SBenegaL

Blog

  • ಹಣಕಾಸು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಮತ್ತು ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ – ೩೩

    ಈ ಹಿಂದಿನ ಅಂಕಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಕಂಪನಿಗಳು ಏಕೆ ತೆರಿಗೆ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದನ್ನ ಅರಿತೆವು. ಇಂದಿನ ಅಂಕಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಮತ್ತೆ ಈ P & L ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಕೂಲಂಕುಶವಾಗಿ ಅರಿಯೋಣ ಹಾಗು ಇದನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ತಯಾರು ಮಾಡುವರು ಎಂದು ಕೂಡ ತಿಳಿಯೋಣ.

    ಸರಳವಾಗಿ ವಿವರಿಸುವುದಾದರೆ ಲಾಭವೆನ್ನುವುದು ಮಾರಾಟದ ಬೆಲೆ – ಖರ್ಚಾದ ವೆಚ್ಚ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ತನ್ನ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನ ಅಥವಾ ಸೇವೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾರುವುದರಿಂದ ಆದಾಯವು ಸಿಗುವುದು. ಇದನ್ನು Sales ಎಂದು ಒಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ತೋರಿಸುವರು. ಆದರೆ ಈ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನ ಅಥವಾ ಸೇವೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲು/ ಮಾರಲು ಕಂಪನಿಯು ಖರ್ಚು ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನು Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯುವರು. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ P & L ನ್ನು ಹೀಗೆ ಬರಿಯಬಹುದು.
    ಲಾಭ (Profit) = Sales – COGS
    ಈ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಹಿಂದೆ ಕಲಿತ ಕೆಲವು ವಿಚಾರಗಳಾದ depreciation, amortization , ತೆರಿಗೆ ಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿಲ್ಲ.  ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಈ ಮೇಲೆ ಪಡೆದ ಲಾಭವನ್ನು ನಿವ್ವಳ ಲಾಭ ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯಲಾಗದು, ಇದನ್ನು “Gross Profit” ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯುವರು.
    ಕಂಪನಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮದೇ ಆದ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಯ R&D ಘಟಕವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿನ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆ ಗಳು ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷದಲ್ಲೇ ಮುಗಿಯದು, ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿವರ್ಷ ಇದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಖರ್ಚು ಆಗುತ್ತಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದನ್ನು “General Operating Expenses (R&D)” ಮುಖ್ಯಾಂಶದ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸುವರು. ಇದರೊಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಪೇಟೆಂಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಥಿರಾಸ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದನ್ನೂ ಕೂಡ ಲಾಭದಿಂದ ಕಳೆಯಬೇಕು. ಇವನ್ನೆಲ್ಲ ಕಳೆದ ಮೇಲೆ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಉಳಿದ ಭಾಗವಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದನ್ನು “Operating Income” ಎನ್ನುವರು. ಕಂಪನಿಯ ಕೈ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಏನು ಕೊನೆಗೆ ಸಿಗುವುದು ಎನ್ನುವುದನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು ಈ “Operating Income” ದನ್ನು ಕೂಡ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸ ಬೇಕು. 
    ಇನ್ನು ಉಳಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಹೊರೆಯನ್ನು ಮನಕ್ಕೆ ನೀಡದಿರೋಣ. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮುಂದಿನ ಅಂಕಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಂದುವರಿಸೋಣ. 
    ಆಂಗ್ಲ ಅಂಕಣ:
    http://somanagement.blogspot.com/2011/08/finance-and-management-33.html

