G-Cube Blog

Mobile telephony has revolutionized India over last one decade. Today, we get free incoming calls and outgoing call rates are the cheapest in the world ($0.01/minute and going down). A fully functional smart phone is available for less than $100 and mobile network is available in remotest corner of the country.

But the scene was very different just a decade back. Mobile technology was largely out of reach of common person – phones were costly, and call rates were almost 30 times of what they are today. And then some of the companies which got new telecom licenses in late 90’s changed the game by offering very affordable phones and low call rates. Rest, as they say, is history.

I think we are at same inflection point in computing and network connectivity in India. Desktop/laptop prices are coming down, but still not affordable for the masses of the country. So is the case with Internet connectivity – not so good connectivity in most Tier II cities and below and prices though reasonable are still not at a level where as a user I don’t have to think about it.

Now, I am going to stick my neck out and predict – Tablet PC’s combined with 3G/BWA networks would be game changer for computing (and technology assisted learning) within next few years.

Why Tablets? Because they are touch driven and hence easier to use, battery life is longer – so charge once and use it for substantial time without worrying about electricity supply, and with volume production they can be suitably priced to come within reach of masses (here I think it’s again going to be some Indian/Chinese company which is going to do the magic with ‘frugal engineering’ and not big boys of the world). We can also have solar charged tablets (just like recently launched solar charged phones) which would make tablets even more attractive vis-à-vis desktops/laptops.

Couple this with reasonably priced 3G/BWA packages and you have a ready consumer base of at-least 500 million and growing (total mobile users in India are around 500 million right now)!

This development according to my opinion will have biggest impact on education and training – currently an area which is vastly under-served due to infrastructural gaps and lack of quality teachers/instructors. After taking care of basic needs, India spends most on Education – so a device that can give a child in some obscure town exposure to best teaching facilities, or provide timely training to a budding professional for career growth, would take a prominent space in household budget allocation.

We at G-Cube are very excited about the opportunities this development can unlock. What are your thoughts? Does this look like a potential game changer?

Adult Learning is when an adult makes a conscious or unconscious competence choice to learn. This learning theory has various parameters that mould it and give it the necessary essence. Stephen Lieb has broadly defined adult learners as:

1. Autonomous and self directed
2. Having life experiences
3. Are goal oriented
4. Are relevancy oriented
5. Are practical about the learning
6. Need respect

These characteristics are but generalized ones and need to be modified to suit the Indian audience. Keeping this in mind, adult learning has in the Indian context been termed as Social Learning by some educationists as is evident in the First Five Year Plan (1951-56) by the GOI (Government of India). The major thrust of the Social Education Program was to make illiterate citizens conscious of their rights and responsibilities for building a democratic nation, while incorporating the components of health, recreation, and economic life. This Five Year Plan was not able to make its mark on the education sector in India. In the Fourth and Fifth Five Year Plans, this focus shifted to skill development, but even that did nothing much to promote education for adults. The National Adult Education Program (NEAP) conceptualized in 1976, too was unable to make a dent in the adult literacy areas as was proposed during its inception. The launching of the National Literacy Mission (NLM) in 1988 and its focus on various activities like workshops in rural areas, campaigns, seminars, schemes for rural areas, focus on women empowerment, conservation of the environment, advertisements in radios and TV to gain attention and various other methods focused on developmental literacy, seemed to be the answer to India’s illiteracy problem. The Continuing education program of the NLM is envisaged to link literacy with actual life situations by imparting relevant technical and vocational skills.

In the present scenario, with the increasing popularity of the Internet and other technological breakthroughs, do rural adults still feel themselves at par with their brethren in the cities and metros?

My observation on this is with rapid technological, economic and social changes in society, initial education is now regarded as being inadequate in terms of preparing individuals with the skills and knowledge required for life in a knowledge society. As a result it is necessary to widen access to adult learning opportunities in order to address the changing needs of society. In the rural India context, these adult learners are not just farmers and merchants; they are also higher education students, which till now have been mostly ignored in all adult education programs.

Keeping the needs of higher education students in mind, we conceptualized the TUNE program. In our case, though the target audience’s age group does not qualify them always to be legally adults, they have taken a decision to design their careers in a certain direction. This conscious decision to go for a particular stream of education makes them adults.

