SBenegaL

Blog

  • Entrepreneur Interview – Transitainment Ventures

    Sachi: Thanks Nithin for accepting to come down here, for this interview. I would like to begin the interview with a brief background about you and then explain about what you company – Transitainment does.
    Nithin: I am basically a computer engineer, Graduated from NITK Suratkal in 2007, and I worked for some time in product R&D with National Instruments. Post that I completed my MBA from IIM Bangalore. It was after the MBA that I decided to start something on my own. Right now I am running a start up called ‘Transitainmenet Ventures’. We are focused on the travelling consumer. A lot of people now are spending an increasingly large amount of time commuting to work and they are really not doing anything during that time. So we thought of accessing this customer while they are travelling and do interesting things around it.
    Sachi: You just told you “decided” to start off, was it that you all of a sudden decided to start off or you always nurtured the aspiration to start off?
     
    Nithin: I think everyone in India has an aspiration to start a business of their own. Rather than a question of “If”, Its more a question of “when?” A lot of people have reason that this is not probably the right time to start; I will do it later, when I have some money and  when I am more secure etc… My reason was very simple. At this point of time I really don’t have a lot of personal commitment and the hunger is there. Also India is growing market now with tremendous opportunities everywhere. Very soon get a lot of these opportunity will get closed up. Right now there is a lot more room to do funky things. You go a decade later and I think the number of opportunities would be much considerably less than now. I maybe wrong, but I guess if it helps me keep my mind clear, so be it.
    Sachi: I understand that you started off from a personal angle of saying it is ‘NOW’. How did you team receive this? How did you go about forming your team that way? 
    Nithin: When I started really? The idea hit me in a bus. When I was just going around in a bus, I was really bored and I saw the other 50 people in the bus were just staring into the blue sky. I said there is something here.
    Then, we thought “OK, In that case, What can we do around it?” and we discussed it out. But then the current team that we have now is different than the team we started off with. Lots of things happen and the team kind of evolves over a period of time. Right now, what we have is a well evolved team I would say. It had come together in a process of time. The team I don’t think happens one day or overnight – It never does. A lot of conflicts of interests happen and it needs to mature after sometime, interests have to align. So it takes some time, for us I think it took about six month to eight months. That is when the team actually came together
    Sachi: So how did the team actually evolve?
    Nithin: There were three guys actually to start off with. There was me, and there were two other people from IIMB. When this idea came in they also got interested and they said there were some people whom they knew who could pitch in. Then we started working for some time and technology was kind of evolving. As the technology evolved, what I did was I got a lot of people with whom I worked with, I went to my school with and went to my college with to informal chats about the idea, during lunch, dinner etc..I wasn’t asking if they would join. I was just getting their inputs. You kind of involve people, they also evaluate your idea, and you also get comfortable with them. So this is kind of how we evolved.
    As I said everyone has an aspiration to be a part of something exciting, It is just a question of finding the match. So more you can talk and more you kind of work with people, the more chances that you hit the right people . That’s exactly what we did.
    Sachi: Fine, That’s one part of it the puzzle, So the next one is the money part it.  I understand that your business is an extremely different kind of business – in terms of it being extremely innovative, So I see that money would be a challenge. So how did you go about fixing the money aspect of it?
    Nithin:  Money… humm…I have a belief that early stage business in India, the early stage finance ecosystem in India is not very well developed.
    I think it’s got be the interest rate arbitrage. In the US, it’s a 4% reign, or it’s really a 0% reign and in India it’s a 10% reign. All these banks and VCs etc have access to capital from the developed nation, where the expectation of returns is very low. When it comes to India, even if you put the capital in a risk free bond you get 10%. So what happens here is that you have access to alternate lower risk investments, where the VC industry can actually make money from. So the money that actually trickles down to early stage start ups, which are really high risk high returns kind of a game, is very low. So there are very few players around. It is more or less the incubation centers in the IIMs, IITs etc and some small funds that are around. So we are kind of working with a few people right now. I don’t think the change will happen immediately in India, it will take some time.
    Sachi: With the Money aspect taken care of let me get to the consumer aspect of it. Could you talk about the end consumer of your platform and the intermediary that comes in your business? How did you about acquiring in that? 
    Nithin: That I think we had much less problem here because the  need was there. When you are travelling you are really stressed out and really wanted do something.
    But in our business, you will have to build partnership in multiple places. But that it was much simpler than what we thought it would be. You go and tell a story, the value proportion, in a simple crisp manner.
    But the real deal in this start up is not getting the one customer, it is really getting the entire partnership going together. You go and sell to one guy one story, to another guy another story and third guy another story. But the only person who knows the entire story is you and you got to put it together in a manner that everyone is happy, that is when the value is created.
    Sachi: Ok, So that covers the 3 portions of any of business you can think off – the money, the people and the paying customer. Let’s get to saying what the biggest challenge is that you faced in the way you formed the business. Being around 10 months old what are the big challenges you have faced?
    Nithin: The first thing is that the wind blows in some direction right? Currently the wind is connectivity. You are on the Internet – everything is connected. Our business is kind of disconnecting it! Our business is to disconnect it and make it cheaper. Disconnect the content   purely from a delivery point of view and make it cheaper.
    The technology is not really not going with wind per say. We are challenging lot of thing. It will take a lot of time for people in the ecosystem to omprehend. It’s the same thing for everybody. When Flipkart started, people said that … e-commerce is dead etc, noone saw the larger story of what they were trying to do. There is a certain amount of conviction that you need, in your idea, in the thing you are doing.. Its also imp not be bogged by someone telling you that the story is not right. Because he/she is not supposed to understand the story, only you are, the complete story atleast. And if the story is that obvious people would’ve done it already .It is a nice dichotomy actually: “if there is an obvious business around, I don’t think there is business there, because someone has done it already.” and if there is no obvious business around, then lot people will oppose you. So the very fact that a lot of people are telling you and opposing you means that you see something that they don’t.  And if you see it, that’s where the value is. That is where the challenge really is, You have to be that convinced, you have to be head strong sometime, that stubborn sometimes, and tell that ‘NO’ this is there – kind of thing. You will finally find the partners it will just take time.
    Sachi: How are you going about the vision that created for your company? What is the vision, If may I ask you that way?
    Nithin: The vision is really is, we simply started with a need and vision is really not the technology. Our vision is still the need, that – “go and engage the travelling customers” that’s it. A person, who was travelling now is doing nothing – engage him. That will reduce the stress and it will make travel all the more comfortable and it’ll increase the quality of living. It will make money for everybody. That is the real value we are trying to create. In Technology we are doing multiple things. And I am pretty sure that technology will change. We cannot stick to one technology. We say stick to the customer and do whatever possible to engage the customer that’s it. That’s our motto.
    Sachi: That is pretty interesting. If I may ask you, what is your biggest inspiration to start off that way?
    Nithin: I really don’t think that’s hard! It’s Money really…  You know finally everyone wants to make a lots of money and retire early and all those things. that is always there. But then also things like working for your own. There is lot of fun in doing something, that actually challenges you that much.  It is extremely challenging and  mentally exhausting – this start ups. You are  fire fighting everywhere and at the same time fighting a lot of people… There is a natural high there.
    Sachi: What would you like to tell to any aspiring entrepreneurs? 
    Nithin:  “Stop aspiring start doing” that is the only way of starting anything – People can you tell you hundred different things. The fundamental thing about a start up is that you need to do something different. The moment you are following somebody you are doing something wrong. You are not doing justice to entrepreneurship. Just start and figure things along the way, its good fun.
    Sachi: Thank you Nithin for taking time for the interview thank a lot.

