"The Beautiful Mind" Turns 80

“The special commodity or medium that we call money has a long and interesting history. And since we are so dependent on our use of it and so much controlled and motivated by the wish to have more of it or not to lose what we have we may become irrational in thinking about it and fail to be able to reason about it as if about a technology, such as radio, to be used more or less efficiently…” — John F. Nash, lecture at CII in Mumbai, Feb 2007

IF THE WORLD IS CONSIDERED A “CLOSED SYSTEM”, deeming it a Zero-sum game, Nash Equilibrium could certainly offer a different meaning to the notion of money, and thus, to the word ‘richness‘ or net-worth and the world economy.

[Today, June 13, John F. Nash, Jr. turns 80. A humble tribute to the 1994 Nobel Laureate legend. Go here for Nash’s personal home page at Princeton.]

Arguably, the Nash equilibrium is the single game theoretic solution concept that is most frequently applied in economics. (See also: Investopedia) In terms of strategy and planning, the equilibrium could be simplified as:

“For any finite, non-cooperative game of two players or more, no player can improve his/her pay-off by unilaterally changing the strategy…”

[Above: Actor Russell Crowe in his Oscar winning portrayal of John Nash in the 2001 Hollywood film “A Beautiful Mind“. Photo courtesy: Prof. Lynne Butler.]

 

Warne Lifts Maiden IPL

A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I was sitting over the fence of 80% and 20% of the opinion makers reacting to the possibility of success of the IPL business model. 80% were the sceptics and believed that as it happened with ICL (Indian Cricket League – Chaired by Kapil Dev and sponsored by Zee Entertainment), IPL would find very few takers – perhaps only the useless of the useless lot would devote time to this remix masala version of the gentlemen’s game. To my mind, both these Indian T20 “cricetainment” versions were not at par: ICL was but a “zee thing”, where as the Premier League had the mind, money and muscle backing of BCCI – an important element that could make it swing and bounce.

[Above: Team Jaipur after winning the maiden IPL. 1 June 2008. Source: http://ipl.indiatimes.com%5D

It appears that this compressed format of the game may not have gone down too well with all quarters of the cricket, especially the British media and “empirical” standards. Lord Archer, for example, has been quoted saying during his hugely successful India tour last month that Twenty20 is entertainment and not a cricket. Lord Archer may offer a dead defensive bat, and silly mid-on and Shane go up in appeal to Billy nonetheless, the whole of the stadium also erupts in asking the same question. That essentially is the appeal of the game. Spectacle.

Twenty20 is not going anywhere, and while the possessives (or the hypocrites like Ponting who, after getting a hefty pay-cheque for just a couple of appearance at IPL, goes back to leading the test squad and condemns the T20 format), cling to the ‘real’ word for Cricket, the economics are hugely against them. Fundamentally, I tend to agree that the game is played for the honour and patriotism, and that motive is now being played now purely for money. And the players are like hired “mercenaries” in certain cases. But sport, as much as it may be for the spirit, is also about entertainment, and while the contemporary youth is on a fast track for almost everything in his life, let T20 be a door for him to enter and sustain interest in Test Cricket. Let the format have best of both the worlds of English Premier League Football and American Baseball. While visiting the US I found it very difficult to convince my American boss that there could be a game that goes on for five days. Worst still, people go and watch it! Now I have something for him to relate to with his favourite Baseball team – LA Dodgers. (And then, there surely were some American cheerleaders around.) Let’s say that a Test match is like a grand five-course unlimited dinner, compared to which an ODI is like a limited lunch, and so T20 is but a quick snack or a breakfast. Having said that, the likelihood of T20 eating into the limited format of the game (ODI) is pretty strong – a brunch, if you like. (Did you hear also or is it only me that they are thinking of renaming BCCI? The new name got to be BCCCI – Beware of Cricket Crazy Countrymen of India.)
[Right: Washington Redskins cheering for IPL in Bangalore. Apparently, Bangalore Royal Challengers had “Bangalored” that job to the US.]