Some of the key aspects of this initiative are:

1. Segment: We intentionally chose MBA and Engineering colleges outside the metros and big cities, because its here where the demand for good teachers, and exposure to industry best practices is felt the most.
2. Technology: We realized that even motivated professionals would have limited time and considering the length and breath of India, it is not always feasible for even a really motivated professional to take an off, even for such a lofty cause. Taking this factor in consideration we use the VSAT model as a platform for student-teacher interactions. The teachers and industry experts sit in a metro city and the students can interact with them on real-time basis, just like they do in a real classroom. This helps highly educated and good teachers to come to our studio and start teaching.
3. Methodology: Our learners come from varied background and not all of them are equally motivated to learn. However, all of them, given the right environment and tools, have the potential to succeed in life. One of the main objectives of the program is thus to make students interested in the class. To do this, we provide them with what we call “Glues”. Glues are meant to attract a student’s attention to the class by using videos, stories, etc. These items are interspersed with a mixture of PPTs, videos showing real time examples of a famous personality, role plays showing a particular situation and how to handle it etc. During the session we extensively use Pareto’s principle of using 80% practical exercises and 20% lectures to make learning fun. This is done by using simulated work situations, case studies, stories, and group activities to build knowledge.

With six colleges and two universities, these are still early days for TUNE. The response from student community however has been very encouraging so far. We are still modifying and researching new theories, pedagogies and testing them out. I will keep you posted about the results of our successes… or otherwise.

Senior executives look at financial balance-Sheet with keenness as it reflects the standing of a business. Though these statements are useful they don’t reflect the true standing of a business and its future potential.

Today large part of global economy comprises of services where human competence (read talent) is the biggest contributor in creating business output (read revenue, profit and value). Unfortunately human assets have no place in these books and gross assets that they capture are so insignificant in the perspective of evaluating the business potential. Are we really interested in knowing gross value of executive work stations or PCs particularly for services economy? No, we rather need to know potential business output-revenue & profit- from our current and future talent. Therefore we need to have a rather more important balance-sheet: Talent balance-sheet.

How do we go about it? Some ideas-

Gross talent in an organisation should be captured by segregating “People- as- assets” (PAA) and “People-as-Liabilities” (PAL).

How do we identify PAA and PAL? PAA is the ones whose competencies are completely aligned to their job roles while PAL are the ones whose competencies are completely misaligned to their job roles.

It is not important whether someone is under competent or extra competent, important for business result point is that the person’s competencies should be exactly aligned to his/her job role. It is possible that someone with certain competencies is a complete misfit for a job role whereas the same person is completely fit for the some other job role. Talent Balance sheet should have a few categories to capture the PAA- PAL continuum (people with partial alignments).  To explain this idea of misalignment here I go with a small story……

In the City of Ancient Rome there lived a skilled Cobbler. He was popular for his finer skills in mending and designing products with animal skins. He used to impress the royals with his creations-articles such as shoes, purses, decorative items etc.  He had acquired and honed his talent over years of hard work. There was no parallel to his level of dexterity as far as animal skin is concerned.

One day in the court of king someone had met with an accident, and there were internal injuries all over his body. Unfortunately there was no good surgeon available to operate the injured man. Cobbler heard this and approached the king to offer his services (again to impress in the hope of earning a reward!). Cobbler was very confident of his skill and ability and thought that he can work upon the diseased person. So he expressed his interest in operating upon the person. Seeing the confidence of the cobbler and his reputation in doing a similar job no one disagreed and the person was handed over to the Cobbler for surgery.

Cobbler did a wonderful job in neatly cutting and stitching the skinned flesh of the person.

Unfortunately, despite all the finesse in conducting the cutting and stitching, cobbler could not save the person and the person died sooner then he would have.

The moral of the story is that though visibly required competencies for conducting a job may look very similar there can be finer significant differences. Lack of understanding of nuances of competencies certainly proves fatal. Referring to this story though Cobbler did a perfect job (a perfect Cobbling Job on the body of the diseased) he still failed to achieve the goal of saving the person.

Trusting a cobbler to do a Surgeon’s job is a Syndrome called “Cobbler-Surgeon Syndrome”! I call it a syndrome because it is not a one of case; it’s a phenomenon and a trap for potential mistakes. For example if someone is outspoken, he is considered as a good candidate for sales, if someone is suave he can be taken up for senior leadership.  Judging a person on these visible qualities may prove completely wrong- competencies require much more than these visible aspects –out spoken and suave- for sales and senior leadership roles respectively. Cobbler is dexterous in turning the dead skin into attractive and useful articles not operating a Living body.