  • Innovation, Organizational Cognition – definitions

    In the last blog, we looked at the Industrial Economics angle of Organizational Innovation. In today’s blog, we begin looking at the relation between Organizational Cognition, Learning and Innovation. Since these terms sound too “BIG” for a first time reader, the attempt would be to really set the context in this blog and build on it over the next few.
    Let’s begin with the most familiar term – Innovation. While we all intuitively we all understand “innovation”, management theorists like to define it as “a process of bringing new, problem-solving, idea to use” some also look at it as “non routine, significant, and discontinuous organizational change that embodies new ideas that is not consistent with the current concept of the organization’s business”. Innovative output is a product of prior accumulation of knowledge that enables innovators to assimilate and exploit new knowledge – hence organizational learning and cognition begin to play a significant role.
    “Cognition” or “Cognitive” refers to the idea that individuals develop, mental models, belief systems, and knowledge structures that they use to perceive, construct, and make sense of their worlds and to make decisions about what actions to take – I refer here to another theorist Weick and also to Walsh. One could also extend this analysis to the level of group and organizations and we would find out how organizations & groups would behave. 
    Organizations develop collective mental models and interpretive schemes which influence the decisions the organization takes as well as the actions it performs. – We could call this Organizational cognition. It however differs from Individual cognition in terms of the social dimension. 
    Hence we would talk about socio-cognitive connected, and understand how it accounts for the social processes in the formation of collective cognition and knowledge structures.

