Normally Indian organization have viewed MNCs as threats they needed to be be protected from (trade barriers, tariff barriers) or to be joined forces with (like mergers, buyouts, JVs). A recent McKinsey article however contends that the next phase of global leaders would emerge from the developing world.
emerging markets, far from being a handicap, actually provide an invaluable springboard. The combination of demanding yet price-sensitive customers and challenging distribution environments can help determined companies develop the distinctive capabilities they need to compete successfully elsewhere.
Ranbaxy became one of the world's most cost-effective drug manufacturers before moving beyond its national borders. The Spanish institution Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) learned to use its resources more effectively than most of the world's banks and only then pushed into Latin America. Before going abroad, the Indian company Asian Paints had already reduced its working-capital turns to levels below those of all but one of the world's leading paint companies, and India's ICICI Bank made more money on small transactions than did the world's best institutions.
Note that no mention of the so-called leaders of Indian IT like TCS, Infosys, Wipro, Satyam. And that is because they have mostly used cost arbitrage to succeed. Note that when competing against global leaders on their home soil these giants have not succeeded so much. Sanjay Anandaram of JumpStartUp, a VC firm wrote in a businessworld article on the Indian IT industry:
It is disheartening from an industry standpoint to see hundreds of millions of dollars simply lying on the balance sheet and not being invested in creating innovative competitive advantages for the future. It is disheartening to see companies lack the confidence to take big, bold steps, even after 20 successful years in the global arena. The ability to dream big on a global level and then take the required steps to realise the dreams is what will distinguish the true global players from the also-rans in the next 10 years.
Mindsets need to change dramatically, especially among leadership levels. From managing status quos to managing risks, from managing people to managing businesses and leveraging opportunities, from managing Indians to managing a diverse global workforce, from a 'span of control' to a 'span of competencies' - all these initiatives are essential for success. Career paths for R&D and industry experts, for example, need to be made as attractive as jobs that are oriented to people management. An entrepreneurial environment and mindset has to be put in place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogging About
HR Issues
Social Media
Organization Development
consulting
career management
business blogging
recruiting
strategy
talent
learning
innovation
leadership
management
Organizations 2.0
HR2.0
Knowledge Management
Social Business
networking
training
talent work
skills
employment branding
Enterprise social software
Human resources
Social Networking
india
marketing
Enterprise 2.0
Employment
business books
news
Twitter
Business
future
Online Communities
Social network
communication
jobs
Facebook
personal branding
HR professionals network
Interview
Recruitment
Strategic management
LinkedIn
Employee engagement
Job Search
Talent management
personal
Community
Community Management
the imagence partners
Competencies
Social Enterprise
collaboration
Education and Training
Social web
entrepreneurship
salaries
youth
Employee Relations
Virtual community
socialmedia
coaching
lifestreaming
Human resource management
Knowledge base
Sexual harassment
Trial and error
satyam
from managing people to managing businesses
ReplyDelete>> How do these 2 differ when the business is about people?
Hi YAB
ReplyDeleteThe sense of managing people is that now essentially people are treated as 'resources' and not about using their imagination and creativity ...the VC also probably means that business is also about risk taking and making financial investments ...not just about getting projects and adding headcount
Tell me this. Why can a company not focus on purely services as their core competence? Why should they be criticized to have stuck to a business model? How do we say Infosys/TCS/Wipro have not dreamt big? Arent these among the biggest in the world in services business? Arent they the one that pioneered a concept called offshoring? Isnt that an invention in IT which has revolutionized the way the world works today?
ReplyDeleteIf leveraging cost arbritage is not considered a business I think we should relook at the financial and FX markets itself as not a business.
Hi YAB,
ReplyDeleteThe phrase core competence is applied only when the competence is unique and not easily imitated. It's like saying that the Samsung dealer should be valued higher than the TV manufacturer because he services TVs and sells them. That's essentially what the IT services firms are doing.
The IT services TV dealer gives you all TV's irrespective of brand and adds value to convert your TV to a home theater with different brands of components and the final solution will cost less than if you bought a TV from samsung and put the solution together yourself. And BTW IT services satisfies 2 of the 3 characteristics of core competence as defined by Prahlad and Hamel.
ReplyDeleteAt least its not a sham like the FX market.
well I don't know about the FX market...but if you take Hamel and Prahalad's three criteria:
ReplyDelete1. Provides potential access to a wide variety of markets
2. Makes a significant contribution to the perceived customer benefits of the end product
3. Difficult for competitors to imitate
I don't think IT services makes the cut in even one of the points.
1. Due to their focus on $$ they cannot even afford to service Indian firms
2. Customer benefits? Not at every engagement...maybe in some
3. They are quite copy-able !