I suppose it was Geoffrey Boycott who, while commenting during India’s tour to England, first put forth the point that ODI is a Batsman’s game, for all the rules are against the bowlers regarding what they could do, and more importantly, what they can’t. The situation just got worse, and we have Twenty20 where the bowler is to be slogged. Or that’s what the initial impression was. It turns out, such is not the case, for all the important games did a turn-around mid-course because of some very clever bowling – be it Mumbai Indian’s ouster from the IPL because of a sad last over finish, or be it “Balaji – the weak-link” for Chennai Super Kings whose rather stupid last over did them in and they lost the trophy. (It was a rather modest Dhoni, with his first-time-on-TV huddle of his team on the ground before getting into the dressing room after the defeat in the finals, that he said it was a team effort, win or loose, and there was no one single event or player to be singled out or blamed for. A leadership quality that better not be lost on the likes of the “legendary” Tendulkar who, rather curtly, passed the buck of loosing out of IPL to the Sri Lankan Dilhara Fernando who bowled that last over.)

BCCCI – Beware of Cricket Crazy Countrymen of India…

Warne’s squad was considered an underdog on the ground that they didn’t have any star player (and where of the cheapest bidding of the eight during the auction). Somehow, I disagreed with that statement. Rather I considered Jaipur team a real good value-for-money for the bid-winners. Warne is no less than a legend in his own right, and when you have the captain of the South African team also as your opener, you surely have a side to reckon with. If at all someone would want to consider them as starting underdogs, the reason has to be that the total squad didn’t had the best of the commercial value at the bidding time. And then again it was the error of judgement on the bidder’s part then anything else (one more indication to this effect is that Anil Ambani is rumoured to have backed out of Royal’s bidding at the very last moment for Ahmedabad, and the team was won by Jaipur). The real important part, however, was the captaincy by a leg spinner: IMHO successful spinners are born tacticians; shrewd and deceptive in their strategy and their main weapon. This may not be the case with the fast-bowlers who depend on their physical strength for pace more than anything else. Warne’s so-called “role-based approach” to the game might have given him the first IPL success, but it would be extremely difficult for him to repeat it in the comings seasons, and I am almost certain that he is also aware of it.

Some Trivia and Not-so-trivia about the IPL – maiden season:

• Before the tournament began, even 90% of India was unaware of a Cement brand called Super Kings. Wikipedia had no mention of India Cements Ltd. In 45 days, Super Kings goes on to become a globally known name and brand, and like N. Srinivasan, CEO, puts it, every penny invested in the franchise by them is worth it – No other branding strategy could have delivered within the given time-frame.
• Delhi Daredevils had the best ROI with their Feroz Shah Kotla ground turning in nearly Rs. 90 to 100 million in gate collections. They are the first franchise to break-even and go profitable.
• For Shah Rukh Khan, it was a double loss: first, Kolkata lost out, and then the TPR of IPL ate heavily into his newly launched game-show “Panchvi Pass”. He is surely praying for the revival of both.
• Vijay Mallya remained at the receiving end as Royal Challenge as a brand also goes down with his IPL team, and Blender’s Pride (Seagram) takes over the #1 spot in sales – almost after a decade.
• (more just after a commercial break…)

 

Business Development, Pre-sales, Sales and the ‘Arrow-head’

HAVING BEEN TRAINED FOR CULTIVATING ‘GROWTH’ AND evaluated for a few appraisal cycles by now for tasks that were marked under a title called ‘Business Development’ (or something that either sounds or seems similar), the debate on the subject by a certain groups of ‘experienced’ personnel almost immediately drew my attention.

