2pm on a typical sultry Mumbai Wednesday afternoon. I have just returned from my hostel mess after a not-so-good-but-okay-nevertheless lunch. Wednesday afternoon is something I always look forward to, because IIT policies typically allow no lectures and labs on Wednesday afternoons, which paves the path for a nice brief siesta. I close the curtains to keep out the sun, pull out the soft music folder and enqueue it in Winamp, and set an alarm for 3 hours on my cell phone and lay down happily, awaiting the ever so sweet and lovely sleep. And then arrives the unseen.
It makes its presence felt with a loud ring, which on my phone is the monophonic Rang de Basanti Bhangra score. I agree that the tune is good, but you don't want to hear that when you are trying to catch a few winks in the middle of a busy week. I wake up groaning only to see an unkown number on the screen. I pick up the phone and go,
"Hello?" (in a sad, grudging tone)
"Hello sir, I am calling from ICICI bank and we would like to tell you about our new credit card which has many features such as..."
Click! I don't want to hear any more of this crap. These call centre people working on behalf of the banks, the mutual funds and other what nots catch you always at the wrong time, wrong for both you and them. Neither do you want to talk to them nor do they want to inform you about the latest in their what not scheme of things. Now that my sweet siesta was mercilessly snatched away, I sat down and dreamt of some way the call centre girl would meet her match.
A few days later, I was at my cousin's place and playing with my one and a half year old nephew, Raju. Then, Ring, ring. I answered the call.
"Hello?"
"Hello sir. I am calling for Mr. Rajesh from ICICI bank."
"(confused) Uh ok. Hang on,"
I now hand over the phone to Raju. He is very happy that someone is offering him the phone by himself; normally he is driven away the moment that thing rings. I turn on the speaker phone just to watch the fun.
"Haalo,"
"Hello sir, I am calling from ICICI bank and we.,"
"Da.. um... (giggle)"
"(confused) I am sorry sir, I didn't get you on that. Were you saying something?"
A pause. Raju is now unsure of what he should do. Well, I don't blame the kid, probably this was the very first time that anyone called him. Maybe the call centre girl is happy that she found the one in a millionth caller who hasn't hung up on her as yet, and goes on with her rote message. Raju has nothing to say anyway, except his 'da's and 'ugh's and his giggles, so he stays glued to the phone and listens attentively, all the while fiddling with his favourite toy truck, while I take a break from all the playing, turning off the speaker phone. Raju was smiling all the while he was on the line, and maybe wanted to tell me to take his pic or something; you know he had that gleam in his eyes and the desperately pleading smile that most people offer you when they want you to take their snap. Anyway, I wasn't in the mood for the paparazzi role and called it quits. I guess after a while the call centre employee realised that either she didn't have the right fish on the hook, or probably someone was playing games with her and so she hung up.
Raju suddenly became sad. Maybe he thought he had done something wrong and that is why the nice aunty on the other end cut the call. He gave me that sad little look that he usually gives when he knows he has wronged and started crying. Hearing the loud cries, my cousin sister came rushing out from the kitchen and asked me what happened. I told her all that she wanted to know.
"Don't tell me they had Raju's name on their list. I wonder where they get all this information from!"
I said, "They have their ways. You know, the list of names from the hospital where he was born. Maybe they thought he's some patient or something over there and called. Could be anything you know. Maybe they have many lists of such people out there. Who knows how many Rajus are on their lists."
"Can't they make a list of do-not-call-these-people and put our phone number in there. All this looks scary to me - this prying and snooping around business on the call centre's part."
"If they do that, then Raju would never get another phone call for many years,"
"I don't care. Besides, how would he know?"
"Well, he wouldn't. But now that no one stopped him from playing around with the phone, he will rush to pick it up each time it rings."
"At this rate, maybe he will start receiving junk mail next year onwards!" and she went back to manage the kitchen.
