It took BP 116 days to cap the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In other words, for 116 days approximately four million barrels (170 million gallons) of oil continuously spilled into the deep ocean. It is unknown how long it will take to cleanup and for lives to get back to normal. Perhaps it will take years or decades.

The exact cause of the explosion may involve a lot of finger pointing, but the simple fact remain: BP failed. BP failed to adhere to business policies, due diligence and demonstrated incompetency for 116 days straight. That incompetency resulted in waste: environment, marine lives, people’s livelihood, money. An indisputable business and organizational failure. Tony Hayward‘s claim that he had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well lacked logic that ultimately led to his departure as the CEO of BP. The obvious fact is that as the head of BP it was his responsibility for BP’s successes and failures.

Now, let’s dissect the challenges of change management in enterprises, regardless of technology solutions that are available.

Enterprise 2.0. Enterprise Collaboration. Change Management.

The commonality of the above? Eliminating corporate waste and cutting cost; boosting efficiency, productivity, innovation, sustainability, competitive edge with technology. The question begging to be asked though: Are tools and processes being implemented correctly? Sadly, hardly. Most often these are sound bites in SME to large enterprises. Why? It’s fashionable to use jargon and buzz words of the day. People enjoy linking their image with cutting-edge technology no matter how superficial the knowledge. As shocking as it may be failure to execute the solution is largely due to lack of experience, expertise and knowledge.

Then there is “social”. This magical word is believed to transform businesses from it’s medieval, slow-grinding, hierarchical organizational death trap to today’s fast paced, open share, transparent, sustainable and cutting-edge business solutions with technology. The concept would be true, if it was simply not as absurd a claim as it sounds. If the human minds ranked words like search engines do, perhaps meta tagging buzz words in board meetings and presentations would be of importance. But, does the Board’s brain light up on buzz words or does it on company’s earnings and losses – or, to be more accurate, waste?

Global financial meltdown has forced enterprises to cut cost, be more efficient. The solution has always been available with technology. The challenge was (and still is at many sectors), resistance to embracing technology as a strategic business partner and not merely a service provider. Tech silos too are comfortable in being told what to do vs providing strategic solutions focused on business need. Popularity and/or large user base alone will not make a product valuable if it does not meet business needs. Think Facebook and Warren Buffet‘s, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. As impressive a portfolio as Facebook claims with over 500 million users, would integrating Facebook accelerate Berkshire’s day to day operation? Very doubtful.

Yet still, one of the greatest challenge of change management remain people themselves: technology alone cannot be the solution if not embraced and executed by knowledge workers. Little knowledge combined with excessive use of buzz words in many different forms does not make a person an expert. In hierarchical organizational structure, that very misconception is a looming threat to innovation and efficiency. Meanwhile, the vast majority of work force remain under-valued, under-appreciated, mismanaged, frustrated leading to heavy turnover, productivity loss, inefficiency, low morale. These negativity essentially translate to waste of time and money in company’s ledger.

Whether hierarchical or otherwise, every employee is directly responsible for company’s sustainability and growth. However, leadership sets the mood. If that leadership is hands-off management, creating more layers and fragmentation contributing to confusion than solution, leadership must be reevaluated. An example: Yahoo! Inc. Carol Bartz compared the then organizational chart to Dilbert cartoon. It is the responsibility of the head of a company to foresee successes and failures of its management. If failures are outgrowing its successes, change management is a necessity.

Regardless how many layers and silos a chief executive form to efficiently run an enterprise, she or he must break down those same layers if the end result is disaster. If the chief executive chooses to be on an yacht outing, leaving his crew to get their hands dirty as Hayward did, that would be a disastrous strategic decision for himself as well as for the company. He too should be actively involved with the rest of the employees. Otherwise, it’s poor leadership and management.

Now, if every company’s waste could be graphically determined in the same manner as the oil spill did for BP, a large number of US cities’ business districts would be submerged in oil. It is up to the chief executives to heed the explosion in their own corporations and act quickly to cap the spill. Embrace technology as strategic partner and implement effective change management.

Today and not tomorrow.

.

Tags: Berkshire Hathaway Inc, BP, Carol Bartz, change management, Deepwater Horizon, enterprise 2.0, enterprise collaboration, Facebook, knowledge, oil spill, social, Technology, Tony Hayward, Warren Buffet, Yahoo
Posted in Best Practices, Business, Collaboration, Sustainability, Technology |

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 |

The most important step in forming  a business relationship is the first encounter or meeting. There are basic rules of business etiquette that should be maintained to determine the outcome of that meeting. In an increasingly global market, mannerism displayed will either make or break a relationship. The few pointers below may seem common sense, but surprisingly, often times they are ignored.

FIVE GLOBAL BUSINESS ETIQUETTE FOR SUCCESS

Addressing Others Whether first encounter or meeting in a board room, address each other with respect and courtesy. Regardless of age, number of years in the working world, race, gender, language, culture, customs, each participant in a meeting is equal. The reason is simple – each person brings something unique to the table and deserve equal respect and recognition, without which a healthy relationship cannot be built. Think Steve Jobs and the “Google Guys”, Sergey Brin and Larry Page. All three men are no less than the other even though Jobs launched his business when both Page and Brin were just babies. Innovation, sustainability and success are not bound by age, gender or culture, but by imagination, creativity, intelligence and adaptability. Addressing one another with that equal footing will help to form a strong relationship, leading to mutual success.