And it becomes interesting when, with all due respect, the so-called experts, having built their careers in the relevant fields, seemed rather confused between the functioning and mandate of ‘Business Development’ and ‘Sales’ functions. Before taking a dig on that, respectfully, here is my version of the ‘classical’ definition (or differentiation) of the two:

“Business Development is a bunch of activities of today, based on your strategic vision of your product/service framework, that the Sales people would be selling tomorrow.”

Well, this definition might neither be universal nor be entirely technically accurate. However, it does give a certain level of clarity (when some of the rather experienced folks are contributing to the confusion). To me, these two functions are neither the ‘same’ nor ‘interchangeable’, but are distinct. And by the virtue of that clarity one can perhaps define both the functions more accurately and also appreciate their imperatives.

So, what we are saying here is – today’s Business Development initiatives could (should) potentially translate into sales targets of tomorrow – in other words: Sales follows Business Development. And thus, what we call pre-sales will have to fit between the two where it would have a sort of a ‘vetting’ role for the tasks trickling down from BD for the Sales to be made. It perhaps is a different matter that all of these three functions may not exist independently for a given organization, but could be merged among each others (pre-sales may be merged with BD, or BD may be made to co-exists in the same basket as of Sales. And that perhaps is the very reason where the confusion about the distinction is arising from).

[Above: The ‘Arrow-head’ components: a) the Sales function as the cutting-edge, b) the Business Development (BD) function, the main-body, that gives the aerodynamic shape and (thus) ‘direction’ to the arrow, and c) the Pre-sales function that embeds the Arrow-head to the stem (delivery streams).]

My personal exposure to these “cutting-edge” functions has been in terms of IT systems services, products, and delivery (where I have had the opportunity to performed all the roles except for direct-sales). In terms of the required skill-sets and experience for each of these functions: a BD professional might have to have a more strategic (and, if I may add, visionary) inclination on top of pure selling skills. A pre-sales professional, at the same time, may have to have a more Risk-oriented outlook (the correct Risk-appetite measure, as well as Risk-averse functioning) and the mandate to have Risk-mitigation embedded within the Sale that is going to be made. This is also the position where the ‘Analysis‘ bit could play its role. And connect the “arrow-head” to the structural strength of the stem (delivery streams) which provides for the momentum for the ‘travel’ (i.e. growth).

Further, this also helps give the logical alignment of each of these functions vis-a-vis the leadership roles in a typical organization. The BD function should ideally be with the top executive leadership (CEO/COO); the Sales function should report into BD; and the pre-sales should be closely knit with delivery/operations and having a dotted-line reporting to the executive leadership.

Go here for the interesting ‘confusion’ that I referred to at the beginning (you may would want to skip the vanity of the thread at the start and move over to the answers).

 

Mind, the Gap – addendum I

In an interesting parallel with the ‘Mind Gap‘ concept, here is a quote from the strategy by a marketing guru to the modern successful IT enterprises, advising the CEO’s of the interplay between psychology and economy in making of an effective marketing strategy and selling their systems:

“… the strategy is to focus market development efforts on the end-user community [who you want to use your system], not on the technical community. Specifically you want to enlist the support of the economic buyer, the line executive or manager in the end-user organization who has the profit-and-loss responsibility for the given function your product serves… [Psychologically] you should not expect to secure primary sponsorship from the IT professionals… [A new product and a paradigm shift] is not in the interest of the IT department. It means extra work for them, and it exposes their mission-critical systems to additional risks… [Psychologically] it would not have been in the interest of the end users who report to the economic buyer. From their point of view, the old paradigm is more familiar and secure. In the short term, with the learning curve required to come up to speed on the new one, they are actually going to be less effective. So they may resist you as well. It is only the economic buyer, who has to pay the ongoing cost of the status quo but can no longer afford to do so, who can be counted on to be unequivocally supportive of the change…”

As it happens elsewhere, so is in this example, that the strategy has the psychology and economy components in a direct interplay. Towards the end of the quote it also gives the hint that it is not simply restricted to marketing strategy, but is equally found in change management as well.