Probably yes, I wondered. The next few months will be full of I-will-get-it's and how-many-times-do-I-have-to-tell-you-to-stay-away's and the accompanying beatings and the cries. Tough times sure lie ahead. But I was happy the call centre girl met her match. Someone with more spare time than her's to actually make her feel she was wasting time.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Foreign investments and India
I have been in the USA for about 2 and a half months now, and am eagerly looking forward to returning to India, which will be in another fortnight. My stay here has benefited me in many ways, but more importantly I got to see India in the light of a foreign culture. Many people here have a very wrong image of India in their minds. For some, India is just another developing country which supplies cheap labour to theirs'. There is no doubt, a hint of truth in this statement, but such statements coming from ignorant fellows makes no sense. Such facts are somehow instilled into their minds and they cannot notice India's position in the world today. Let me focus on something that is of relevance both to them and us Indians - foreign investments in India, which are a major factor in India turning global.
As is not surprising, the news about India that an average learned American gets here is all the bad stuff - the bomb blasts, communal riots, crime, political confusion and a bite of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Sometimes I feel a major people of this country inherits its views on a country, or for that any other matter, from their President, who is probably the worst-informed among all those I know. They should not mix Mumbai's train blasts and its communal riots with the successful financial condition of the city. The Naxal attacks in AP shouldn't be jumbled up with Hyderabad's success in the IT industry. Most Indians never mix up the goofy Bush administration with USA's successful industrial growth and high standard of living. Things ought to be looked at in their right places.
Coming back to our topic of foreign investments, one may notice that most investors are willing to invest in India's southern states, and not so many in the North and north-east part of the country. One reason could be the successful lineage that people from South India have managed to establish abroad, and also that the southern states are more stable politically and economically than their northern counterparts. Another concern for investors is the Leftist rule in India, which slows down economic growth. With a leftist rule in India, investors look at the government falling near to the point of collapse on numerous occasions. But if one thinks more carefully, India has better off having the Left in power, rather than in the opposition, where it can create more problems for India's progress, including strikes and agitations across the country, resulting in deterring foreign investments.
Another problem that investors face I think is the bureaucracy in India. Information about security of their investments in India also is not easily available to the investors, and whatever is available is also not all that reliable. India should not rely on the media to provide this information, but the government should take up this matter and establish good communication and law and order for investors. Besides this, I think India also needs to improve its policing system to draw in more investments. The New York police has witnessed lots of changes in the late 19th century because of the needs and efforts of a small group of citizens who were frustrated with the level of corruption and politics in the department, and the department has fused well with the industrial and community needs of the city, contributing to its progress. It is important that India also takes some steps in this regard. The police should be given more operational freedom without compromising on their accountability. We need more policemen like Julius Ribeiro and KPS Gill who being good servicemen, are also quite active in community service. A good rapport between the police and the industrialists in India is necessary to convince foreign investors to invest in India.
Let us now focus on the current scene of foreign investment in India. Almost 17% of the top 200 stocks in Indian markets are owned by foreign investors. In most top companies in India, foriegn investments have either reached the maximum limit or are almost about there. This is causing concerns, both on a patriotic and strategic level; it is sad to see foreign domination in Indian markets, and also to know that Indian players have not much of a control on the market, that control lying in the hands of few persons sitting in London, Montreal or New York. Besides, when there is a case of such an over investment in a firm, domestic players are also noticed to lose interest, resulting in a waning sensex over a period of time. Such over investment also has had good effects. Now India's domestic assets in equity are a mere 2% compared to 7% when the liberalisation policy was newly announced in 1993. This simply means that industrialists in India now have more capital available than before. This has not discouraged foreign investors too, who believe that retail ownership will still see a rise in India.
Besides, Hedge funds have been showing interest in India in recent times. India offers money making opportunities to them, that have become rare in USA and Europe. Hedge funds are looking at huge investments in Asia, primarily in India, as the market here is more fertile than in China, due to the growth of the derivatives market in India. This is seen as something that might hugely contribute to India's growth in the coming few years.
Thus, India is no longer a mere little developing country in the eyes of most industrialists throughout the world. Indian markets have never had so much diversity in the opinions and addresses of foreign investors. It's high time that people across the world start taking notice of India's role in the global market, lest it be too late.