  • Industrial Economics angle of Organizational Innovation

    In the last blog, we did look at the concept of organizational innovation using the classification of Contingent Theories. In today’s blog we look at organizational innovation using the lenses of Industrial Economics.
    The micro-economists in the field of strategy consider organization structure as both cause and effect of the managerial strategic choice in response to the market opportunities. The central argument here is that – certain organizational types or attributes are more likely to superior innovative performance in a given environment because they are more suited to reduce transaction costs and cope with alleged capital market failure.
    The theory of “the innovative enterprise” focused on how strategy and structure determine the competitive advantage of the business enterprise. The theory postulates that over time, business enterprises in the advanced economies have to achieve a higher degree of “organizational integration” in order to sustain competitive advantage. The model most supported by the success of the Japanese against the American companies.  However it is important to note that such an integrated approach would be best suited in case of incremental innovation, but there isn’t sufficient proof that it works well in the cases of radical innovation as a means to competitiveness.
    Another theory by Teece suggests that the formal (governance modes) and informal (culture and values) structures, as well as firms’ external networks powerfully influence the rate and direction of their innovative activities. He classifies innovation into “autonomous” and “systemic” and relates it to the organizational structure. The definition of these 2 innovations is itself pretty clear and helps understand the relation:
    1. An Autonomous innovation is one that can be introduced to the market without massive modification of related products and processes. – A classical example is that of introduction of power steering where no much modification had to done to the existing set up to introduce this change.
    2. Systemic Innovation on the other hand, favors integrated enterprise because it requires complex coordination amongst various subsystems and hence is usually accomplished under one “roof” – The introduction of front wheel drive requiring the complete redesign of many of the automobiles is an example of such systemic innovation.

  • Organizational Innovation in the context of Contingency Theories of Management

    In last blog we began our discussion on organizational innovation and also mentioned about the 3 classifications of the study one could do. In today’s blog we look at the first category of the classification the one relating organizational structure to innovation and specifically the group of theories under “contingency theories“
    The contingency theory generally argues that the most appropriate structure for the organization would be the one that best fits the operating contingency in terms of scale of operation, technology, or environment. Mintzberg is one of the most noted of the contingency theorist and we have already discussed him in this earlier blog. We have also discussed about the Mechanistic and Organic models in this blog. 
    Just to summarize and complete the discussion relating organizations it could be said that Organic structures would be a more fluid set of arrangement, adapting to conditions of rapid change and innovation. It would be interesting to note that both mechanistic and organic structures can coexist in different parts of the same organization depending on the demand from the functional sub-environment. We could also call such structures as “ambidextrous structures”.
    In the next blog we move on to the next class of theories – Industrial Economics and see how they relate to organizational innovation.

  • Organization Innovation and streams of thought


    In the last blog, we talked about some of the tests that anyone who intends to redesign his organization would have to take note of. In today’s blog, we begin our discussion on one of the common reasons for forcing an organization redesign – Organization Innovation.

    Organization’s ability to innovate is a necessary precondition for it to successfully utilize the inventive resources and new technologies. It could also be seen that many a times, by introducing a new technology, the organization is often pushed into complex puzzle of opportunities and organization challenges. These in turn lead to change in management practices and sometimes lead to the emergence of new organizational forms. Clearly organizational and technology innovations could be seen as being intertwined.

    A simple generic that the term “organizational innovation” could refer to would be – the creation or adoption of an idea or behavior that is new to the organization.

    Broadly as a field, the study on Organizational Innovation could be classified into 3 broad streams of thoughts

    1. Organizational Structure and Innovation
    2. Organizational Cognition, Learning and Innovation
    3. Organizational Change and Innovation. 

    Over the next few blogs we shall talk bout these and some of the constituent theories these streams might find.

  • Entrepreneur Interview – Permeative Technologies – iPhone & Android Development Company

    Sachi: Thank you Basavaraj of Permeative. Thanks for accepting our invite to be on the interview of entrepreneur series that we have.
     
