Just Me - India

There has been lot of talk about Private Sector participation in infrastructure projects in Bangalore in recent months. This surprises me.

Let's see what kind of participation is being asked of from the Private Sector by government and others:

• Investment in terms of Money in building Roads, Fly-overs (bridges), preventing water logging, resolving traffic woes, other public utility services etc.
  
• Investment in terms of Time in doing the same things.
• Investment in terms of participation in planning exercises around these activities.

Sounds good ?

No. This is stupid because:

• It is essentially the job of the government and the dedicated ministries.
  
• There are people already being paid to do exactly these things - the bureaucracy and a very long list of government servants. If they fail to deliver - they should be questioned ! Instead the approach being taken is - its ok to be lackadaisical - we will have someone else do this job while you can relax.
  
• Tax is being collected by the government for this very purpose. Isn't it? Well, not just tax, but many types of tax over and above the basic one - which are termed as 'cess'.
• Private enterprises exist for the sole purpose of doing business, generating employment in the process - and paying the necessary taxes to the government. They do not specialize in building infrastructure for cities - it is not their job. Their job should be to be pay taxes, do business legitimetely, and perhaps generate employment in the process.
  

This kind of talk exists only because government has been singularly incompetent in getting it's act together w.r.t infrastructure. Almost nowhere in the world, are business enterprises expected to spend their time and money in building infrastructure - haven't they already contributed by means of paying taxes, generating employment ?

All of us know this statistic right ?

"More than 50% of all IT Projects fail. " Actually the percentage is probably even higher.

Well - come to think of it, this is the last thing you expect actually; because:

• It's one of the most modern industries.
• One of the most educated workforce drives it.
• Work itself is based largely on logic (business or otherwise).
• The biggest consumers of IT (and therefore the spenders) are themselves rich, successful, educated folks.
  

Inspite of these factors, the first mentioned statistic is true. Why should it be so.

Probably this is so because of the following:

• The technology is fast changing, and the adoption is quick; leaving little time for maturity.
  
• Can you imagine a Manager in Steel Industry who does not know about Steel/Iron/Ore/Boilers ? Can you imagine a Manager in Automobile industry who does not know about Motors/Engines/Combustion ? But, it is common for IT projects to be lead by Managers who are largely clueless about Sofware/Design/Programming/Architecture. (How do they judge what is going on in a project ?)
  
• Inappropriate amount of focus on two key building blocks of any project : Requirements AND Technical Solution. The first is "what to achieve", second is "how to achive". Any layman can tell you, you will fail if you get either of them wrong. So, it's common to find 'implementation/execution' in full-swing, while neither the requirements or the technical solution are identified clearly. It's like driving away to glory, without knowing your destination AND the route !! You know what glory you are likely to find under such circumstances...
  

Ofcourse there are multitude of other reasons that could be cited. The above ones seem to be very common.

Our chances of success are increased manifold if we adhere to : Basics and Simplicity. Irrespective of the industry !

Media has changed a lot in India. Gone are the days when we used to have a single national news channel which functioned between 6pm in the evening to 11 pm in the night. It had every hallmark of a govt driven enterprise. Inefficient, low on quality, bad in style.

Today; if you want to watch news on television there are many many channels you can choose from. Many are sleek, feaure smart news readers; and have some variety.

But. almost all have one common feature. They are superfluous, irresponsible and cater to sensationalism. Watching them is no different from watching a 'soap' gone wrong.

The reporters will not hesitate to ask stupid questions, give their own version of possible reasons behind incidents, turn their cameras on unsuspecting people (walking into people's houses with cameras rolling !! Isn't that amazing ! In some countries you would arrested for invading privacy in this manner. And you should be.)

The unforgivable part is when media becomes the Judge. They pass judgements - by declaring people guilty or not guilty. This is clearly not their job - they should only be reporting.

So, no wonder; many of these media houses have become centers of power. This is no different from the print media.

Having a active media is better than having no-media at all. But, is having a irresponsible media any better?