Unfortunately in our industry many cobblers are hired to do surgeons job.  I hope your organisation is not hiring cobblers for the job of a surgeon or a vice a versa.

With this small story I wanted to convey that aligning a set of competencies to the required job is very important achieving effective goal in a job.  It is the responsibility of recruitment to define the job role and competency for each role and screen talent accordingly.

There is a possibility that some cobblers pass the screening criteria and enter the organisations gates in surgeons’ skin.

In my views having a mandatory requirement for including Talent Balance-sheet in financial reporting will have very positive impact on business value of a corporation. I expect the following positive changes over a period of time:-

1. It will make the role of Chief Learning Officer strategically at par with CFO (isn’t that a big jump!).
2. It will make recruitment personnel more accountable to have a perfect screening system and hire right people
3. It will make T&D more accountable to fulfil the competency gaps and make them proactive to impart new desirable skills in shorter period
4. It will require an optimum mix of class room, eLearning and blended trainings to achieve competency goals of globally dispersed people within very short time.
5. It will create requirement for new roles within HR to assess and categorize people in PAA-PAL categories

Overall the fallout benefits can be really huge. I am keen to know your views on these ideas.

Image Source – Monster.com advertisement available on World Wide Web

(Ankit Jain is Head – HR & Strategy at G-Cube)

Have you ever heard of a severe chronic disease called “Finaemia”? Interestingly it does hurt a human or any other living being. It’s an economic disease. It’s a disease which slows down the growth of economic entities only and its adverse effects are seen over medium to long-term (say over minimum of two-years). So, it doesn’t seem to be a visible problem and doesn’t hurt the normal functioning of the economic entity over short term.  “Finaemia” is the term coined by contracting “financial anaemia”.

Allocation of financial resources to critical aspects of business is akin to supply of oxygen to a living system. Just like consistently lowered supply of oxygen in a body has adverse long-term impact on living organs, inadequate allocation of financial resources to important business activities does have similar adverse effects.

Unfortunately and paradoxically so, that  L&D is one such business area where business leaders recognise human as a business critical asset but still don’t allocate sufficient funds for optimum maintenance and up-gradation.

Reason-decision of capital nature involves higher level of risk and board or CEO normally would not take a subjective decision for any aspect of business.

And therefore there is a need for a comprehensive yet simple framework which can assist the board level people to take a shareholder friendly decision in favour of L&D investment.

In my June 08 post  I emphasized that similar to Plant & Machinery (P&M), human competencies need maintenance. Objective of schedule maintenance is the keep the asset in good condition so that it can produce the desired output. There I pointed out that akin to physical assets, human assets need schedule maintenance (maintenance of competencies) to be in good condition and perform the desired output.

I am taking up another important aspect and drawing similarity between physical and human assets. “Up-gradation”- is another established characteristic of physical assets. Investment decision on P&M up-gradation is normally a capital budget activity which follows an established financial analysis framework. Investment on P&M up-gradation has to qualify a certain cut-off IRR rate. If it meets that cut-off level board decision is automatic.

We need to understand characteristic similarity between the physical and human asset with respect to “Up-gradation” aspect. To understand this clearly we should know the goal of up-gradation. What Up-gradation does to an assets?

Up-gradation can either increase the through-put, improve quality of output  or produce different variants of outputs from the same asset.

Isn’t it true about human asset?

Competency or set of competencies up-gradation can lead to higher level of service output. There is no doubt about the fact that up-gradation of human competencies improves the quality and consistency of output (we take any number of examples- work process improvement, soft skills etc.).

Upgraded competencies in a human being make him competent to engage in wider variety of tasks (some are the variant of standard tasks). Example, improved level of competency in communication skill can add to training & mentoring potential of a human asset apart from enhanced performance in his/her job role.

I can clearly see that there is characteristic similarity w.r.t. to up-gradation aspect both for physical and human asset.
Then why corporate board are able to take decision in favour of P&M up-gradation (and these investment can run into hundreds of millions of $ depending on absolute economic size) with such an ease whereas investment in human asset up-gradation doesn’t figure-out anywhere.

Because again, there is no such financial analysis frame work which can give an investment cut-off number, such as IRR (for investment in physical up-gradation). Where board members don’t have to take a subjective call and take a risk of such a decision.

So we need to create a simple financial framework- may call it “diagnosis report”  to indicate level of “finaemia” that organisation is suffering from due to under investment in human asset.