As is not surprising, the news about India that an average learned American gets here is all the bad stuff - the bomb blasts, communal riots, crime, political confusion and a bite of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Sometimes I feel a major people of this country inherits its views on a country, or for that any other matter, from their President, who is probably the worst-informed among all those I know. They should not mix Mumbai's train blasts and its communal riots with the successful financial condition of the city. The Naxal attacks in AP shouldn't be jumbled up with Hyderabad's success in the IT industry. Most Indians never mix up the goofy Bush administration with USA's successful industrial growth and high standard of living. Things ought to be looked at in their right places.
Coming back to our topic of foreign investments, one may notice that most investors are willing to invest in India's southern states, and not so many in the North and north-east part of the country. One reason could be the successful lineage that people from South India have managed to establish abroad, and also that the southern states are more stable politically and economically than their northern counterparts. Another concern for investors is the Leftist rule in India, which slows down economic growth. With a leftist rule in India, investors look at the government falling near to the point of collapse on numerous occasions. But if one thinks more carefully, India has better off having the Left in power, rather than in the opposition, where it can create more problems for India's progress, including strikes and agitations across the country, resulting in deterring foreign investments.Another problem that investors face I think is the bureaucracy in India. Information about security of their investments in India also is not easily available to the investors, and whatever is available is also not all that reliable. India should not rely on the media to provide this information, but the government should take up this matter and establish good communication and law and order for investors. Besides this, I think India also needs to improve its policing system to draw in more investments. The New York police has witnessed lots of changes in the late 19th century because of the needs and efforts of a small group of citizens who were frustrated with the level of corruption and politics in the department, and the department has fused well with the industrial and community needs of the city, contributing to its progress. It is important that India also takes some steps in this regard. The police should be given more operational freedom without compromising on their accountability. We need more policemen like Julius Ribeiro and KPS Gill who being good servicemen, are also quite active in community service. A good rapport between the police and the industrialists in India is necessary to convince foreign investors to invest in India.
Let us now focus on the current scene of foreign investment in India. Almost 17% of the top 200 stocks in Indian markets are owned by foreign investors. In most top companies in India, foriegn investments have either reached the maximum limit or are almost about there. This is causing concerns, both on a patriotic and strategic level; it is sad to see foreign domination in Indian markets, and also to know that Indian players have not much of a control on the market, that control lying in the hands of few persons sitting in London, Montreal or New York. Besides, when there is a case of such an over investment in a firm, domestic players are also noticed to lose interest, resulting in a waning sensex over a period of time. Such over investment also has had good effects. Now India's domestic assets in equity are a mere 2% compared to 7% when the liberalisation policy was newly announced in 1993. This simply means that industrialists in India now have more capital available than before. This has not discouraged foreign investors too, who believe that retail ownership will still see a rise in India.
Besides, Hedge funds have been showing interest in India in recent times. India offers money making opportunities to them, that have become rare in USA and Europe. Hedge funds are looking at huge investments in Asia, primarily in India, as the market here is more fertile than in China, due to the growth of the derivatives market in India. This is seen as something that might hugely contribute to India's growth in the coming few years.
Thus, India is no longer a mere little developing country in the eyes of most industrialists throughout the world. Indian markets have never had so much diversity in the opinions and addresses of foreign investors. It's high time that people across the world start taking notice of India's role in the global market, lest it be too late.
'Nothing' much of an article
This is an article I wrote long ago on my very first blog. On MaMu's request, I am transferring it to this blog. This one was published in the May '07 issue of the 'Kanara Saraswat' Magazine, and from what I know was received quite well.
On nothing...
Today, I have nothing to write about. So I've decided to write about nothing. It's not easy writing about nothing because something usually comes up. But I think if I try hard, I can come up with something on nothing. So far so good. Cool. Nothing... ok?! Ok.
On nothing...
Today, I have nothing to write about. So I've decided to write about nothing. It's not easy writing about nothing because something usually comes up. But I think if I try hard, I can come up with something on nothing. So far so good. Cool. Nothing... ok?! Ok.