    It would be great if you could begin with introducing yourself and then briefly talk about the company that you are running. 
    Basavaraj: I studied engineering at BIET Davanagere and then joined Tata Elexsi as a fresher and then moved to Sling Media in the domain which I always looking for. In SlingMedia I got opportunity to work on iPhone SlingPlayer (Video player) and saw power lying underneath the iPhone (in 2007) – and just thought of opening a company around it. In March 2008 We opened the company – iAppsSoftwares (another name), and in Nov 2008 registered it as Permeative and it has been more than 3 years right now since when we began operating.
    Sachi: Could you tell us what about Permeative?
    Basavaraj: Permeative started as an iPhone application development company and now we call it as Mobile application development company as diversified our portfolio to Android and Windows Phone 7. In 2008, the only powerful platform was iPhone, so we started with that. Right now we have small team on Android and Windows 7 and we are looking to start on Samsung BADA as well.
    Sachi: Could you tell us how the journey has been in the last 3 years – March 08 to now, which is now almost four years?
    Basavaraj: Our story has been with many ups and downs. We started off well without raising money from anybody and we grew organically. We ploughed back what we had earned, purchased some machines, infrastructure, hired some people. Within 6 – 8 months we grew pretty well that we moved into a new office with a rich infrastructure. Our growth was so good that Investors themselves began approaching us – big investors. We had even moved to an advance stage with one big investor but due to some of conditions, we didn’t sign up and complete the funding. Following this we had slump primarily due to the period of transformation we were expecting.
    Then in 2010, we began the journey again. We actually wanted to grow in multiple domains, but we looked into too many domains and this affected us. The focus was lost during this phase. In 2011, we founders split. I was able to focus on this one thing and we are going well now. Our revenue has grown seven folds and we have closed most of our debts. We are getting profits and it is much better now.
    Sachi: When you started off what was it that you envision that you would be doing with Permeative. Is there any vision that you started your journey with?
    Basavaraj: When I started of Permeative, there is no vision in terms of product, but I had a good vision in terms of services. It was the first thought that came to me. Now, my strategy has changed from looking at services to products and I have a lot of ideas to purse built by my years of experience here.
    Sachi: These are more transactional in nature – when you say that you are moving from services to product. What initiated the change from services to product? 
    Basavaraj: The First is the revenue, second is growth and third is the risk factors.In 2008, we were starting off and didn’t have any source of revenue. We needed money, and we were fine with small revenue. In services the revenue generally grows linearly over the period as you add in more people. But in products its more an exponential growth – and that is what is expected from the products.

    If we look at the growth angle between services and products; the services company would grow in terms of the number of people but, in terms of revenue it wouldn’t be very attractive – the exponential growth wouldn’t be seen.

    Coming to the Risk factors; in 2008, we weren’t in a stage to take risks. Product development and launch is more risky than a services launch. We didn’t know much about creating the right product, analyzing, and marketing strategies. Today we understand the complete game about the product development – how to bring it into the market, what the user expects; so we are expecting an exponential growth by focusing on products.

    Sachi: In 2008, you would be an early entrant into I-phone app, or mobile app development space on I-phone.   How did you spot this opportunity?
    Basavaraj: It was the passion of opening a company, which is what I would attribute it to. Since college days, I was always intending to start my own shop.
    I wanted to start my own company – I had no clue how I had to go about doing this. My family also doesn’t have a background in business; I had no idea how to neither do business nor start one, how to make it successful, or even where to start.When I moved to Bangalore and began working, I didn’t find an opportunity where I could start something,In 2007, when iPhone was launched and I was working at Sling Media – I got the chance to work on iPhone. We cracked it, and using hacking methods we developed SlingPlayer application. I saw the power underneath, I thought that in future, the whole system would move on to such devices. This thought struck me in 2007, the power of the iPhone at that point was equivalent to the power of my home PC processor. I was amazed and also grew confident that this would be the future, and this is where I could start something. I could sense that huge number of projects would start on this platform and most of the things would move from desktops to mobiles.

    With this thought, I began speaking with a lot of friends who would be willing to start and finally started the company.

    Sachi: Once you began your journey, in terms of the services itself, how was the first reaction from the market who were the first customers? How did you acquire them?
    Basavaraj: We began with freelancing which was the primary source of the services projects for us at that time. There were many freelancing projects to begin with – there were very few developers around the world who used to take up some of the most challenging and complex tasks on the iPhone app development. This created good credibility in the freelancing market and slowly we moved to direct company related services and develop some enterprise applications, music etc. We expanded our portfolio across many categories.In this year 2011 we don’t have any freelancing projects. We deal directly with the projects which companies offer, and many of these are on enterprise applications.

