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 |

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 |

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 |

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 |