Management Consulting/Management functions and behaviour
What are the Institution Building Skills of the Top Executives in organisational set up? Explain with examples from various Institution Building Personalities quoting their role relating to various skills which contributed in Institution Building. Briefly describe the organisational history you are referring to.
1] What are the Institution Building Skills of the Top Executives in organisational set up? Explain with examples from various Institution Building Personalities quoting their role relating to various skills which contributed in Institution Building. Briefly describe the organisational history you are referring to.
What are the Institution Building Skills of the Top Executives in organisational set up
Characteristics of effective partners in CBPR partnerships
Whether you are just beginning the process of developing a CBPR partnership or you are already involved in a CBPR partnership, careful consideration should be given to the degree to which potential partners may have the characteristics that contribute to effective partnerships. The characteristics of effective partners described below can apply to both community and institutional partners, and to both organizations as partners and the individuals who will represent those organizations in the partnership:
• They are willing and committed – for example, they are willing to get involved, open to creating a partnership, understanding of and committed to the long-term nature of the process.
• Their organizational mission is in alignment – the partner organization’s mission, culture and priorities encourage, support and/or understand and recognize the value of community-based participatory approaches to learning, research, evaluation and partnerships.
• They have trust and a history of engagement in the community – for example, they are well respected in the communities involved in the partnership, are “in” and “of” the community and knowledgeable about and close to the grass roots communities in which their organizations work.
• They have staff and/or volunteer capacity to participate – for example, having staff and/or volunteers who can work with “outsiders” to accomplish their goals, see the value of research to the organization and community, and willing to navigate research processes and procedures (e.g., the human subjects review process).
• They have engaged, competent researchers and research staff – who, for example, can maintain meaningful relationships with the community on multiple levels, are competent to facilitate partnerships and follow participatory approaches to research, and are willing to learn from their partners.
• They have support and involvement from leaders at all levels – for example, they have active and visible support and involvement of both top leadership (i.e., a university department chair or dean, public health officer, agency executive director) and “front line” staff who have authority to make decisions, know about the organization’s daily operations and strategic directions, and have ready access to top leadership. To be most effective, individuals involved in CBPR partnerships ideally hold positions of authority and/or leadership within their organizations. Ideally these functions are part of the point person’s job description.
• They are knowledgeable about the community – for example, having the ability to obtain resources, high degree of political knowledge, access to decision-makers within the community, have connections with or active in other networks or consortiums.
• They strive for cultural competency – CBPR partnerships are likely to involve partners from diverse cultural backgrounds, with respect to ethnicity or race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, community or academic roles, and academic discipline. It is important for partners to be striving for cultural competency.
• They have skills in collaboration – for example, they are able to negotiate, problem-solve, resolve conflict and foster collaboration among partners.
• They have interpersonal and facilitation skills – for example, they are sensitive to community needs, have good listening skills, are trustworthy, are capable of understanding and appreciating diverse groups, can communicate in a ways that keep partners motivated and informed, are able to understand and feel comfortable in both academic, governmental and community settings or translating between them, and are able to transfer knowledge and skills to others.
• They have technical skills – for example, skills in planning and organizing, evaluation, writing, using computer software programs, speaking and/or writing in multiple languages, conducting outreach and managing programs.
• They have commitment and connections to the community – for example, placing a high value on community perspectives, knowing the community resources, being known and trusted in the community, being savvy about leveraging community resources, being committed to recognizing and striving to understand community issues, dynamics, and political ‘hot buttons.’
• They are committed to the partnership process and the substantive issues being addressed by the partnership – for example, they pay attention to both partnership process and outcomes, have a desire to see the partnership grow, are deeply committed to community health, community capacity building and social justice, and are knowledgeable about community-based public health.
It is important to remember that despite the difference in the settings, mission and culture of their respective organizations, community and institution-based partners share many similarities. They:
• Are often over-worked and under-resourced
• Have unique skills and experience
• Work in complicated and stressful environments
• Have their own productivity levels, accountability structures, timelines, calendars and bottom lines
• Have very specific jargon
• Are often not used to working with the other (communities or institutions) on a daily and ongoing basis
• Above all, they care about the health and well being of local communities
Infosys Limited (formerly Infosys Technologies Limited) is an Indian multinational provider of business consulting, information technology, software engineering and outsourcing services. It is headquartered in Bangalore, Karnataka. Infosys is the third-largest India-based IT services company by 2012 revenues, and the second largest employer of H-1B visa professionals in the United States, as of 2012. On 28 March 2013, its market capitalisation was $30.8 billion, making it India's sixth largest publicly traded company.
