social media platforms are merely a new medium for marketing, sales, communication, branding. Usage of that platform is not technology but marketing innovation. b) Broaden investor prospects. Do not underestimate the influence and/or ability of new and unknown investors – many investors are private and maintain low profiles. c) Use “target” audience vs “exclusive”. While the former approach is inviting and specific, the latter closes the door on potential innovative minds. Innovation cannot survive (or grow) in confined and closed environment. An inclusive approach and environment energizes and motivates communities opening the door to endless possibilities – a haven for innovation.

LACK OF LOCAL SUPPORT

Atlanta technology startups have failed to gain support from local investors, enterprises and the community. I am not sure of the reason but I’ve a theory – bear with me a little.

Will every idea lead to next Google or E-bay? Absolutely not. But, there are startups who command innovation and are no less than their counterparts in any way. While Mashable, a social media guide (effectively marketing) boasts huge reader-base and corporate partnership, Regator provide an impressive platform that aggregate blog posts and categorize them according to topics and has a searchable archive of more than 3.5 million posts. With the right support and patronage, Regator may very well be next success story in the world of blogs. But, reasons unknown to me, local businesses and deep-pocket investors are attracted by similar innovative initiatives of other cities, primarily. Same comparison may be made between Constant Contact, based in Waltham, Massachusetts and MailChimp based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Of course, businesses are not expected to support local grown startups by default. But, why do companies pay twice as much (sometime more) in engaging out-of-town services/products when exact same solution is available in Atlanta at a much discounted rate? Perhaps a Venture Capitalist and/or an enterprise will be able to answer that question. I personally think, one of the reason is lack of exposure by mainstream media, be it television or newspaper. While groups or personalities from outside of Atlanta are heavily promoted in local media when they visit the city, same cannot be said of local talents of equal and/or more qualifications.

Examples: a) Mashable in Atlanta, were interviewed by local media and gained corporate partnership as mentioned earlier while Regator, a partner host, was left out of the equation. b) While on a book tour Chris Brogan received huge followings from the Atlanta technology community. It should be noted here, neither Mashable nor Brogan are technology innovators – former providing blogs related to social media while the later is the president of a new media marketing agency, according to his site. The platforms that they both use are technology innovation – they are merely utilizing these new mediums for marketing, very effectively, mind you. Now, why same exposure is not granted to local talents, be it Barbara Giamanco, Taryn Pisaneschi or smart and bright recent graduate Courtenay Bird, is beyond me. When local talents are engaged, without sacrificing quality, companies essentially contribute to economic growth and boosts innovation and sustainability.

Atlanta’s challenge: Embracing and adopting ideas and innovative solutions initiated by Atlanta startups by local businesses and investors alike.

Solutions: a) Build a strong relationship with businesses by listening to their needs. Solutions should be based on demand. b) Listen to your community and businesses. Understand what is missing and build around those needs. c) Gain the trust of local companies – Atlanta is the home to many large companies’ headquarters – and initiate reaching out to provide a sustainable solution. d) Execute ideas that meet a demand, existing or future, with a focus on sustainability. Investors look for products/ideas that hold promise in the long run and not some fly-by-the-hour-quick-cash-scheme initiatives.

In a separate post I’ll highlight few other pointers that will help expedite the growth of technology startups. Inspite of the above challenges, there are many technology success stories which prove that any challenge may be overcome with determination, persistence, confidence. Belief in yourself is the ultimate key to success. Finally, network, network, network – know your market, competitors, buyers.

Will Atlanta be a hub of innovation for technology startups in the near future?

*I’ve taken Startup Riot as an example because it’s founded on the ground of providing a platform for mainly technology startups seeking funding.

Tags: Atlanta, Constant Contact, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, idea, innovation, investor, MailChimp, Mashable, Regator, Social Media, start-ups, Sustainability, Technology, theology
Posted in Business, Technology |

Looking back on 2009, I pause on our journey – the anticipation, accomplishments, successes, challenges and disappointments – and am humbled by our growth in these challenging times. My heartfelt appreciation to our clients, supporters and well wishers without whom we would not have come this far.