Communication Clear and concise communication is another fundamental element. In a global world it is necessary to understand and effectively communicate your message that is easily understood in diverse countries and cultures. Body language alone convey 75% of the message. Communication errors between generations are common. As explained above, age or experience does not automatically give an individual the right to offer advice by default. When doing so, the message can be seen as arrogant and condescending. As a receiver of that unwanted advice, the best solution is to thank the person, regardless whether it’s relevant or not, and excuse yourself. By doing so, you will avoid unpleasantness and maintain civility.

Accepting, Adapting and Sensitivity When conducting business in an international setting, cultural differences will no doubt be visible. However, the focus should be the business at hand and not different ways – be it accent, directness or politeness, aggressive or passive ways, so on and so forth. I would say this is the most basic attribute in conducting business in global setting – that is if you want to stay one step ahead of the curve. A South African diplomat once shared how accepting and respecting other cultures helped her grow, personally and professionally. I learned that it is the culture in certain part of Africa (memory fails to recall exact country) where hands are wiped on the skirts of table cloth after a meal. Imagine what your reaction may be without that vital information if you were to conduct business in that country. The trick is to learn, understand, accept and be sensitive to these different cultures, not make the other person(s) adapt to your ways. Keep it simple and open.

Confident, Yet Humble It is important to know your abilities and expertise. That knowledge will result in presenting yourself with confidence and authority. Both maybe achieved with humility: you know your niche market but at the same time are humbled by your achievements. Sometimes confidence maybe mistaken for arrogance, often times among competitors than prospects. If that is so, instead of being offended, regard it as a compliment, to quote a mentor. No matter where success leads, a little humility will always go a long way. More doors will open up when confident and humble than when confident and arrogant.

Keeping Cool Tempers are bound to flare in any business setting, often caused by competition, stress, demand and other internal and external factors. Regardless of the situation, keeping cool is smart. However, sometimes it’s easier said than done. One of the easiest way to avoid a direct conflict is to end unproductive conversations and/or meetings. That will allow all involved to cool off and meet at a different setting. Productivity thrives in harmony as do ideas and solutions. Open and transparent suggestions will lead to possible solutions. Repetitive discussion of problems without offering solutions is counterproductive and will plummet morale, decreasing productivity regardless of culture, industry or setting.

Applying these simple and yet powerful etiquette will brand you as a sharp and savvy global businessperson. What business manners are important to you and what would you want others to implement? Share your thoughts.

Tags: Business, communication, culture, etiquette, global, google guys, larry page, manners, sergey brin, steve jobs, Sustainability
Posted in Best Practices, Business |

Last week, March 1-4, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia was host to the largest healthcare IT conference and exhibition,  HIMSS10, organized by the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). According to HIMSS site, the event attracted more than 27,000 attendees from around the world. The event pretty much dominated downtown Atlanta, particularly areas surrounding Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC). It was a week of learning, gathering knowledge and networking with an industry that is a subject of a heated debate from the government to the general public. Healthcare Information Technology (HIT or HCIT) no doubt will play a vital role in the solution of that debate.

There are many challenges facing  HIT: more usefulness (MU), regulations, certifications, to name a few. Fraud within the industry is a major challenge since IT will be the first sector that will be hounded on when an investigation is underway. A good write-up by Gienna Shaw of HealthLeaders Meadia on fighting medicare fraud can be found here.

No doubt, healthcare industry will see major IT transformation, inspite of known challenges and resistance – a comparison with the banking industry is most apt for the latter. A few sites I found useful – insights from health industry expert are listed below. There are many more and I’ll add them as I continue my research.

- John D Halamka, MD, his take on MU and HIMSS10

- Harry Greenspun, MD, providing strategic leadership with a clinical perspective. He also talks about 2010 hospital budgets from a CIO perspective here.

- Kevinmd.com. An insight from a physician on Electronic Medical Record (EMR) can be read here.

- Better Health, a health commentary by a network of popular health bloggers, consisting of doctors and/or healthcare professionals. technologists

- HIMSS is a good resource.

- HealthLeaders Media, multi-platform media company dedicated to meeting the business information needs of healthcare executives and professionals.

Apart from the stimulus incentive that many in the IT sector are no doubt drawn to HIT, providing viable solutions for the healthcare industry is the key. Often times technology are focused on capabilities rather than the need of the industry, MU seem to be dominant in healtcare. Regardless, healthcare is a complex industry with mandatory massive government regulations and certifications for IT providers.

Overhauling an industry that is massive and intricately involve lives that demand privacy, accuracy, security, precision is not a small task. But, it can be done – with expertise, cutting-edge technology, collaboration.

Tags: Better Health, EMR, gienna shaw, Harry Greenspun, HCIT, Healthcare, healthcare IT, healthleaders media, HIMSS, HIT, John Halamka, Kevinmd.com, MU
Posted in Healthcare, Technology |

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 |