No more honeymoons..


The BPO industry needs to reassess their ookt, awkt, owkts.


Hitherto the industry has managed to cater to its needs by picking somewhat easily available smatterings. Instead of developing a more suited high-end training design, fell short every time. Successors know only what the daddy taught them, but the industry needs some smart prodigies who can outshine daddies. The focus is on training the trainers on what they themselves got to know from their progenitors. They pick someone from the production floor, and simply train on somehow borrowed modules. No value addition, and a very little practical implication. The value addition, high-end knowledge based techniques, custom made training designs, which are more suited to the industry needs are so distant, as the industry is seen struggling to find reliable shoulders to share burden with.

Instead of developing a new solution, which is in jibe with the present needs, the Training vertical of most of the BPO’s has developed expertise in different stupendous ways to kill time.

Successors imbibe the inheritance with a misbegotten faith in accuracy and applicability of the inherited knowledge, which has no practical implications. As people come and go, and most of the times restrict themselves in boundaries defined by the authority; limit themselves to ooze admiration only. Even if someone defer to old philosophies, cannot seriously follow through to bring change. They simply flow with it. The present state of affairs predisposes us to be submissive and not to think beyond. Somehow, made us believe what we would have never otherwise.

If we dwell on the same old technique which seemed promising then, we are highly delusioned, as it will never going to work that way. We have to find break through techniques, find the best-suited solutions, as things are changing rapidly.

I changed a lot many jobs put all the ages together, and I believe innovations do not come with a group working together. As most of the times, groups only hang around, and kill time and resources. Adding very less than what they initially agreed on while joining the group. The idea is to encourage the innovative community as opposed to the innovative pyramid.

Participation, not hierarchy!

Making it easy for quite genius innovators to surface ideas, and taking innovative ideas to custom-made applications.

Try to beat the big No (hierarchy), which somehow implicit that if you don’t belong to a certain level of the pyramid you can’t surface ideas. This is what eventually stops you from envision, from being innovative, and to build state of art business models.


The final output of training is somewhere close to zero; and we are left with the big question: Was the training of any help?

The answer is a big no!

Moreover, these days they say, “You can never change the character of a Scorpio”, “They’ll speak the way they’ve been speaking, and neutral accent is good”.

Seems quite true at times! However, doesn’t it suggest that we’ve been spending money just like that? Ten eleven years in the business and we never thought of something that could work. Too bad!

The average expenditure on training a batch of 25 new recruits is twenty five thousand across industry per participant, and this does not include any facility other than training that an employee would enjoy (no pick-drops, meals, etc.)

It’s a trend across the industry that a certain %age would somehow fail to clear training program and is asked to leave. This trend is not quite apparent in sizable originations, may be because they can somehow employ that %age elsewhere because of their business diversification. But the fact is that a noticeable %age is not employed to do the work they were initially hired for. The idea is that every player in the industry gives up.

We have two options here: learn the ropes like the way every one does and feel good about it; or try to get to see follies to find something that would click. Either do regular business or redefine business.

Money waste is still o.k., as we had the pretext of being new in the industry. But for how long! And, did we learn anything from it? Or we are accepting it as a reality of life. It’ll be like the way it is, or may change with its own snail pace. Give me a break!

All this is so hard-wired in our brains, which stops us from what we should be doing instead. We have to act, if not before time, at least when the time itself is crying for it.

The fact is that we need to reassess our training modules and the pyramid. It has been proven with time that the backing module is not worth the paper it’s written on.

The growth of the industry is contingent on how well we transition with credible domain expertise. And the big shots say that we don’t have training support which can help the growing needs of BPO, training institutes are no better than the industry’s in-house training program; the out-source outsource to facilitators for that purpose only.

We need to widen the horizon of knowledge delivery, need to get it in line with high-end quality needs.

A noticeable %age of the handpicked resource fails to meet expectations to clear training every time. And out of those who somehow clear, majority fails to put to use whatever they are expected to, after the so called training.

If we need something strongly enough we should do something about it, not just wait for change to happen by itself. The language training institutes know not more than the core industry; have only economies of space and resource. The resource, most of the times, at a later stage in their career, ends up with BPO. The shift again is of no help to the business.