The year saw expansion and opportunities from DC to California. A few alliances and partnerships were formed while others are in the making, giving us the edge to provide the very best to our clients and the community at large. While there were disappointments and missed opportunities, we are better aligned in moving forward with relationships strengthened, and products and services that are being rendered.

We gathered much knowledge from industry leaders and peers at live conferences, workshops and brainstorm sessions held across the US. I thank the organizers – Enterprise 2.0, MIT CIO, Fortune Branstorm Tech, All Things D, Future Media and many other community events, too many to name – for their tireless effort in providing platforms and tools for leaders and participants to share and grow together for the betterment of technology at large. The knowledge each person shares is priceless as are relationships formed in the hallways – I personally can’t seem to get enough of either.

Hats-off to the entire Simply Web team – internal, consultants and vendors – who silently bear with unreasonable demands, often times request for delivery prior to rollout date, and exceed all expectations time and time again. Without the diligence, smart performance and behind-the-scene excellence, Simply Web would just simply not be. I am grateful for the opportunity to be working with the very best team. My sincere thanks to our directors and advisors who allow me unconditional and unlimited access to their knowledge and expertise – they keep us grounded, extend a helping hand to rise when we fall and give us the push needed when exhausted.

I look forward to a stronger, prosperous and healthy 2010. In the meantime, thank you, 2009, for an interesting year!

Tags: 2009, 2010, Business, challenges, simply web, success, Technology
Posted in Business, Technology |

The disconnect between business and technology is so vast, it is hard to believe one’s (technology) purpose  is to serve the other (business), simply put. In other words, business needs must be understood and identified for technology to deliver. And yet, technology is often excluded during strategic business plans, mistakenly associating technology as “cost” vs strategic partner in providing solutions, in many sectors.

So, logically speaking technology is more than just tools. It is, according to Wikipedia -

Technology deals with human as well as other animal species’ usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species’ ability to control and adapt to its natural environment. The word technology comes from the Greek technología (τεχνολογία) — téchnē (τέχνη), ‘craft’ and -logía (-λογία), the study of something, or the branch of knowledge of a discipline.^[1] A strict definition is elusive; technology can be material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, but can also encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques. The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include “construction technology”, “medical technology”, or “state-of-the-art technology”.

As for technologists themselves, too much focus is on tools – wikis, applications, infrastructure – rather than on strategic, smart solutions composed of people, process and finally tools. The reason is simple: the purchase of a tool, be it most expensive or most “recommended”, does not necessarily mean it’s the best solution for business in the absence of experts and knowledgeable workers. In the hindsight, those tools will ultimately be expensive waste in the company’s ledger. You may own a Ferrari but that will not make you a Formula 1™ Ferrari driver or an expert.

People

People are, or should be, knowledge workers driving innovation, outside-the-box concepts that provide cutting-edge or best solutions demanded and needed by business. People must be strategically allocated according to their individual strengths and knowledge to best serve the business. Unfortunately, the challenge in enterprises is often the people themselves. Larger the corporation, bigger the challenge. Oliver Marks, an expert in enterprise collaboration with intricate knowledge and experience at global level, talks about these internal challenges here, here and here.

On the other hand, technology staffing suppliers can be notorious for advocating “contractors” for projects of all sizes. Vendors love nothing more than providing headcounts – it’s an easy profit, as a prime contractor of a number of large corporations once told me. Sure, it’s a vendor’s dream and the best solution for many projects. But, is it so for every project? Are businesses being matched with right skilled-sets of knowledge workers? Many vendors hike up a candidate’s expertise and experience for a quick sell, often times without the knowledge of the candidate or the client. More importantly, is redundantly placing x number of contractors best option for the business? Adding headcounts without strategic plan is not a solution but a waste of resources and money. Contractors need time to adapt to projects and cultures while the project’s requirement is immediate hands-on. Additionally, bringing contractors on-board cause frictions between them and “employees”, wasting valuable time in a successful rollout. (“Contractors” and  “employees” is a topic by itself and require a separate post.)