I feel like I've probably run out of things not to talk about. It's not easy talking about nothing. As usual, I'm tempted to bring up something; and then pretend it was nothing just to have something to say - but that seems a little cheaty (which would be something in and of and by itself). I think if I want to write about nothing, I have to keep it strictly about nothing and not something that has something to do with nothing. It should be something that ain't got anything to do with anything else except nothing. Just nothing at all.
Nevertheless, I still am not sure why I have nothing to write about. Nothing has been going on I guess. Not actually; I mean there have been some things going on, yes; but nothing really worth
mentioning which works out fine for what I'm talking about now. But ain't I talking about nothing? Or is it so that there is nothing that I have to write about nothing? What else can I not write about? I guess I could write about this and that- and by this and that, I mean this here nothing and none of that. There. That works. Is this annoying yet? This whole nothing writing? I don't know about you, but it surely is annoying me 'cause I can't think of things that aren't about something or at least slightly more than nothing.
You might say that me writing about nothing does in fact mean that I am indeed writing about something - 'that something' being 'nothing'. Maybe nothing becomes something just by referring to it as nothing. The discussion of talking about what is nothing may even qualify as something more than nothing - even if that discussion turns out to be nothing - the discussion itself might be something anyway. I guess that's already happened maybe. Maybe all this nothing has been about something. But I can easily cancel that out by saying any ideas you may have that this has actually been about something isn't true. This whole thing is indeed about absolutely nothing.
That's all I have to say for now. Nothing more, nothing less :D
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
This was a quote made by Dr. Samuel Johnson, one of England's most famous literary figures on the evening of April 7th, 1775. It is said that the reason why he said this is still pretty unclear, as it is not clear as to what or who he was referring to with this quote. Well, here's my own analysis of quote, and I shall view this in light of the administration of the President of USA, Mr. George W. Bush. Again, my main source for this and my reference shall be Wikipedia.
September 10th, 2001. It has been 8 months since Mr. Bush has been in office, and his popularity ratings among the American public have fallen down to a low of 50%, which is really shameful for a President of such a developed country. The next day, all that changes. The people who felt they were the safest on the planet are made conscious of an enemy hiding from them but ever watching them - the terrorists. The Bush administration left no stone unturned in raising the feeling of Patriotism in the country. From books to clothes to bags, even diapers (Wal-Mart) adorned the stripes and the stars. When Bush aimed his guns on Afghanistan, his approval ratings leaped up to almost 90%. In the cloudy atmosphere created by the 9/11 attacks, Americans took an increasing liking to their commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
On October 26th 2001, the Congress passed an act called the 'USA Patriot Act', which basically empowers the Government to do anything with anyone they feel is making them afraid - the terrorists; without allowing them to consult a lawyer, or by invading any country that they feel is threatening them, or has links to the al-Qaeida. I guess my smart readers would have realised by now that I am moving on to Iraq.
In October 2002, many leaders of the Christian right sent an open letter to Mr. Bush outlining a just war on Iraq since Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and biochemical weapons. There was
a decreasing support for this invasion in the first few months of 2003, less than 31% in support as per a New York Times poll. Bush's State of the union speech in January that year and Collin Powell's presentation in UN in February that year changed all this. The support percentage jumped up by 7 points to 38. USA invaded Iraq in March. The nation was now triggered into madness, with more than half the population supporting the war even if weapons of mass destruction never be found there. Bush got reelected as the President in 2004, with his campaign focusing on the war against terrorism. By 2005, the military had sort of become the image of the US, with about 3 quarters of the population looking upon it as the most important institution. On July 4th 2005, the Council of Churches took a stand against the war calling it dishonourable. Ever since the support for the war is decreasing rapidly, and Bush's popularity ratings are dropping ever more, with only 32% supporting him.