Infosys was co-founded in 1981 by Narayan Murthy, Nandan Nilekani, N. S. Raghavan, S. Gopalakrishnan, S. D. Shibulal, K. Dinesh and Ashok Arora after they resigned from Patni Computer Systems. The company was incorporated as "Infosys Consultants Pvt Ltd." with a capital of $250 in Model Colony, Pune as the registered office and signed up its first client, Data Basics Corporation, in New York. In 1983, Infosys corporate headquarters was relocated to Bangalore. It changed its name to "Infosys Technologies Private Limited" in April 1992. It changed its name to "Infosys Technologies Limited" when it became a public limited company in June 1992. It was renamed to "Infosys Limited" in June 2011.
In 1999, Infosys achieved Capability Maturity Model level 5 certification.
On 1 June 2013, Mr. Narayana Murthy, one of the founding members of Infosys and its long time CEO, returned back from his retirement to assume office in Infosys as its Executive Chairman. His return was on Board's request to bring the company back on track.
Infosys made an initial public offer (IPO) in February 1993 with an offer price of Rs. 95 per share against book value of Rs. 10 per share. Interestingly, Infosys IPO was under-subscribed but it was "bailed out" by US investment banker Morgan Stanley which picked up 13% of equity at the offer price. Its shares were listed in stock exchanges in June 1993 with trading opening at Rs. 145 per share.
In October 1994, it made a private placement of 5,50,000 shares at Rs. 450 each against book value of Rs. 10 per share to Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs), Financial Institutions (FIs) and Corporates.
In March 1999, it issued 2,070,000 ADSs (equivalent to 1,035,000 equity shares of par value of Rs. 10 each) at US $34 per ADS under the American Depositary Shares Program and the same were listed on the NASDAQ National Market in US. The total issue amount was US $70.38 million.
The share price surged to Rs. 8,100 by 1999 making it the costliest share on the market at the time. At that time, Infosys was among the 20 biggest companies by market capitalization on the NASDAQ.
During July 2003, June 2005 and November 2006, it made secondary ADS issues of US $294 million, US $1.07 billion and US $ 1.605 billion respectively.
In December 2012, Infosys transferred the listing of its American Depositary Shares (ADS) from the NASDAQ to the NYSE.
The credit rating of the company is BBB+ (given by Standard & Poor's on 7-May-2010).
Bonus Share and Stock Split
List of CEOs[
N. R. Narayana Murthy
1981 to March 2002
March 2002 to April 2007
April 2007 to August 2011
S D Shibulal
August 2011 till date
• In December 2003, Infosys had acquired Australia-based IT service provider Expert Information Services for $23 million.
• In December 2009, Infosys BPO acquired Atlanta-based McCamish Systems for about $38 million.
• In December 2011, Infosys BPO acquired Australia-based Portland Group, provider of strategic sourcing and category management services, for about AUD 37 million.
• In September 2012, Infosys acquired Switzerland-based Lodestone Management Consultants for about $345 million 
Initial Promoters 16.04%
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Aberdeen Asset Management PLC
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority
Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund 02.13%
Financial Institutions and Individual investors 68.87%
On 31 March 2013, Infosys had 798 clients across 30 countries. It earns 62% of its revenue from North America, 23% from Europe, 2% from India and remaining 13% from rest of the world.
Infosys has 87 global software development centers of which 32 are in India and 55 are outside India. It has 69 sales offices around the world of which 2 are in India and 67 are outside India.
In recent years, Infosys has begun shifting operations to the United States and other countries outside of India. In 2012, Infosys announced a new office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to service Harley-Davidson, being the 18th international office in the United States. Infosys hired 1,200 United States employees in 2011, and expanded the workforce by an additional 2,000 employees in 2012. Globally, Infosys has 67 offices between the US, India, China, Australia, Japan, Middle East, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Poland, Canada.
In 1996, Infosys established the Infosys Foundation, to support the underprivileged sections of society. At the outset, the Infosys Foundation implemented programs in Karnataka. It subsequently covered Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Punjab in a phased manner. A team at the Foundation identifies programs in the areas of Healthcare, Education, Culture, Destitute Care and Rural Development.
Infosys' Global Academic Relations team forges Academic Entente (AcE)[clarification needed] with academic and partner institutions. It explores co-creation opportunities between Infosys and academia through case studies, student trips and speaking engagements. They also collaborate on technology, emerging economies, globalization, and research. Some initiatives include research collaborations, publications, conferences and speaking sessions, campus visits and campus hiring.