    Sachi: When you say enterprise application you are contacting the company directly and working on the project that they have. How do you work in such domains, Is it the outsourcing model or….?
    Basavaraj: We work on two models the first one is one in which we send some of our people to their office and they could take care of all the management, architecting etc. The other model is they outsource the complete project. We completely consider the end product as the deliverable and deliver it to the product.
    Sachi: So, that was the services wing of what you are doing now right? In the Products wing, what kind of the products or domains are they generally in? How were your products classified?
    Basavaraj:  Our product are mainly into productivity, education ,music and games. These are four main categories which we have been successful, we have product in categories like navigation, health care and other things, but they are not as successful.
    Sachi: If somebody is to start a company today, what would you say is essential? In the domain of mobile market itself? What would you say is an important factor they should remember?
    Basavaraj: For anybody want to start accompany, any domain is the good. Any domain you can begin the journey, as if now  the market is very attractive – in the whole Indian history ,this is the first time there is a very positive mood in terms of starting company by entrepreneurs. First thing, look for good partners with good understanding and complementing partners. That is the first most important thing. People are more important than what domain or what technology you would be getting into or what product you are going to build. People are the most important.
    Sachi: You got to the subject of people; so, let me ask you, how you select your people now? Or the journey in selection of peoples itself, from the point you started to now?
    Basavaraj: Instead of the journey I feel its better to talk about how I intend to do it in the future.While starting off, I didn’t find a good person who could give me a company; it was not too sought after at that time.  The environment for entrepreneurship is changing in India, and now it’s easy to find people. Straight from the college too, there are a lot of people who are interested in going ahead and starting off companies. This is good news!

    While choosing particular person as a partner, you should look at complementing characteristics in the person.  Suppose you are a technical person   doesn’t look at another person also to be a technical person.  I mean, when you have option to choose or when we have an option to find a guy find somebody and complementing you people as a partner – if you already have a team of two-three guys all technical and have already started then don’t worry about it. Like suppose you are a technical guy find somebody who is good in marketing, who understand that or if you go into services, go for operational guy, who can take care of operations.

    Complimenting characteristics is better than similar characteristics. If we have similar characteristics then ego problem will start at early stages of company – this leads to breaking up. Better you go with one of complimenting characteristics.

    Sachi: While you are discussing about people to form your team with, I did mention about marketing. The domain you are operating is almost a flooded market. So how important is marketing in the mobile space as such? Not just I-phone space and mobile space – there are tons of applications who do you make yourself visible there?
    Basavaraj: We look at the market as 2 types – services and products, the strategy we adopt is pretty similar.
    Say for example, in mobile technology take a specific usage domain and master it. Work so well that, when people look at the work you have done, they realize you are a master of that technology and you would be their automatic choice. You need to stand out of the crowd through the work you do.
    Go to great depth in the domain of your choice – Ex If you don’t know games, leave it, if you don’t know music, leave it. If you understand productivity apps well, just go to the depths and get perfect in that.
    Then people definitely, who are in productivity, who wants some applications in productivity, they will come to you. As you begin refining your domain, the expertise will improve and you could definitely showcase better apps to the world.  Go to the depths in a domain in some category and rather than spreading yourself everywhere.
    Sachi: Ok, coming back to the other factors that we probably began with – some of the mistakes you have done. From your experience, what are the three most glaring mistakes you that you have done  in the journey?
    Basavaraj: First thing is a choosing a partners. Don’t compromise while choosing partners, if you don’t get a good partner you don’t look at something compromising and start with, we should really get one who is really interested in it. This is first one and very important.The second thing is when you want to scale it up, after some time definitely you would look to scale it up. If you are not able to do it yourself, definitely go for funding. Funding should be encouraged and then only company can really begin to grow – you could then scale up in terms of services and in terms of products and services for both – funding is very important. We rejected this.