  • Organization Theory – 14

    In the last blog, we discussed a very important concept – “span of control”. In today’s blog, we would discuss another concept called relevant to complexity – “Spatial Differentiation”
    In the earlier blog when we took the example of IBM and understood the various dimensions of complexity, we mentioned that the offices of IBM are spread over a lot of geographical locations. 
    In today’s blog, we take the example of KTA Associates which is a company in the field of Executive search. Their offices are as shown in the diagram below. 
    They have 54 offices spread across 38 countries!
    The core function of the company is in the area of HR services to corporate, but so the number of departments would be small. If we link it back to the blog where we discussed Henry Mintzberg’s model, we see that the operating core would be spread across continents but doing a similar kind of task. However given that the offices are spread across continents it would be difficult for people to really communicate with one another (the vocabulary used even in the same language would be different)
    Thus, we could safely understand that the greater the spatial differentiation, the greater complexity.
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 13

    In the last blog, we began a discussion about vertical differentiation; we continue from there and begin our discussion about very closely knit topic – “span of control” in today’s blog.
    Simply put, “span of control” would mean the number of subordinates that a manager can direct effectively. Now let’s take an example to see why this span of control becomes important to be considered when one is designing any organization. 
    If I have a single person reporting to me, I would be able to spend good amount of time to ensure that he is able to perform the task the way I want him to. My time still remains constant in a day – say 8 hours out of which I spend around 4 hours discussing and building an individual, the remaining 4 hours I spend doing the other tasks that I need to. 
    Now, Assume I add another person to the existing individual, so now I guide 2 people. The time I am able to devote to the guiding process is now shared by 2 people. It would ease out if these 2 people are doing the same kind of task, but if it is different, then the attention required would be higher. Imagine the scenario if we have more people – say 4, 10, 20!
    There is a limit on the number of people we can effectively coordinate with – this is the ideal span of control. These people report directly to you.
    If we have say an organization with 4096 employee and a span of control of 4 people, and another with span of control of 8 people then the 2 structures would look something like this.
    Clearly, a taller structure enables closer monitoring of the subordinates by the superior, while the communication as shown the last blog would be taking a beating given the larger number or levels in the hierarchy. The case would be a reverse when we have a wider span of control – the communication would be better but the monitoring of the subordinates would take a longer time. 
    It would be good to note that there is no clear answer – there is a trade off that has to be decided upon. In addition to the number of employee (size of the organization), one needs to also consider the nature of the job, and also the nature of the person in the position which would really define the “right” span of control.
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 12

    In an earlier blog, while discussing about the dimensions of “complexity” we did mention about “vertical differentiation”, in from this blog onwards we discuss the concept of vertical differentiation, but before that we would love to share this small picture with you which we received in one of the mail forwards.
    In this simple example, we see there are just 6 levels of the hierarchy – 
    CEO
    |
    Manager
    |
    Department Head
    |
    Floor Manager
    |
    Supervisor
    |
    Staff
    And a simple message to trickle down. The message gets completely lost in the process and is sent across with a completely different meaning. Though this could be understood as an extreme case of miscommunication, there is definitely some distortion that happens at every level and more the levels more the distortion of information.
    The more levels that exist between top management and the operative staff; greater the potential of communication distortion. More time is spent in coordinating the various personal and more difficult it gets for the top management to oversee the actions of the staff.
    Thus simply put, the greater the vertical differentiation, the greater the complexity!
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 11

    In the last blog, we discussed about “division of labor”. In today’s blog, we discuss about the concept of “specialization”.
    Specialization could be understood as – particular grouping of activities performed by an individual. If we have a second look at the way we have understood this, it becomes clear that we can have a specialization based on the task performed or based on the skills of the individuals. Thus, we can call them as:
    • Functional Specialization
    • Social Specialization

    It is pretty clear that when we begin to divide the task into multiple smaller tasks which are simpler and repetitive in nature. Thus we could call it again as “division of labor”. It would be interesting to note that. “Division of labor” creates a sort of substitutability amongst the various employees and helps the management easily replace them.
    If the individual is “specialized” instead of the work that is being performed, we call it “social specialization” – e.g. Engineers, nuclear physicists etc. The only way to achieve such social specialization for the organization is hiring these professionals!
    With an increase in the specialization, it follows that the amount of coordination and control between the various specializations adds up – thus it would increase the “complexity” of the organization compared to the single person doing everything!
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 10

