What are red and blue oceans, and why do you use the colors red and blue?

Kim & Mauborgne: We use the terms red and blue oceans to describe the market universe. Red oceans are all the industries in existence today—the known market space. In the red oceans, industry boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are known. Here companies try to outperform their rivals to grab a greater share of existing demand. As the market space gets crowded, prospects for profits and growth are reduced. Products become commodities, and cutthroat competition turns the red ocean bloody. Hence, the term “red” oceans.

Blue oceans, in contrast, denote all the industries not in existence today—the unknown market space, untainted by competition. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. Blue ocean is an analogy to describe the wider, deeper potential of market space that is not yet explored. Like the “blue” ocean, it is vast, deep, powerful, in terms of profitable growth, and infinite.

DJ Google & Sprint Pact could Heat Up Wireless War

Assalamualaikum.
I just wanna to share some interesting article on Google-Sprint Alliance which will heat up wireless world.
As I've read a book on "web-search business" that have transformed our culture and internet business, it clearly stated story of Google's triumph. It really sparked my interest and i start follow Google story and its stratedy that had ruled internet business model. I hope my interest will strike yours too. Happy reading.

DJ Google, Sprint Pact Could Heat Up Wireless War

(DowJonesNewswires, pr/27.07.2007, godz. 21:50)