The most pressing question to ask: how can collective knowledge be leveraged and shared in an enterprise to provide smart technology solutions per business needs on time, on budget and every time?

Process

Centralized and standardized processes and methodologies are the backbone of successful project and product rollout. Lack of which translate to confusion, inefficiency and waste. It’s virtually impossible to successfully rollout products repeatedly without implementing processes and methodologies. Processes will determine faster projects and products delivery, save time, effort and money, boost efficiency and gain more with less – primitively put.

Tools

Once right people and process is put in place, tools must be identified that is best suited for the business. It may be an out-of-the-box technology or a ground-up development.

Let’s study one aspect: determining best Content Management System (CMS) to meet the need of an enterprise running multiple (20-200) web sites with global locations.

Sometimes, when we receive new projects that do not require or have the budget for ground-up developments, our coders invariably suggest CMS that they are most familiar with: Symfony, Drupal or Wordpress. Interestingly, often times without first learning of clients’ business needs or studying the entire requirements. Now, to be fair to the coders, most of them can build a site blindfolded on Drupal and Wordpress. With the latter, they’ve launched (initial) mid-size, customized sites within 48 hours, to clients’ and my outmost surprise – pleasant, mind you.

Of all these three CMS, Symfony is most preferred while Drupal is the least desired. The former has clean, robust and dynamic framework while the latter is extremely procedural and has poor template system, to name a couple of drawbacks. Still, Drupal community has large followings – many have set-up shops developing sites solely on Drupal. I’ve heard arguments in favor of and against all three CMS, including comparing Symfony and Drupal to Mac and PC, respectively. Wordpress, on the other hand, has their own strengths and limitations.

All three of these CMS undoubtedly have large followings and loyal users. They each have strong frameworks and all are open source. However, none of them are suitable for a large corporation that run multiple sites.

My personal preference – and favorite – is customized ground-up CMS development based on each corporation’s business needs. (Disclaimer: that is one of our core business and I can write a lengthy essay on the topic).

Selecting and determining tools should not be based on popularity, current work force abilities, one or two success stories but on business need. The question should be: is this the best solution for my business as a whole, not fragmented?

Both business and technology must work closely to eliminate this disconnection. Technologists should take on added responsibilities of understanding the business and consequently what is asked of them other than focusing solely on tools: hardware and software. Simultaneously, business people must include and share their requirements and needs with technologists from inception.

Granted, it’s easier said than done, particularly when change management remain a challenge. Connecting the dots between business and technology will eliminate waste, inefficiency, confusion while boosting more productivity with less, knowledge share and innovation.

And, it is feasible when executed from top down.

Tags: Business, CMS, Collaboration, Drupal, process, Symfony, Technology, tools, web, Wordpress
Posted in Business, Technology |

We all face stressful days, more now when financial market is uncertain, setting off a fuse with just a little nudge. The trick is to remain cordial in your correspondence – if an email ticks you off, instead of replying right away, hold off till you’ve calmed down. I’ve found walking away from the computer or ignoring the email helps.

Then there are days when your polite turn down of a service or product is considered an offense. An effective tool I’ve learnt from my brother is that when people offer you unasked advice – we are very good at telling others what to do, without rectifying our own very similar shortcomings – thank them, regardless. Sometimes you have to thank more than once when people insist you act on their advice or that you agree with them. You don’t have to agree, but you can take the high road and will probably eliminate conflicts by expressing appreciation and ending the conversation.