As of today, USA is still to withdraw from Iraq. I personally believe the invasion was for oil and nothing else, and more innocent Iraqi lives were lost in this battle than American soldiers. There have also been reports of American soldiers harassing and assaulting Iraqi prisoners. Well, I think it wouldn't be wrong to summarise that America has invaded the freedom of two countries under the Bush administration. Educated Americans are able to see this easily and criticise the government, but their strength is too little. I believe America is slowly turning into a police state and the Americans are kept in the dark by the administration. If this goes on like this I think slowly we will have a government that makes decisions against the will of the people but the people can't do much about it. Slowly we may have a country where patriotism shall be the only refuge of the scoundrel.
September 10th, 2001. It has been 8 months since Mr. Bush has been in office, and his popularity ratings among the American public have fallen down to a low of 50%, which is really shameful for a President of such a developed country. The next day, all that changes. The people who felt they were the safest on the planet are made conscious of an enemy hiding from them but ever watching them - the terrorists. The Bush administration left no stone unturned in raising the feeling of Patriotism in the country. From books to clothes to bags, even diapers (Wal-Mart) adorned the stripes and the stars. When Bush aimed his guns on Afghanistan, his approval ratings leaped up to almost 90%. In the cloudy atmosphere created by the 9/11 attacks, Americans took an increasing liking to their commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
On October 26th 2001, the Congress passed an act called the 'USA Patriot Act', which basically empowers the Government to do anything with anyone they feel is making them afraid - the terrorists; without allowing them to consult a lawyer, or by invading any country that they feel is threatening them, or has links to the al-Qaeida. I guess my smart readers would have realised by now that I am moving on to Iraq.
In October 2002, many leaders of the Christian right sent an open letter to Mr. Bush outlining a just war on Iraq since Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and biochemical weapons. There was
a decreasing support for this invasion in the first few months of 2003, less than 31% in support as per a New York Times poll. Bush's State of the union speech in January that year and Collin Powell's presentation in UN in February that year changed all this. The support percentage jumped up by 7 points to 38. USA invaded Iraq in March. The nation was now triggered into madness, with more than half the population supporting the war even if weapons of mass destruction never be found there. Bush got reelected as the President in 2004, with his campaign focusing on the war against terrorism. By 2005, the military had sort of become the image of the US, with about 3 quarters of the population looking upon it as the most important institution. On July 4th 2005, the Council of Churches took a stand against the war calling it dishonourable. Ever since the support for the war is decreasing rapidly, and Bush's popularity ratings are dropping ever more, with only 32% supporting him.As of today, USA is still to withdraw from Iraq. I personally believe the invasion was for oil and nothing else, and more innocent Iraqi lives were lost in this battle than American soldiers. There have also been reports of American soldiers harassing and assaulting Iraqi prisoners. Well, I think it wouldn't be wrong to summarise that America has invaded the freedom of two countries under the Bush administration. Educated Americans are able to see this easily and criticise the government, but their strength is too little. I believe America is slowly turning into a police state and the Americans are kept in the dark by the administration. If this goes on like this I think slowly we will have a government that makes decisions against the will of the people but the people can't do much about it. Slowly we may have a country where patriotism shall be the only refuge of the scoundrel.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Costing
I have been reading Cosentino's 'Case in Point' lately and yesterday I came upon this observation by the author - Cosentino presented an excerpt from an article that talked about pricing methods. Two main methods were enlisted - cost based pricing, and price based costing. In the former method, the company calculates all costs incurred in developing the particular product or service, and attaches its profit margin to that before selling it at the new price. In the latter, a company first calculates how much would a consumer be willing to pay for the particular product or service, and fixes that price while judiciously allocating resources to keep the costs in check below the price. He talked about why you see so many Japanese companies leading the Consumer electronics industry today as compared to American companies, which are quite few, as many of us would know. The reason presented in his analysis is that the Japanese companies practised price based costing while their American counterparts concentrated on cost based pricing.
Isn't it remarkable that such a seemingly trivial business strategy can either spell out to be a triumph or a catastrophe? Most of us are comfortable with the notion of cost based pricing. So let me focus on a pricing method called 'Activity based costing' for now, based on what I learn from Wikipedia. This method arose and became popular in the 1980s, primarily in the manufacturing sector in USA. The traditional cost accounting methods were designed somewhere around the 1870s and in those days the industry was labor intensive, devoid of automation, with a limited product variety and the overhead costs in companies were generally very low. Such costing methods began spelling trouble for companies in the 80s owing to their irrelevance to that time. Activity based costing came to the rescue of many companies during those times.