For sure, global economy is suffering from huge inestimable loss every year due to under development of human assets, in the absence of such framework. To make realisation, imagine the amount of loss if business across the globe didn’t investment in up-gradation of physical machinery!

Let us save global economy from such a loss, saviours please chip-in!

(Mr. Ankit Jain is Head – HR & Strategy at G-Cube)

In this post I am raising a few interesting questions (for which I seek answers from all you guys) to establish characteristic similarity between the tangible and human assets.

The intent is to get intelligent clues for getting closer to developing the framework of my proposed model.

I am trying to draw an exact parallel between the physical (plant & machinery) assets and human assets as both generate “economic output” and on that parameter qualify to be called as ASSET.

Let us first understand the characteristics of tangible assets-

1. They have fixed economic life so these assets depreciate at a certain rate.
2. They need scheduled maintenance to produce an optimum level of output.
3. They can be upgraded to produce a better economic output (either in terms of quantity, quality or mix)

Now, let us compare human assets with respect to above three characteristics.

• Do human asset depreciate?
• Do they need schedule maintenance?
• Can they be upgraded?

As per my understanding “human asset” can be equated to “human competency” which can be broadly classified into two categories- physical competency and mental competency. Now both these competencies are related of development of “mind” and “body”. Human output for a variety of economic output (for any output ranging from knowledge to labour or a certain mixture thereof. Say development of software to development of a building) is dependent on mix of suitable physical and mental competencies.

Aging is pretty much a human concept. Physical and mental competencies wither with time.

So, can we say that since human competencies wither with time and therefore human asset demonstrate depreciation characteristic similar to tangible assets?

Though economic lives of human competencies vary for individuals it can be argued that economic life and depreciation rate for tangible assets also vary with quality of tangible asset. Therefore we can infer that differential depreciation rates are applicable both for humans as well as for plant & machinery. Normally for tangible assets there is a certain fixed depreciation rate for each asset class which is based on average useful life of such assets (say 15% per annum for automobile). Similar averages can be worked out for different competency types in case human asset.

So, first characteristic-depreciation- seems to be common for both tangible and human asset. With this I feel couple of steps closer to the model framework. But, these are my tentative thoughts and they and are not conclusive unless rubbed against diverse and deep intellect. Let’s create the spark. See you soon with thoughts on 2nd and 3rd characteristics.

(Ankit Jain is Head – HR & Strategy at G-Cube)

In this post I am further extending my thoughts (read previous post for reference – Economics of Learning & Development) to make a case for treating L&D as an investment activity rather than an expense.

Let us draw an analogy with manufacturing set-up. Investment on upgradation of Plant & Machinery is undisputedly considered an investment activity as its investment rationale is quantifiable in terms of increased output, increased revenue, increased free cash flow and increased PAT.

Similarly, we may like to believe that investment in upgradation of human skills/competences result into increased output therefore increased revenue, increased free cash flow, increased profitability and therefore increase in shareholders’ value.

L&D as investment activity seems to resonate with respect to two other important criteria- “Investment Quantum” and “Investment Horizon”. Most medium-to-large organisations tend to spend between 2%-15% of the compensation on L&D (for various roles). This is a significant number and can be treated as an investment rather than maintenance activity. For the second criteria- the outcome of L&D (as a composite intervention at individual employee level and organisation level) certainly extends beyond a year-we should not ignore the fact that L&D is an employee motivation tool as well, which increases retention.

Another key variable from organisation’s valuation perspective is Price-Earning (P/E) ratio. P/E ratio represents the collective demand of a stock which is fundamentally linked to stability and future growth in earnings of a company. By upgrading and maintaining (read increased retention) the “talent machinery”, L&D sustains the organisation’s future business performance. So, L&D does both- Stability & Growth- and can be fitted into stock analysts’ framework as well. Companies’ may showcase the linkage of higher “Retention” and expected growth in earnings to L&D. Those organisations that can show a positive co-relation can enjoy a higher valuation thanks to L&D focus and investment. So L&D can be projected as a shareholder friendly investment given the quantitative framework exists.

Now, we need to develop a framework and a financial model which captures the L&D activities and generate results in the form of traditional financial ratios.

Certainly it is possible to develop such a framework, but it holds a significant challenge for now. Organisations will need an integrated system in place to capture individual employee data on training, performance and business results in line with the requirement of the proposed financial model.