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Google Inc.'s (GOOG) deal to offer its mobile services over Sprint Nextel Corp.'s (S) planned WiMax network points to a possible alliance that could challenge the top wireless carriers. Google and Sprint have been independently championing the idea of an open network opposed by incumbent telecommunications companies like Verizon Communcations Inc. (VZ) and AT&T Corp. (T), and now appear to have found in each other a common ally. On Thursday, they announced Google will provide Web-search capabilities and mobile applications like email for Sprint's WiMax service. Beyond the current deal, WiMax - a high-speed wireless Internet-access technology that covers a greater distance than its cousin wi-fi - could become a common bond and tool for making their open-network vision a reality. Sprint is already backing the technology with a multibillion-dollar bet; Google could do the same with the spectrum licenses it has set its sights upon. A Google-Sprint alliance, if successful, could pressure the incumbent carriers to reconsider their own closed-network approach. "I think Sprint's made it clear they intend to make WiMax more open than traditional cellular networks," said William Power, an analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co. "Google is a logical partner with their heft in the Internet space." For the record, both companies said they haven't committed to anything beyond the current agreement. The deal struck by the two companies gives Google access to the wireless world it has struggled to enter. For Sprint, it gives an additional revenue stream - mobile advertising delivered by Google -that would help offset the costs of its WiMax buildout. The deal also hints at the opportunity fora broader partnership at time when telecommunication and Internet companies are increasingly butting heads. As the No. 3 carrier in the U.S., Sprint has struggled against its larger peers. It sees WiMax as a way to break out of the pack, but Wall Street remains unconvinced such a risky wager will pay off. Those concerns have prompted Sprint to seek allies in an effort to alleviate concerns about its heavy investment in WiMax deployment. The company plans to spend $3 billion to get the WiMax network rolled out in 2008 - select trial markets will spring up by the end of the year. The Reston, Va., carrier has already agreed to a roaming deal with Clearwire Corp. (CLWR), which expands its footprint and fills gaps in Sprint's coverage area. Now it has found a like-minded partner in Google, of Mountain View, Calif., which brings added credibility to any endeavor. "We see the world the same," said Barry West, president of Sprint's WiMax initiative. "It looks like they are putting together a pretty formidable team," said Scott Wallsten, director of communications policy studies at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a Washington, D.C., free-market think tank. The Sprint-Clearwire-Google alliance appears to be "trying to develop a new business model that hasn't been tried yet" that could enhance competition and benefit consumers. That model would look something like the one that has thrived on the Internet, namely unfettered use of the network by content providers and device makers who profit through advertising, subscriptions or other means. Wallsten, however, argued it is unclear their network will be truly open. "It doesn't seem consistent with Google's claims for open access and net neutrality," he said. "Clearly Google is going to benefit from this, and it will be easier to use (Google) than Yahoo" or other rival services. The cellular industry, on the other hand, is made up of competing proprietary networks with integrated services, mostly offered by the network operators themselves. Google's Stake Google is hungry to take the Internet business model to the wireless arena. It has been aggressively lobbying regulators to set rules for the use of a swath of wireless spectrum that the Federal Communications Commission will auction off soon that would impose an open network model on the winner. The company said it will bid at least $4.6 billion to obtain those licenses if the FCC adopts its "open access" proposals. The Web titan is seeking to expand the use of its programs in the mobile arena and make money off advertising, a goal complicated by the wireless carriers' closed-network model. As such, it wants the network created from the auctioned spectrum to be an open onethat can be accessed by any application provider and device. WiMax, with a more open Internet-based architecture, is seen as a good technology fit for an open wireless network. Google has said it doesn't intend to get into the wireless-service business. Instead, if it acquired the spectrum licenses, it would likely wholesale or lease spectrumto third parties willing to accept the open-network philosophy. Here, Sprint, with its experience in customer service and building networks, is seen as a likely partner, said Philip Solis, an analyst at ABI Research. He added that others may also be involved. Both Google and Sprint said the recently unveiled deal and the spectrum auction aren't connected. Google said that "until the auction occurs it is premature to talk about companies that we partner with." Sprint said cooperation with Google on WiMax doesn't indicate a broader partnership is in the works, and West said there have been no discussions on that subject. Will Bells Face Pressure? Until recently, AT&T and Verizon Wireless - jointly owned by Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group PLC (VOD) - had vehemently fought against the conditions on the auction Google has proposed, some of which FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has embraced. They argued the conditions were unfair to traditional wireless companies and would devalue the spectrum, depriving the government of billions in potential revenue. AT&T and Verizon have since taken softer positions on the proposed rules, which the FCC will vote on Tuesday. While AT&T and Verizon Wireless prefer to maintain their "Walled Garden" mentality - in which the carrier largely determines what consumers can see or what services they get - Sprint's more open approach may shake things up. If the WiMax service is popular and steals subscribers, it could force change in the way other carriers approach wireless data, said Tole Hart, an analyst for Gartner Inc. Eventually, the drive towards a more open network will be helped along by the eventual migration by all carriers into a single technology. WiMax represents a step in that direction. "We're moving more and more to where Google is envisioning," Solis said about the evolution of wireless networks. "The closest thing is Sprint and Clearwire's WiMax network." -By Roger Cheng, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2020; roger.cheng@dowjones.com -By Riva Richmond

Copyright C2003, Dow Jones and Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

When good people leave

Why are star employees so hard to keep?

Hi frens.

Take few minutes and read this article. Evaluate it urself: Are we in that situation too? Why do we still stick with our companies? Hehehe.. I dont know lah if this article is not really related to our subject.. but i do think IT IS.. Like Pn Mardziah used to ask us: Which ladder are we aiming to climb to? huhuhu

Some points that I hv summarized from the article: Good employees leave their company due to several reasons:

• Bad bosses
• Love challenges – get bored easily
• Lack of “succession planning” in the company – ie like saying that “We do not have a career path for you”
• The work environment - de-motivated
• Standards and procedures in the office – usually referring to ‘favoritism’ and ‘discrimination’
• Lack of learning opportunities in the company

Anyway... I guess, sooner or later, I’m leaving my org. too! Haha. Well………

Click the image below to read the whole article!!

Spending big on ICT.

Just want to share with you guys this article “Leveraging on ICT to move forward”; taken from TechEdu Section (News Strait Times). This article is quite interesting and it’s also related with problems that have been raised in our class.