    Sachi: If you are going to highlight what are the three biggest achievement of with the journey of entrepreneurship what would say?
    Basavaraj: The first biggest achievement is starting a company  when nobody was there in the space absolutely the first starting a company  in India in iPhone at a time when everybody was thinking that mobile applications was a business with 5% margin and the 95% carriers would take. Apple changed the complete game. Before apple announced all these things, we identified and started this is the first and great achievement. Of course we didn’t leverage this start which we got by preempting the trend.Second is big investors identified us amongst thousands of companies across the globe and came forward to invest.

    And the third one is in spite of having lots of ups and lows and after splitting the company, we came back very well. Now our revenues have increased much higher. Our current revenue is much higher than last year when number of people was more than double of what we have today.

    Sachi: What is the vision from Permeative for the next one year?
    Basavaraj: I still look at Permeative as a service based company itself. For services firm the challenge is mainly in scaling rather than technology. I want to scale into different domains like windows phone 7, and most scaling in iPhone and of course getting the bigger clients with some in the Fortune 500 companies list – atleast 5-6 companies if I am able to. That would be a big achievement for us.
    Sachi: What is your message for aspiring entrepreneurs?
    Basavaraj: Don’t look at the business opportunity cost – will you earn money or not?  What happens in the future? If you can’t do it will you get a job?. If you open the company and you failed in sustaining the  company, even then you have better experience than your counterpart who only worked in companies. You will be 10 years ahead of other guys working in the company. Don’t need worry, go ahead, do something, achieve something. Put in your whole hearted effort – day and night, and achieve something. And choose some good partner and try to make it larger with every attempt. That’s it.
    Sachi: Thank you Basavaraj, for taking time out to this interview, thank you once again.

  • Tests for Organization Redesign

    In the last blog, we looked at the classification of management theories and their variations across the policies and expectations. In today’s blog we refer to an HBR tool kit by Michael Goold and Andrew Cambell that deals about how to test if we have a well designed organization. While the details may be looked at on purchasing the links, I would only summarize what the article intends to talk about.
    Any person looking at redesigning the organization would have to make some essential tests before really getting on with the change and here are a few of the suggestions.
    Again it is a continuous process and like any management, it’s more an art in these cases of organization redesign than having a standard way to handle this. We would encourage you to read the original article at the following link to get a more comprehensive understanding of these tests.

  • Classification of Management theories continued…

    In the last blog, we looked at the ways we could classify the various theories of management into different buckets. In today’s blog we summarize the basic assumptions, policies and expectations that the managers who follow these 3 styles of management use. Please refer to the table below.
    The diagram is an adaption from Raymond E Miles, Theories of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975)

  • Classifying the Management Theories

    In the last blog, we looked at how the “analyzers” category of organizations perceives the adaptation cycle challenges. In this blog, let’s take an independent look at how the various organization theories itself could be classified and how the view the relation between strategy and structure where the discussion about adaptation cycle actually began.
    If we look at the way management theory has evolved over the timeframe of the early 1900 to late 1900s, we could categorize them into the following sections 

    1. Traditional Model
    2. Human Relations Model
    3. Human Resource Model

    The Traditional model suggests that there are a select group of owner-managers who would ably direct larger number of employees by careful standardization and routinizing the work and by placing and planning functions completely controlled by the top managers. Under such a system, only few employees could be expected to perform to outstanding levels but most of them would perform to certain minimum standard.
    The Human Relations model agreed to the Traditional model but went ahead emphasizing the universality of social needs for belongingness and recognition. This model argued that, it was interpersonal treatment that was the source of subordinate resistance to managerial directives. Managers would have to engage the organizational member’s feeling of involvement and importance in order to improve organizational performance.
    The Human Resource model approach though is debated to be a contingent theory, looks at the organization as having decision making in the pursuit of organizational objectives widely dispersed and that most organization members represent the untapped resources which if properly managed could considerably enhance the organizational performance. 
    In the next blog we shall have a graphical comparison of the same for clarity purpose.

  • Characteristics of Analyzers when attempting to handle adaptation cycles

    In the last blog, we took a closer look at the approach taken up by Prospector to handle the adaptation cycle challenges. We shall today move to the next of the categories – 
    Analyzers .
    Continuing to understand our classification and their characteristics better we move on from Prospectors to Analyzers. The Analyzers in contrast to the prospectors have a constant challenge of handling 2 cores simultaneously. The following diagram is a summary of the characteristics of a Prospector.

    [do download the pic and read the complete text.. apologies for the small font]
    The diagram summarizes the characteristics of defenders (adapted from Miles and Snow – Organizational Strategy, Structure and Processes)