Fortunately, framework for correlating “Performance” with “Business Outcome” is already in place in the form of KRA based appraisal system, which intrinsically connects individual employee’s performance with Business Outcomes. But, KRA system also includes certain important but non-revenue business outcomes from employees such as leadership development, institutionalisation, R&D etc. Therefore the proposed framework should be able to translate these “non-revenue Business Outcomes” in terms of notional revenue for accomplishing a fair analysis.

So, as of now many organisations either capture or can capture the required data (without much difficulty) on “L&D”, “Performance” and “Business Outcomes”, all we need is a holistic framework which captures required data and feed into the proposed financial model which talks the language of business analysts. Once financial analysis framework of L&D is evolved (with fair amount of objectivity) to include traditional financial variables such as NPV, IRR, EPS, CEOs task become easier in treating L&D expenditure as capital investment.

I am sure that all of us intuitively know that significant value is created through L&D but how much? Is it one zero more or less!

When we as learning professionals are so clear about the value of L&D why can’t we convey this to investment community?

Look out this space for thought-growth.

(Ankit Jain is Head – HR & Strategy at G-Cube)

Before I hit the actual issue related to Learning & Development investment let me explain a bit about the actual systematic problem that the industry faces.

The issue is why L&D is treated as a cost or a budgetary item rather than investment?

Can this treatment be changed?

What will be the implications of such a change on the Learning industry?

I am trying to explain here the basis of financial thinking, please be patient to read the next section.

In today’s time most of the large businesses are owned by huge number of small (minority) investors directly or through institutional investors (MFs, Banks etc.). Therefore Management has a very important responsibility to rationalize its investment decisions and be able to come-up with objective answers to investment decision making (proactively in various investors meet and sometime they have to answer the queries of investors and media). Businesses need to see the quantified value additions to justify the capital allocation to any activity. Any area/activity where investment justification is not quantifiable – irrespective of actual value creation or its potential – suffers from inadequate capital allocation.

Reason is simple CEO/ CXOs are accountable to produce capital allocation rationale for the decision they take. And boards are ruthless in raising questions on any sensitive issue related to investment (use of capital). Any thing which is not explainable in numbers doesn’t fly through easily. It is subjected to lot of questioning. It is a risk which no C- level person wants to take or should take.

On this background note I want to address the issue of inadequate capital allocation in the area of “learning and development (L&D) – and it’s so true!

In my previous post I mentioned that in most cases allocation of funds in L&D are treated as cost (linked to budgetary allocations) rather than investment. Every body talks about it (L&D expense as investment), every body appreciates it but only a few take it seriously.

Measuring the learning impact is an art rather than science. Though there are some models to quantify the impact and arrive at ROI, CEOs find it risky to explain to their board- as it is not simple to explain in the small time windows available. Board members hate jargons and these models are normally full of it. We need to create simpler and more objective frameworks in the language that board understands and that CEOs will be comfortable talking.

As a learning professional therefore we should try to develop a financial analysis model (just like we have for any tangible investment like plant and machinery) to justify larger investments in L&D. The framework should be based on methodologies that C-Level and board understand such as NPV/IRR of L&D investment. It should be able to give results in the form of EPS growth and can be understood as a wealth creating activity in the interest of shareholders.

We live in a continuously evolving knowledge economy and investors will love to understand and praise those investments which can justify the value creation. We have witnessed an increasingly transparent trend in financial reporting. If we can set-up benchmark, the day is not far when showing L&D investment ratios in their financial reports will become a norm. As a few leading knowledge companies (or the layer of knowledge workers) set-up the right benchmarks by showing those numbers, others shall follow it to impress their investors. At that time task for the CEO will be very easy and board will have every thing in black and white template, a matrix they love. Can you imagine what growth can it trigger? It can be a paradigm shift that holds potential for unlocking billions of $ worth value that corporations can harness within their organization by putting optimum investment to L&D activities. You can imagine the virtuous effect of this phenomenon on L&D industry.

(Ankit Jain is Head – HR & Strategy at G-Cube)

e-Learning has evolved rapidly over last decade or so, from being simple PowerPoint presentations to highly interactive games and simulations. Second Life (SL) is yet another addition to the armory of trainers.

I have looked at SL with interest over last year or so. To give a brief to the uninitiated – it’s a 3-D environment where you can create your own avatar, roam around in the 3-D world, interact with other people who are there, create 3-D objects, own land (need to pay real money), and then go on to create your very own virtual world (see snapshots of some properties below).