Infosys Labs is organized as a global network of research labs and innovation hubs.
Infosys Labs collaborates with leading national and international universities such as the University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Queensland University of Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, IITB-Monash Research Academy, Purdue University, International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore.
Infosys Prize is an annual award given to scientists, researchers, engineers and social scientists in India. It is given by the Infosys Science Foundation, a not-for-profit trust which was set up in February 2009 by Infosys and some members of its Board. The prize is given under six categories. Each category includes a gold medallion, a citation certificate, and prize money of Rs. 50 Lakh.
Infosys had a total of 156,688 employees as on 31 March 2013, of which 34.7% were women. It workforce consists of employees representing 89 nationalities working from 32 countries. Out of its total workforce, 79% are software professionals, 15% are working in its BPO arm and remaining 5% work for support and sales. The attrition rate of Infosys Ltd., excluding its subsidiaries, for 12 months ending 31 March 2013, was 16.3%.
Awards and Recognitions[
Infosys was ranked #19 amongst the world's most innovative companies by Forbes.[
Boston Consulting Group has listed it in the list of top ten technology companies for total shareholder return. Infosys was in the list of top twenty green companies in Newsweek's Green Rankings for 2012.
Infosys was voted India's most admired company in The Wall Street Journal Asia 200 every year since 2000. Its corporate governance practices were recognized by The Asset Platinum award and the IR Global Rankings. It was also ranked as the 15th most trusted brand in India by The Brand Trust Report.
Infosys Cloud Ecosystem Hub won the 2012 Golden Peacock Award for the most innovative product/service.
N. R. Narayana Murthy
MR.MURTHY IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CAPABILITY OF INFOSY.
Commitment to Continuous Learning – taking actions to improve personal and
professional skills, knowledge and abilities, may require self-directed, self-paced learning
Conceptual Thinking – Ability to identify patterns or connections between situations
Customer/Client Focus – Focus on discovering and meeting customer/client needs.
Developing Others – fostering the long-term learning or development of others
__Designs new programs to meet training needs of staff
Initiative / Proactivity – Take independent action or proactively create opportunities to
resolve or prevent problems in keeping with role.
Leadership – Taking a role as leader of a team or other group. Leadership is often
Strategic Business Sense – The ability to understand the business implications of
decisions and the ability to strive to improve organizational performance. It requires an
awareness of business issues, processes and outcomes as they impact the organization and the customer.
Project Management – The ability to plan and organize resources to deliver required
objectives in a defined situation.
I.2 Decision making
and problem solving
I.3 Business acumen
I.4 Credibility and
II.1 Knowledge of
II.2 Knowledge of
II.3 Knowledge of
III.1 Management of
III.2 Management of
III.3 Management of
III.4 Management of
Building organizational capabilities: McKinsey Global Survey results
Building organizational capabilities, such as leadership development or lean operations, is a top priority for most companies. However, many of them have not yet figured out how to do so effectively. The odds improve at companies where senior leaders are more involved.
Nearly 60 percent of respondents to a recent McKinsey survey1 1.The online survey was in the field from January 12, 2010, to January 22, 2010, and received responses from 1,440 executives representing the full range of regions, industries, functional specialties, and seniority. say that building organizational capabilities such as lean operations or project or talent management is a top-three priority for their companies. Yet only a third of companies actually focus their training programs on building the capability that adds the most value to their companies’ business performance.
We defined a capability as anything an organization does well that drives meaningful business results. The survey explored which capabilities are most critical to a company’s business performance and why they focus on the capabilities they do. It also asked executives how their companies create and manage training and skill-development programs and how effective those programs are in maintaining or improving on their priority capabilities.
It’s notable that the majority of companies don’t focus on a specific priority capability for purely competitive reasons; most often, the reason is that the capability is part of their culture. Further, some three-quarters of respondents don’t think their companies are good at building the capability that is most important. When senior executives are involved in setting the capabilities agenda, companies are more successful at aligning those agendas with the capability most important to performance and more effective at building the needed skills.
A strategic priority
Companies can gain a competitive advantage by building foundational capabilities such as lean operations and project management or industry-specific capabilities such as merchandising or underwriting. Indeed, executives say building capabilities is a top priority for their companies: 58 percent of respondents say it’s among their companies’ top three priorities, and 90 percent place it among the top ten.
Sixteen percent of respondents in China and 20 percent in India say capability building is a top priority for their companies—versus 10 percent overall and 8 percent in North America.