Information and Communication technology (ICT) spending among the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) community is on the rise worldwide, taking an increasingly bigger share of the overall enterprise technology spending. According to resent research figures, total ICT spending by SMEs worldwide is about US$533 billion (RM1.86 trillion). In the Asia-Pacific and Japan, The figure stands at US$210 billion. Is this bullish trend also witnessed in Malaysia? What drives local SMEs to spend big on ICT?

For me, enterprises in Malaysia spend too much on ICT, especially in infrastructure. Businesses should see IT as a tool to generate greater value and better returns to the company. Nowadays, technology move so fast, if we didn't follow this trend we will be left far behind and sometime the cost to catch-up is very high. Nevertheless, it is a reality that businesses have face today, resulted by the amount of pressure from strong competition.

______________________________________________________
Leveraging on ICT to move forward
By: Shyla Sangaran
TechEdu, News Strait Times
July 19, 2007

Information and communications technology (ICT) has become a crucial element in driving local small and medium-sized enterprise (SMEs) forward. In the words of Raju Chellam, vice president of market intelligent agency Access Markets International Partners Sdn Bhd, ICT is a single differentiator to make or break a company.

“Everyone wants to be the next Google. SMEs across the globe have one very big, common ambition, and they are using ICT as an enabler.”

According to Raju, globalization has made the business world more competitive, so investment in ICT is crucial for SMEs to become more efficient and innovative, and respond to market changes faster.

“Local SMEs are beginning to realize that they need to think beyond their ‘nose’ to be creative. Most are aware that if they are not taking advantage of ICT, the Internet, etc, someone else will take their customers away,” he said.

Figures by research firm IDC do reflect the local SME community moving forward with ICT. Last year, total ICT spending by SMEs was about US$2.5 billion *RM8.7 billion), excluding Government, education and consumer spending.

According to Raju, ICT spending in this sector is largely confined to computerizing the work environment and automating the front and back-office operations.

“Many SMEs have a good Web site, but it is not enabled for e-commerce. This is a shame as the Web site will just be another advertisement display on the Internet. If you fail to use your Web site wisely, your business is basically considered dead,” he pointed out.

Raju added that there is still lack of awareness on computer security and network protection system implementation among SMEs.

“To become a viable global player, it is important to build a secure ICT system, to attain the trust if customers and partners in an online transaction environment.”

By not taking computer security seriously, it is not only SMEs who will face difficulties, but also other parties in the ecosystem.

“The entire partner ecosystem can become vulnerable to cyber attacks, which can cost serous damage and losses,” Raju explained.

Meanwhile, IDC’s vice president, consulting and partnering, SME research Asia-Pacific Walter Lee said in Malaysia tech spending among SMEs can be segmented based on the number of employees such as one to 99, 100 to 499, 500 to 999 and above 1,000.

There are also other proxies used to demonstrate SME ICT spending, including PC demographics, networking demographics, local area network, intra-office networking and inter-office networking.

In Malaysia, SMEs are mostly spending on ICT implementation (38.5 per cent) such as buying applications and system architecture, and maintenance and support (21.1 per cent). Typically, they will invest in bundled packages.

Another area where SMEs are increasing their spending is enterprise mobile such as mobile email. According to Lee, the biggest concerns that most SMEs have are business continuity and availability. Other areas include software security, piracy and the need for faster deployment of applications.

IDC predicts that software as a service will be the next business opportunity for SMEs.
“This means that SMEs have started looking at how they can outsource their IT system without worrying about maintaining their internal IT system and focus on their core business instead,” Lee said.

Indeed, SMEs have shown tremendous shift on how to leverage on ICT, making them spend aggressively. The emergence of a digital economy has certainly pushed the smaller players to take advantage of ICT to become competitive in the marketplace.

IT trend...to tail or not to tail?

The ultimate thing for a company is to make sure that the company is run well, perhaps a going concerns business.

IT is just a tool to enable the business going through the big ocean, as the shark is never stop occupied swallow the plankton.

For me, IT is a must for a business to make them stand tall, being stronger in the big market and compete with the big brother. But that doesn't make that the business have to follow the IT trend. In death simplest word, business has to come first.