    In the earlier blog, we looked at the case of IBM to understand the various aspects of complexity. To understand the meaning of “Horizontal differentiation” we begin the journey today with a very common place concept we have hear of “division of labor”.
    In ancient days we had specialized experts in their crafts whom in some cases called artisans, carpenters, etc. As late at the early part of 1900s we could see people who were very interested in the “art” building cars, getting along all the components of a car and building them. It wouldn’t be surprising given the varying skills that go into making a car – that it would have taken them anywhere between 3-6 months to prepare a single car! But today we have Toyota which has the capability of actually churning out a car every second!
    Now this journey from one person “crafting” a car to the present day one car every second didn’t happen in a go. We would definitely deal with the variety of changes that have happened in the manufacturing processes sometime in the future, but what we would discuss today is the first step that happened in this direction – “division of labor”.
    The craft of building a car was broken down into a series of activities, say designing the exterior, preparing the chassis, etc. The different activities when focused by an individual in a team would reduce the strain on individual building the complete car – therefore overcoming the physical limitations to a certain extent. Since a particular task is done by a specific person, it would enable the person develop a certain degree of specialization and expertise enabling to enhance the speed of operations. Efficiency creeps in due to this special focus. As the person spends time on a specific activity, he would work at easing his job by creating special inventions also which further enhances the efficiency in the long run!
    As the division of labor increases, departments with a specific focus begin to be built! This is the birth of departmentalization.
    In the next blog we would discuss a bit more on the concept of “specialization” that we discussed in here.
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 9

    In the last blog we took a simple example to understand the various variables that are used to understand the organization. Now we take a look back the dimensions of organization and understand the first dimension of “Complexity” in the context of an organization.
    Let’s take for example sake a large organization – say IBM. 
    We can check the website of the company at this link. It would be good to know a bit about the company and its history – instead of repeating a story; it would be good to check the story out here. One could learn specifically about the Indian Page at this Wikipedia link.
    We could easily see that the company has its offices spread across various continents and countries – this link gives an idea about the extent to which the company has a presence globally.
    We could also see that the company has different capabilities and caters to various different types of customers. It wouldn’t be easy to understand these unless we look at the following links and play with some of the combinations there- Services, Solutions, and Products.
    Given that IBM is spread across various continents and offers a variety of services/products/solutions etc and managing the current number of employees it would need to have a large hierarchy to the CEO from a new joinee into the company.
    In the above discussion we can classify the dimensions into 3 classes

    1. Spatial differentiation: The geographical areas that a company expands over is represented by the spatial differentiation
    2. Horizontal differentiation: The degree to which the horizontal separation is between the units – the product/service/solution focus etc is an indication this in the above discussion
    3. Vertical differentiation: This refers to the depth of the organizational hierarchy measured in levels! – The new joinee at the bottom of the hierarchy to the CEO at the top of the global company!

    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 8

    In the last blog, we defined a lot of terms. In today’s blog we take a hypothetical situation and try to understand this better.
    ABC Pvt Ltd is a company founded by Amit and his friend Bala. The company was set up just a few months back, and both Amit and Bala are heading the company and intend to take it great heights. The basic work of the company is into manufacturing mixer grinders. They have set up a factory in Peenya Industrial area and have currently employed 4 people, all are from have an electrical diploma and one of them is the supervisor who has prior work experience. Amit works on getting new business for the company while Bala manages the day to day operations of the company. Both Bala and Amit spend around 2 hrs a day catching up on the activities of the day and taking very important decisions relating to the direction of the company.
    Let us now sit back and look at the story in a bit more detail.
    The number of people in the organization is 6 (including the 2 founders). The hierarchy is pretty low since there is one supervisor, to whom 3 workers report and the other aspects are taken care by the Founders. We could look at the hierarchy pictorially as follows
    (A + B)
    |
    Supervisor
    |
    (w + w + w)