International Space Museum – Very Good!            Wipro Campus

All this throws up some very interesting options for e-learning or training purposes. One can buy a small piece of virtual land, build a training center there, and start offering training classes for free or charge Lindens (money used in SL, which can be exchanged for real money with other users) from the learners. Many universities and corporations have already setup their campuses in SL, and are experimenting with this medium by conducting training sessions there. There are some distinct advantages which SL offers to trainers, some of which are –

1. This virtual world is well-equipped to deliver sales training because it can effectively replicate real-life situations by using role-play exercise and simulations.
2. I also think that simulation based trainings, such as team work, and communication can be done more effectively vis-à-vis VCR, or other online training methodologies.
3. However, for me the greatest advantage of Second Life is that you can create various equipment models and training tools using prims, which is not possible in a real classroom.

However, SL brings its own set of challenges such as – its bandwidth and computing resource hungry; the 3-D environment is perplexing at times and acclimatizing may take time even for technically savvy people; firewall can also pose problems to its proper functioning.

I believe there would be lot of inertia against SL from corporate learners, and for it to work trainers would have to go an extra mile to make learners comfortable. One of the things that trainers can do is pre-build generic avatars for learners (which they can reuse in all the trainings), have them seated in their respective places in their training center in SL, and with this groundwork done just pass on the login information to the learners. Once learners get into SL at appointed time, give them a quick 5-10 minute overview of how to move around, interact with object, and then go on to give the training. This would help learners get started quickly, and get the best out of training without going through the initial steep learning curve.

I think SL is going to survive, provided we (the training industry) are able to offer innovative and effective trainings on it, and keep it simple for our learners to use.

(Manish Gupta is Head – Business Development at G-Cube)

Convergence of telecom, Media and IT had been a topic of business discussion for long. Fast paced technological developments in all these sectors have accelerated the convergence process. Today, we stand very close to the culmination of this much touted phenomena.

We are not very far away when internet, telephone and entertainment requirements will be served by one single company.

In India alone, Bharti-Airtel and other telecom players have already laid down required IPTV infrastructure and probably are in the process of designing ambitious marketing plans. This will practically mean that we will be able to watch real time TV through IP backbone.

Though it may look simple, in my views this will revolutionize the way we experience TV, watch advertisements and do so much with the Idiot Box (On a lighter note- With this new technological development TV gets a chance to get rid of long-stuck stigma- The Idiot Box. Lets see what people label it- Smart idiot box or Idiot Smart box- I guess it will reflect on its viewers) .

The combination of two-way communication, computing and storage in IPTV has a potential to evolve this infrastructure for education and research as well.

There are myriad possibilities that come to my mind, I am writing here about thee of those here-

Transformation in Media Planning
1. There is potential of significant media budget rationalization. Today popular brands run mass TV ADs considering that they have their target audiences somewhere lost in the crowd. It is best to pervade the AD in the air as they can’t risk not reaching those hidden targets. But this risk mitigation cost them huge moneys- ten second slot on popular channels cost millions of Rupees.

All IPTV viewers (as they all belong to consumer class) will have their unique identity and service providers will certainly (or they should actually) profile TV viewers and classify them into various consumer segments. This will allow them to spend AD money much judiciously on the actual target users rather than global viewers. This will therefore cost much less.

Another trend possible will be to run test ADs on a smaller sample before taking nation-wide. So, possibility of pre-AD surveys on live audience.

Also, this will open TV as a media to many SMEs who can’t afford to advertise on TV today but they can once IPTV is in. Brands with smaller budgets will be able to choose target audiences by exact numbers. Therefore this development is likely to impact the whole media industry and there is lot of action possible there.

Reach of Education & Trainings will increase many folds
2. Second important trend possible will be reach of education and training will increase manifolds. TV sets with in-built features, large screen and good audio video quality will be the preferred screens, at least in home environment. Learning delivery tools like LMS and VCR will further evolve to harness the best potential of this pervasive technology.

Content Co-creation opportunities will evolve
3. Variety and models of content generation for entertainment & education will increase- imagine a soap opera where audiences become part of the episode in real time from their homes. Content co-creation has a potential to create innovative and useful products (and mind can run on this thought).

There are many-many possibilities which hit my mind and want to give sometime for thinking further. With time I expect to arrive at conclusive opportunity for our business growth. In the meantime I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

(Ankit Jain is Head – HR & Strategy at G-Cube)