One good example is banking industries in Malaysia. Why they are very reluctant to move from the mainframe base to midrange? If we were to debate this, it will be like endless. But, looking at the nature of the banking industries in Malaysia, they have a good reason why they are so resistant to move to another so called technology trendy.

It's because the business is always come first. Their IT system is soo mature enough, why they want to jeopardize their business, just because they have to tail the technology? It doesn't make sense at all. The reputation, the stability is something that is too much for them to be put on the chopping block.

Hey why I must change to new latest server while my existing one, is doing fine? Can you answer that? Just because my existing system is not up to the date, I must follow the trend? Instead, IT must follow the business.

BUT (there is always but in every answers), if one of the system in the business is the one to be interface with the customer, then you have to consider of getting one latest technology. Why? Because it’s the company reputation. Say Maybank2u, the website is very charming, very outstanding, the GUI is nice to look, and you as a customer, are very confident of using it. You can't develop it using CSP or COBOL or even using low server capacity running 1CPU Intel 750MHz with 512 MB RAM on Windows NT. Eventhough the backend of the system is still using mainframe from the dinosaur age, but it promise reliability and consistency performance.

Again, there is no right or wrong of getting latest technology. The thing is, you must have a concrete justification on how the technology can fit and be aligned into the business.

OK...just my 2 cents.

Fuzzy feast for the eye

While looking for materials to post in this blog, somehow I found this interesting map/pictorial direction in my directory. Forgot where, when and how I got it. But I would like to share it. I think we can somehow relate it to the real scenario of managing IT locally and globally.

It makes sense that the dominant factors in managing IT is the people itself – CEOs, CIOs, COPs, team members and etc, etc… These are the main players that contribute to the successful of IT management. This map though only a fuzzy feast for the eye, it depicts our attitude in dealing with the new technology deployment.

Think of those ‘districts, corners, tunnels and playgrounds’ illustrate in the map - Hotel Know It All, Mutual Admiration Society, Bohemianism, Shortcuts, Carelessness, Misrepresentation, Lack of Preparation, Bad Business Methods and Bad Morals – do they ring any bells?

Well, it’s only the metaphor for us to trace ourselves (worth a night of deep thought). Have a nice trip!

Credits to the owner of this picture. Click on the picture if you wish to download it.

After 5 years working in a legal Firm, I recently joined a new company.... a really really new company. It is a newly setup company owned by the Government under the Ministry of Youth and Sports. New company.... new people... new environment and.... new boss....

As one of the pioneer staff in the company, I am solely responsible on the IT of the company. Means... everything needs to be done... starting from scratch... planning... what, how, why, who.. Procurement... What, what, what.... and finally implementation... how... how... I thought it would be really interesting and challenging... until... the dealing with people part came into picture.

Being put in-charged to establish all IT infrastructures in the company, there are lots of things that needed consideration.... And one of it that always interests me is WHAT WE NEED vs KEEPING TO THE TECHNOLOGY TREND.

It was quite difficult for me... because I am not the final decision maker. I am reporting to the CEO... Who definitely has a different idea on almost everything from what I have in my mind. He thinks that whatever we do must follow the trend... Buy the most powerful server, and use the latest software version. Buy the most popular software from the giant company even though it would cost you a boom. For him they are more reliable and since the company is an established company, they could provide you with better support.

I am not against technology trend, or the giant company... For me having the most updated software and hardware would always be good BUT I still think it has to be balanced with what we actually need to use. Good things always mean good money... But why waste the good money to buy good things if at the end of the day the good things are left behind collecting dust at the corner of the room. When we buy things, money is always the constraint. But even in a situation where it is not, I sincerely think that it should be use wisely... and furthermore it is not our own money... its the people's money that we are spending... Remember?!

So... what do you think? What is more important to consider? The need or the trend? Must we keep to the technology trend even though we do not really need it... or would never use it? Or do not even know how to use it? :-)

Or must we follow the trend in order to move forward.....