Even in the context of the current financial crisis, 29 percent of respondents say their companies have not changed their training budgets; 11 percent have actually increased them.
Notably, however, the most common reason respondents give for their companies’ focus on the capability identified as most important to business performance is that the skill is a part of their companies’ culture, rather than any competitive reason (Exhibit 1).
Why companies focus on building capabilities
Lack of alignment
Despite the importance of capability building on the strategic agenda, executives’ responses indicate they’re not very good at executing: only about a quarter think their companies’ training programs are “extremely” or “very effective” in preparing various employee groups to drive business performance or improve the overall performance of their companies (Exhibit 2).
Respondents in China consider their companies much better than their competitors in manufacturing—but poorer in project management.
The survey results also indicate a potential explanation: training programs are misaligned with what is thought to be the capability most important to a company’s business performance. Only 33 percent of respondents say their training and skill-development programs focus on developing their companies’ most important capability.
Leadership skill, for example, is considered by the majority of respondents to be the capability that contributes most to performance. Yet only 35 percent of respondents say they focus on it. And only 36 percent of executives consider their companies better than competitors at leadership development.
Room for improvement
A third of respondents whose companies focus on leadership development think their training programs are effective in improving business performance, compared with 20 percent overall.
In addition, companies do not focus on day-to-day activities that could maintain or improve the capability that contributes the most to their business performance. For example, only 41 percent of respondents whose companies focus on supply chain management spend time defining roles, responsibilities, and decision rights for key positions, and just 39 percent set targets and track metrics.
Ineffective training methods
Companies tend to rely on on-the-job teaching (60 percent of respondents use this method “exclusively” or “extensively”), but no more than a third use any other method of training extensively (Exhibit 3). As companies try to replicate or scale up their training across more geographies, alternative ways of delivering it will become necessary. In addition, our experience shows that on-the-job training is most effective when it is reinforced through some sort of formal teaching and feedback loop.
Respondents at companies whose training programs are effective in maintaining or improving the drivers of business performance also say their companies pay more attention to tools that support or enable capability building, such as standard operating procedures, IT systems, and target setting and metric tracking.
What else goes wrong
Companies also struggle to measure the impact of training on business performance: 50 percent of respondents say their companies keep track of direct feedback, and at best 30 percent use any other kind of metric. In addition, a third of respondents don’t know the return on their companies’ training investment. Because companies don’t know the impact of training, they appear to set their agendas using different measures, including prioritizing by employee role, which may not actually result in the most impact to the bottom line.
Executives at companies where training is reported to be least effective, for example, are more likely to invest in training for the leadership team and least likely to spend on the front line—despite this group’s more immediate impact on operations. In contrast, effective companies invest the most in training the front line (Exhibit 4).
In addition, although resistance to change is often viewed as a barrier to building new capabilities, almost as many respondents to this survey identified a lack of resources and an unclear vision as barriers (Exhibit 5).
Opportunity at the front line
When senior leaders engage
Seventy percent of senior executives say capability building is among their companies’ top three priorities, compared with 58 percent of respondents overall and 48 percent of respondents in HR (Exhibit 6). Accordingly, when senior leaders set the training agenda, capability building is more often explicitly linked to immediate business goals than when other groups do so. For example, 38 percent of respondents at companies where senior leaders are involved in setting the training agenda say their companies’ key training and skill-development programs are focused on building or maintaining the companies’ number one skill priority, compared with 28 percent at companies where HR sets the agenda. Further, at companies where senior leaders set the agenda, 17 percent spend between 6 percent and 10 percent of their operating budget on training and skill development, compared with the much lower 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively, who spend the same at companies where HR or business unit leaders set the agenda.
Perhaps not surprisingly, at companies where senior executives set the training agenda, the training and skill-development programs are seen as more effective in driving business performance, though there is still much room for improvement. When senior leaders set the agenda, a quarter of the respondents view the program as effective, compared with 20 percent overall.
A strategic priority
• Companies need to be more deliberate in understanding which capabilities truly impact business performance and align their training programs accordingly. Those that focus on leadership skill development are likelier to consider their training programs effective in improving business performance.
• When senior leaders set the agenda for building capabilities, those agendas are more often aligned with the capability most important to performance.
• Most companies focus on the capability executives say is most important to business performance because it’s a part of the companies’ culture, not for any competitive reason. While culture is a strong driver of effective capability building, companies that focus on certain capabilities for competitive reasons rather than cultural ones gain a stronger competitive advantage.