The main differentiating aspect about Activity based costing is that this method assumes that costs do not consume resources, but activities. Besides, this is a process oriented method, as against the traditional methods of pricing which were structure oriented. In the traditional methods, cost allocation held more importance. In the activity based costing scheme, it is assumed that costs cannot be managed; one can manage the processes and the costs will respond automatically. This affords a greater scope to companies to increase productivity, by proper supervision of production capacity in each process. Besides, traditional costing methods were labour intensive. Now-a-days in countries like USA and other European countries where labour is expensive, such costing schemes are inefficient for this reason too. In the new scheme, drivers are used to assign costs (Drivers are cost estimates at each process level - unit level, batch level, product level and facility level). There are two main types of drivers - activity drivers (which track how cost object behaviour effects activity levels) and resource drivers (which track how the activity levels influence resource consumption). the notion of fixed and variable costs is different too - a fixed activity cost is something that exists because of the sheer existence of an activity, and a variable activity cost is something that varies with the output of the activity. These notions of the costs make more sense than the traditional ones in modern day business.
Thus, account based costing can point towards the causes of costs by focusing on processes, which are critical success factors for any company. This makes the costing scheme a powerful tool towards a company's growth and success. Rather, it is a must-have these days.
Isn't it remarkable that such a seemingly trivial business strategy can either spell out to be a triumph or a catastrophe? Most of us are comfortable with the notion of cost based pricing. So let me focus on a pricing method called 'Activity based costing' for now, based on what I learn from Wikipedia. This method arose and became popular in the 1980s, primarily in the manufacturing sector in USA. The traditional cost accounting methods were designed somewhere around the 1870s and in those days the industry was labor intensive, devoid of automation, with a limited product variety and the overhead costs in companies were generally very low. Such costing methods began spelling trouble for companies in the 80s owing to their irrelevance to that time. Activity based costing came to the rescue of many companies during those times.The main differentiating aspect about Activity based costing is that this method assumes that costs do not consume resources, but activities. Besides, this is a process oriented method, as against the traditional methods of pricing which were structure oriented. In the traditional methods, cost allocation held more importance. In the activity based costing scheme, it is assumed that costs cannot be managed; one can manage the processes and the costs will respond automatically. This affords a greater scope to companies to increase productivity, by proper supervision of production capacity in each process. Besides, traditional costing methods were labour intensive. Now-a-days in countries like USA and other European countries where labour is expensive, such costing schemes are inefficient for this reason too. In the new scheme, drivers are used to assign costs (Drivers are cost estimates at each process level - unit level, batch level, product level and facility level). There are two main types of drivers - activity drivers (which track how cost object behaviour effects activity levels) and resource drivers (which track how the activity levels influence resource consumption). the notion of fixed and variable costs is different too - a fixed activity cost is something that exists because of the sheer existence of an activity, and a variable activity cost is something that varies with the output of the activity. These notions of the costs make more sense than the traditional ones in modern day business.
Thus, account based costing can point towards the causes of costs by focusing on processes, which are critical success factors for any company. This makes the costing scheme a powerful tool towards a company's growth and success. Rather, it is a must-have these days.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Challenging complexity
One has different ways of looking at complexity. While some take delight in its sheer intricacy and the inherent puzzling aspect that it presents, others look upon it as a problem and try to simplify it, attempting to create a simpler version of the otherwise complex problem, so as to derive more benefits more easily from that former.
I like my life to be simple, and hence abhor complexity. But there are things that cannot be
simplified beyond a limit - take for instance the current project I am working on with Xiao. It is a very complex system (the nature of which I cannot disclose due to an NDA that I have signed, all I can say is we are working on a low power UWB radio), and hence something that irks me. Now however hard I may try, I cannot strip the circuit off its complexity. Yet I am supposed to lay it out for fabrication. So I felt that it would be more worthwhile investing time in simplifying my notion of complexity rather than avoiding all things complex, large and small.