I’ve two sets of people, old school and new school thinking, whom I consult regarding my business. It’s fascinating how different the thoughts of those two schools are. As our business matures I find new school thoughts are more in alignment with our business needs. However, old school leaders share different sets of expertise and is valuable in certain aspects. Identifying these differences are crucial while maintaining healthy relationships. Although, no doubt these two schools are bound to cause friction at some point.

Opinions will differ. Don’t loose your cool though – just say thank you.

Tags: Business, conflict, friction, new school, old school, thank you
Posted in Business |

illustration source – Wikipedia

I admit I’m one of those people who roll their eyes – as Oliver Marks put it in his most apt post on ZDNet – when I hear Twitter, Facebook (two examples for this post) and the likes for enterprise collaboration. My pupils probably totally disappear when I hear “social media”. Add “expert” or “guru” – let’s not leave the “influencers” out of that equation – to that sentence and I’m transformed into an eye-rolling-face-cringing individual. It’s not a pretty sight, mind you. The Pied Piper of Hamelin – illustrated above – comes to mind if I were to observe the social media mayhem from Hanover.

Now, now children, before you start throwing tantrums, bear with me a little.

The word social is so overly used in the context of emergent technologies that I doubt most people comprehend the message they themselves wish to deliver by the usage of that term. Applications that provide platforms for communities to seamlessly interact and engage in dialogues no doubt should be embraced. But, by whom and for what purpose?

Twitter and Facebook are excellent mediums for branding, advertising or marketing of a product or service. With real-time interfaces and very little cost, both platforms allow instant response and communication between clients and customers. They should be utilized by marketing, customer service or advertising guys or gals, of any size business. The trick though? Have a clear message, same one as you’d normally use in traditional medium.

Confusion has arisen because some of the same category of people mentioned above, have evangelized social media, for their own gain, to the point that they claim the entire company should actively use Twitter and Facebook while at work. In other words, if your employees or you aren’t tweeting or updating your status – about work maybe (?), to the entire world – during hours that you are paid top dollars to complete assignments, you aren’t embracing “revolutionary” tools, never mind that in the process your productivity declines – multiply your employees with time spent on Twitter and/or Facebook unrelated to work, I guarantee the numbers will be staggering. Emergent technologies are now tools for employees to cheat the very company that feeds them? Really?!

By now, I should probably reveal that I’m an advocate for enterprises. Since I’m coming clean, let me also add, aside from a fleeting boost of ego, number of followers or “friends” on Twitter or Facebook is absolutely meaningless, even if you see some self-proclaimed heavyweight Twitterers claim otherwise. Personally, this popularity contest would have been fun if I were still in middle or high school. But alas, I’ve matured since then – my family may dispute though.

It goes without saying if all of Twitter and Facebook employees are tweeting or updating their Facebook statuses, it’s to their advantage: they benefit directly and have vested interest. Now, if our coders did the same, I wouldn’t be a happy camper, not when we have demanding clients paying us top dollars to take care of their problems. Would you?

Perhaps I’m one of the child who didn’t quite hear – or just stopped following – the Pied Piper of social media. Now if you are an Enterprise 2.0 conference goer, you too decided not to follow the Pied Piper and are in Hanover shaking heads with me…

There, children, so I’ve finally said it. Still tantrums?

Tags: Collaboration, enterprise, enterprise 2.0, Facebook, Pied Piper of Hamelin, Social Media, Twitter, ZDNet
Posted in Social Media, Technology |

Remember Enron? More recently AIG? What did these two corporations have in common? Corruption and ethics violation.

Corporations do not collapse overnight. Corruption start in small doses, a little stealing here and a little stealing there. Very soon, that appetite for greed and total disregard for corporate standard of business conduct consume the greedy, dragging down the corporation along the way. These violations always occur at the top of the ladder. Unfortunate but history tells us so. Violation of ethics and corporate compliance should be stopped early.

Most companies formulate policies, often known as corporate compliance and ethics guidelines, that pretty much is – or should be – the backbone of a corporation. These policies set standards for internal employees as well as relationships with vendors and partners. Many companies take these guidelines seriously providing seminars and training employees to practice business standards set forth.