    Thus we see that this simple structure enables the founders to have a very close look at the day to day operations. Since the supervisor reports directly to the founders, who take the decision about the organization there is almost negligible delay in making decisions. There are certain operational decisions which the supervisor himself can take. From this we clearly understand that the organization is having a simple structure with sufficient autonomy given to the supervisor – which also indicates that there is delegation of the activity by the founder. The nature of the work suggests that there is little difference in the activity of the workers. To enhance the speed, formalization is done away with and the flexibility is high.
    Thus we see that even a simple organization like ABC Pvt Ltd could be used to understand the various variables. Now it would be an interesting part to look at your own company and make an estimate of these things!
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 7

    In the last blog, we mentioned that we would begin defining the various dimensions of a business. In today’s blog we begin this journey by defining some variable that are to be understood to really grasp the definition of detentions.
    These variables are defined differently by different theorists, but what we define here is what is generally held meaning of these variables:
    Administrative Component: The number of line supervisors, managers, and staff personnel relative to the total number of employees
    Autonomy: The extent to which top management has to refer to certain typical decisions to a higher level of authority
    Centralization: The proportion of jobs whose occupants participate in decision making and the number of areas in which they participate, or concentration of power arrangements, or an index reflecting the locus of decision making with respect do major and specific policies, the degree of information sharing between levels, and the degree of participation in long term planning
    Complexity: The number of occupational specialties, the professional activity, and the professional training of employees.
    Delegation of authority: The ratio of the number of specific management decisions the chief executive has delegated to the number he or she has the authority to make
    Differentiation: The number of specialty functions represented in a firm or the difference in cognitive and emotional orientation amongst managers in different departments
    Formalization: The extent to which am employee’s role is defined by formal documentation
    Integration: The quality of the state of collaboration that exists among departments that are required to achieve unity of efforts or plan or feedback used for coordination between organizational units
    Professionalism: The degree to which the employees use a professional organization as a major reference, belief in service to the public, belief in self-regulation, dedication to one’s field and autonomy.
    Span of Control: The number of subordinates that an individual manager can and should supervise.
    Specialization: The number of occupational specialties and the length of the training required by each or the degree to which highly specialized requirements are spelled out in formal job description for various functions
    Standardization: The range of variables that is tolerated within the rules defining the jobs
    Vertical Span: The number of levels in the authority hierarchy from the bottom to the top.
    At this point it is pretty clear that most of the terms sound like a jargon, but it’s only through an experience of the industry and some explanation that these could be understood better. We shall make this attempt in the next few blogs before we jump to understanding the dimensions, but in many cases we would mix the 2 and highlight the point to be noted.
    Read in Kannada

  • From a Bound Glass to the Free Air


    Deep within the monotony around me;
    All I see is many like me!
    Compromising with the routine and the emptiness of daily life;
    The water looked calm from the outside, but there lived a void inside.

    Every new person walking in to the routine,
    Like a colored drop, was lost,
    Either being one of us,
    Or occasionally, when many colored drops falling in
    Painted us in a new gloss!

    Everything around me was changing, yet there was no fulfillment.
    Trapped! I felt in all this coloring and slow change.
    Bound I felt like the millions around me;
    It was the glass that held the water – that bound me.

    The tranquility broke, as tough the hidden hand; had shaken the glass.
    All the people felt the shake; it was only for a few who were now awake.

    I was one of the few, whom the agitation drew,
    Unhappy with the state around me,
    I moved from wall to wall, bottom to top; In search of that inner peace.

    In my confused search, I found –
    A bubble – A bubble that grew out of the agitation around me.
    On which I decided now to ride.
    From the random motions – I was now moving to the top.

    It had now opened up a new horizon to me,
    As I raise to the surface;
    The inner dissatisfaction, calms down,
    With a larger view around

    I sensed a new beginning,
    With the mental agitation calming down
    I was bound no more by the walls of the glass,
    Or the image that stuck with many of the coloring around.

    Freed from my bound; I moved on…
    Liberated by the bubble, from the mental agitation,
    This was now a new beginning – unbound, undisturbed.
    I moved on…
    Awaiting a new role – a new place.
    I had but found in myself an inner peace,

    – Chi