I feel that any complex thing can be analysed as a simple mix of 2 complex parts - what I prefer to call individual complexity and system level complexity. You can always break a complex system, or for that matter anything complex, say a complex problem, or a complex issue, into a simple combination of various blocks that may or may not be complex. The complexities of each of the individual blocks in turn contributes to the system level complexity, which is what one encounters when one looks at the complex phenomenon superficially. Although the two levels of complexity are very closely related to each other, I feel that it's very important to analyse them separately. More often than not one fails to make breakthroughs because one becomes more obsessed with the system level complexity while he may be better off attacking each complex block separately.
Also I believe some issues are adaptive in nature; their complexity increases with each failed attempt to simplify them. Consider a case where you want to recover from a failed venture, say a failed startup, with little backing from others. For such issues, it becomes necessary to tackle the individual complexities one by one, rather than focusing on the system level complexity, which may result in one inadvertently aggravating the individual complexities, probably resulting in a bad impact on the complexity of the system.
How should one then approach the issue of individual complexity? Most often, people look for a
good strategy to deal with complexity. This is describing the situation in a broad way; I shall not narrow down to any specific case. This is a good approach and will pay off most times. But poor strategic choices may have a negative impact on solving the problem at hand. I think it would be much more helpful to solve this problem through well-sequenced activities. While aiming to simplify a complex system, it is also important to manage the complexity along the way. One should first identify the parameters determining the complexity in the block under consideration and fix the kind of simplification that one is looking for. Then make attempts to solve that while at the same time seeing to it that one doesn't affect the complexity of the other blocks adversely.
A certain degree of complexity may be unavoidable, but then the answer is not to pare back and simplify at all costs. Managing complexity is equally if not more important than simplifying it.
I like my life to be simple, and hence abhor complexity. But there are things that cannot be
simplified beyond a limit - take for instance the current project I am working on with Xiao. It is a very complex system (the nature of which I cannot disclose due to an NDA that I have signed, all I can say is we are working on a low power UWB radio), and hence something that irks me. Now however hard I may try, I cannot strip the circuit off its complexity. Yet I am supposed to lay it out for fabrication. So I felt that it would be more worthwhile investing time in simplifying my notion of complexity rather than avoiding all things complex, large and small.I feel that any complex thing can be analysed as a simple mix of 2 complex parts - what I prefer to call individual complexity and system level complexity. You can always break a complex system, or for that matter anything complex, say a complex problem, or a complex issue, into a simple combination of various blocks that may or may not be complex. The complexities of each of the individual blocks in turn contributes to the system level complexity, which is what one encounters when one looks at the complex phenomenon superficially. Although the two levels of complexity are very closely related to each other, I feel that it's very important to analyse them separately. More often than not one fails to make breakthroughs because one becomes more obsessed with the system level complexity while he may be better off attacking each complex block separately.
Also I believe some issues are adaptive in nature; their complexity increases with each failed attempt to simplify them. Consider a case where you want to recover from a failed venture, say a failed startup, with little backing from others. For such issues, it becomes necessary to tackle the individual complexities one by one, rather than focusing on the system level complexity, which may result in one inadvertently aggravating the individual complexities, probably resulting in a bad impact on the complexity of the system.
How should one then approach the issue of individual complexity? Most often, people look for a
good strategy to deal with complexity. This is describing the situation in a broad way; I shall not narrow down to any specific case. This is a good approach and will pay off most times. But poor strategic choices may have a negative impact on solving the problem at hand. I think it would be much more helpful to solve this problem through well-sequenced activities. While aiming to simplify a complex system, it is also important to manage the complexity along the way. One should first identify the parameters determining the complexity in the block under consideration and fix the kind of simplification that one is looking for. Then make attempts to solve that while at the same time seeing to it that one doesn't affect the complexity of the other blocks adversely.A certain degree of complexity may be unavoidable, but then the answer is not to pare back and simplify at all costs. Managing complexity is equally if not more important than simplifying it.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
I am a worm, hear me roar
Boyhood - they say you should be done away with this at an early age, or it causes a catastrophe if it surfaces when you grow up. At times, adult life can seem a bit difficult, especially when you pass through such childish phases along the way, much like a worm (caterpillar, say) who leaves the cocoon and spreads out its wings. You leave your own little universe and enter a very complex system, where things aren't being started from scratch, but an art whose elements play well defined roles to create the bigger picture. Most often such ambitious new entrants into the system fill in cracks and niches in the same - ending up doing something believing they and the role were meant for each other.