When a senior vice president of a publicly traded corporation is entrusted with added responsibility of overseeing  specific operations and performance, it becomes her responsibility to engage teams most suited for a specific job in the best interest of the corporation she serves. But when she engages or exerts influence so that her husband is hired, it’s a conflict of interest. Furthermore, she stands to receive direct financial gain by giving or influencing her husband to get the job. If that step involved zero opportunity for other competitors then the misconduct is much more serious and should be investigated, at the least. But the most obvious? You simply cannot, and should not, hire your spouse if you don’t own the company.

It is healthy to have competition and for corporations to practice equal opportunity. But, when privileged information is stolen under false pretense, it is not a competition. It’s dishonesty and playing dirty.

Recently, I evaluated and had lengthy discussions with a former executive of perhaps one of the largest corporation and the most recognized brand in the world. Learning of my intention, one of my well wisher advised me against engaging him. My advisor thought he was not a good fit for us and reminded me that his wife was our competitor. However, the gentleman assured me that our and his wife’s space were very different – our focus is on large corporations, his wife’s on small to mid sized market. With that clarification and verbal assurance, I briefed him on a couple of companies I had studied. Little did I know he was sharing my privileged information with his wife. Worse still, he encouraged his wife to pursue the very companies that he was gathering information from me, under the false pretense of working for us. Mind you, this is the same gentleman who once ran an IT division for one of the largest corporation. It gets more interesting: one of the employee of his wife is the husband of the senior vice president, mentioned above, whose office has the direct authority to oversee the hiring as mentioned earlier.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

Looking back I feel sorry for him, even though he was dishonest and demonstrated poor integrity. Without a corporate title, the person that is left behind is the true nature of an individual. When that proves to be devoid of basic human decency, it is a very sad image. Here was a man who received very handsome severance package, has a daughter nearly my age, betrayed my trust and cheated a very young company, all for some instant profit? Monetary gain is fleeting – money disappear as quickly as they appear – but the reputation you leave behind and the impact you have on people, will follow you to your grave. After 20 to 25 years in the corporate world, last many years holding executive positions, should have left him with dignity, honesty and self-respect. But, he failed to reveal any of those traits. What can be sadder than that?

Businesses are run by people. The success, or failure, are the result of the conducts of those same people. Without executing ethics and best practices, I doubt any corporation can survive. It is to my advantage that I’m rational, objective and practice zero favoritism at work – running a very small company compared to that corporation – so much so that my inner circle of people feel they need to watch my back, since I myself don’t do it, as someone put it recently, while friends are sometimes offended when we hire the best person qualified over them.

And what about that senior vice president? She violated the Corporate Standard of Business Conduct of the very company she serves as stated on that policy in Section 4 and 5 of certain pages.

Is business ethics really a gray area as the sage, above, claims or is it simply good for our business?

Tags: AIG, Business, compliance, Enron, ethics
Posted in Best Practices, Business |

Perhaps the most asked question I’ve answered was secrets to our sustainability as a young, privately held and self-funded company since our inception and during these challenging times. The truth though, there isn’t any secret to that formula. It’s following the basic principles of simplicity and listening to your inner voice. If that tiny voice is speaking to you, there is a very good reason.

Simplicity: Solutions do not lie in more complexity, it’s in simplicity. Keeping culture, people, process, technology – core of your business – simple is the key to sustenance. Avoid using jargon and buzz words that create more confusion than provide a solution. Sometimes they may be good for creating awareness of a brand and are most often used by marketing and public relations department. But, when running a business, provide substance and use language understood by your team, clients, prospects. Keep it simple.

Flexibility: Change is a natural process of life as it is in business. Whether you are an entrepreneur or an employee changing with business need is essential. During recession flexibility is perhaps the biggest asset of an organization, small or large. Adapting to change and being agile are qualities sought after by employer and clients alike.

Alliance: Your client, business partners, board of directors and advisors, and team members are your best alliances. Forming alliances is crucial in the growth of your business. Existing relationships must be nurtured and valued. Be the advocate for your alliances and the return will be many fold. Your alliance are your ambassador. (Forming right alliance is beyond the scope of this write-up but will detail that in another post). During recession your alliances are your most reliable source of expansion and growth. They know you and will vouch for you. Do not neglect your early well wishers while expanding your alliance base though. They are your proven asset.

Shared Vision: In order to remain sustainable, shared vision among key players – team members, partners, alliance – is vital. It’s virtually impossible to provide cutting edge solutions and technologies – or whatever business you may be in – if visions are not shared by core members. Those visions do not have to be aligned 100% but they must be above 85% – my personal magic number is 90%.

Transparency: Whether profiting or hurting in downtime, be transparent about your company’s plans and policies. If change is needed – cutting cost, layoffs – be upfront. Your team and your clients deserve the truth. Your transparency will drive morale, loyalty and repeat clients.

To remain sustainable we keep it simple, transparent, flat and yet elegant.

Tags: alliance, Business, Sustainability, transparency, vision
Posted in Business, Sustainability |

Forming alliances and partners are natural process for growth of a business. Knowing and identifying those alliances will perhaps make or break your company. A few basic pointers I’ve learned – at times the hard way – in identifying my alliances and ambassadors were sometimes not so easy.

Trust – Do you trust the person enough to share the inner most trade secrets of your company without an iota of doubt? Mistakes are often made between being “friends” and trusting a person. Does the person trust you enough to allow you into the inner workings of their business? Are you included in their space as openly as you include them? Do not confuse “friendliness” with trust. If the latter is missing, know you have not found an alliance or a partner. You must be able to trust each other with your life as partners.

Appreciation – Often times appreciation is overlooked. It is important to thank someone for sharing ideas or inspiration that may have taken you to greater heights in your business. In a healthy relationship that appreciation flows naturally. But, when your ideas or inspirations are taken for granted or used for one’s personal gain without acknowledging your contribution, you have not found an alliance or a partner. I believe in sharing ideas and inspiring people. But, when those ideas are quoted as someone else’s, I know I’ve not formed an alliance. Be generous with your ideas, but also be smart whom you share them with.

Respect - Right after graduation, I approached a number of my then class mates to partner with me. A couple of classmates faded quickly from the scene because of lack of shared vision. Partnering with a third person seemed very promising. I had the technology, business and marketing skills while she was THE coder, a wizard in JAVA, JavaScript. Vaguely we discussed going into partnership, I initiating the conversations. One evening, it was again I who called for further discussion. She was running late for an appointment and could not talk then. She asked me to call her back. I never did. If the person you are going to partner with does not have the time or respect to return your call, you cannot be partners. Partnership is equal responsibility and respect for one another. Do not confuse “friendliness” with respect. It is easy to be cordial, but respect is proven in actions.

Inclusiveness - I’ve a knack for recognizing a person’s skill sets within very short time of working with or knowing someone. It has been both a blessing and a curse. The latter because often times others do not read a person’s skills correctly and fail to place people in position that best suits their skills, thus leading to disaster, while I watch from afar. As I sometimes do, I approached a couple of people whom I knew would be a good fit to join our team. More as a partner or an executive team member. However, it didn’t take long for me to notice that while I shared every aspect of our business, I was not included in theirs. Are you included in their lives as you include them in yours? Can you pick up the phone and call each other at 3 in the morning if needed? Can you turn to each other without hesitation when emergencies arise? If not, know you have not found a partner or an alliance. Remember though, partnership is more closer than an alliance. With partners, inclusiveness is vital.

There are other pointers but these are basics that I use as guidelines to identify alliances and possible partners.

Tags: alliance, appreciation, inclusiveness, partner, respect, simply web, trust
Posted in Business |