I don't quite know what I am - a worm or a fly; maybe I am one wing out of my cocoon yet, alternating between re-entering the cocoon and trying to spread my wings out of it and explore all those things that I can never find inside there. We live in a world where we look upon change in the same way Houdini would have looked upon at his padlocked boxes - first try to wiggle free from it, and surrender only if you cannot escape. I believe we all share a strength - of taking control of our own story than succumbing to one scripted by others. I take it from whatever little I have seen of life so far, that each one of us realises this strength in our own capacity and benefits from the same accordingly; to each his own success.
Brainstorming, debates, chitchatting, talks, sermons, advice - how many ways do we seek to reconcile our past, our life with what we aim to be, with what we should be. We seek information and review our life in the light of the same and ever more try to improve upon it. But all this that we do, everything we think of, isn't this all biased? Don't we all inherit biases when we interact with new acquaintances? No matter how original one may think one is, the very fact that you are thinking so might be inherited after all. Being original isn't about doing something out of the way - I say it is more about defying what others think you are. The introvert person may become more outgoing, the screw up would become more careful, the fickle minded may learn focus. Isn't this what self definition is all about? - making your own story? A willful and a well-informed way of living that has its roots in our past, is nourished by out present, and seeks to reach out to the bright sun of future?
Maybe I have come far enough where I know what I am doing and the world should appreciate what I do. I am here to shake off the chains of whatever labels the world may have assigned me -I don't want to be identified as Mr. Achieve-all, or Mr. Studious or Mr. Dreamer and the like - maybe I want to leave these behind me yet never forget them. Maybe I do not need to follow the path that thousands of souls have been following all along; maybe I am made for something big, something never thought of before, something of my own. I may be a worm, but hear me roar.
I don't quite know what I am - a worm or a fly; maybe I am one wing out of my cocoon yet, alternating between re-entering the cocoon and trying to spread my wings out of it and explore all those things that I can never find inside there. We live in a world where we look upon change in the same way Houdini would have looked upon at his padlocked boxes - first try to wiggle free from it, and surrender only if you cannot escape. I believe we all share a strength - of taking control of our own story than succumbing to one scripted by others. I take it from whatever little I have seen of life so far, that each one of us realises this strength in our own capacity and benefits from the same accordingly; to each his own success.
Brainstorming, debates, chitchatting, talks, sermons, advice - how many ways do we seek to reconcile our past, our life with what we aim to be, with what we should be. We seek information and review our life in the light of the same and ever more try to improve upon it. But all this that we do, everything we think of, isn't this all biased? Don't we all inherit biases when we interact with new acquaintances? No matter how original one may think one is, the very fact that you are thinking so might be inherited after all. Being original isn't about doing something out of the way - I say it is more about defying what others think you are. The introvert person may become more outgoing, the screw up would become more careful, the fickle minded may learn focus. Isn't this what self definition is all about? - making your own story? A willful and a well-informed way of living that has its roots in our past, is nourished by out present, and seeks to reach out to the bright sun of future?
Maybe I have come far enough where I know what I am doing and the world should appreciate what I do. I am here to shake off the chains of whatever labels the world may have assigned me -I don't want to be identified as Mr. Achieve-all, or Mr. Studious or Mr. Dreamer and the like - maybe I want to leave these behind me yet never forget them. Maybe I do not need to follow the path that thousands of souls have been following all along; maybe I am made for something big, something never thought of before, something of my own. I may be a worm, but hear me roar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