Across the industry, the training didn’t help much as did the self-learning and an inclination to learn. Most of staff still speaks the way they were used to, irrespective of the umpteen numbers of training sessions they’ve been through. 70-80 modifications is way too less. As the policy to cherry-pick didn’t help, we’ve got to draw the line somewhere.

We’ve got to dump the Dumb charades, Pink pajamas, How is your’s, Chinese whispers, et. al. All these suggest me of a perfect way to kill time, as you don’t have much to share (knowledge). The Jones is also falling short of being a real help, then why not play game! We have to learn to respond to immediate exigencies and not start to vote for Pink pajamas or Fussy ducks.

The reason why I m so peculiar about the strengthening of training knowledge base is, that I’ve been in the industry for long, and know of major players and their strategies and escapes. The education system will take its own time to realize the need for industry based training or something that has some practical application.

Since we never had a system to monitor sounds, and we simply borrowed a system having little practical use in a total different state of affairs, may be because of economies of ease and pain in developing something new. How easily we give up to our own creations is what that amaze me. As we simply ponce around being correct spelling-wise, as opposed to being sound-wise. To change the system to sound centric from spelling-centric need some initiates. Hitherto, we’ve followed a weak model which has regulated sounds, instead of just the opposite, what we should have.

I’ll be the happiest person on earth, the day I see all men realize the importance of sound, speech, words in its true sense. Which is not possible if we don’t tell everybody of the easy way to relate to what they dread of, the sound.

It is very evident that we always needed a paradigm in one form or the other, to refer to; something that could standardize the usage, worldwide. Picking spellings as a paradigm to determine sounds was an easy escape. Sounds should be universal and if something has to vary, let it be the rhythm only (refer Onescript page,_______)

Our unprecedented love for spellings killed our sounds. The most popular theory in linguistics suggests that peripheral organs are responsible for the way we speak. Not quite true (refer to page no.___ for the insight). Most of the countries, which did not speak English initially, simply borrowed the model native speakers used. The borrowed supportive model, which didn’t have anything to support the sounds; seems to regulate sounds but not at all good for words. The focus had been on the correctness of spellings, to remember them as they had always been. The mainstay of Educational system in most of the Southeast Asian countries had always been on educating people of the benefit of being Spelling-wise as opposed to being Sound-wise.

As students have always escaped out of the torture of learning sounds as they only had to write to pass examinations. However, they always had difficulties with pronunciation in the real world.

It has been observed in southeast countries that people know spellings of a lot many words than the sounds (which are not right most of the times), which is inversely so in a country with native English speaking population.

I have heard a lot many libertarians from Southeast Asian countries, especially India, crying that it really does not matter if you pronounce a word differently than a native speaker; “if it’s a proper noun, you can say which ever way you like”.

Oh my god, please kill me! If they are so liberals, then why do they worship the text (spellings), and why the heck they mispronounce their native language words? Why did they anglicize their native language words? (Refer to page______). The proclivity to put script ahead of speech is damaging to languages worldwide.

What we really need is a shift from a script centric to sound centric education system! And no more honeymoons please!












Cut or no cut.

Cut or no-cut.
Recession clouds are eager to engulf economies, and researchers suggest not cutting on training budget.
When cost cutting seems worthwhile, and we are cutting on almost everything, then why not cut on training as well.
Perhaps, recommend investing in staff, as it will improve productivity and help us save money.
They say, “effective training can reduce staff turnover, encourage loyalty, improve motivation, reduce attrition, increase productivity and help us bond with customer better.”
But what’s the benefit in keeping training budget as high as were in good times, when the training vertical is extensively engaged in administrative work.
Administrative work!
Yes, let us face the reality now!
Ask yourself, if your training department simply kills time or is engaged in other non-core functions.
A major %age of the total training work hours is spent on administrative work. We have to draw a line between training administration and core training.
Administrative functions have taken the place of development/research. Research/development and training are inseparable.
We need dynamic managers to introduce made to order knowledge solutions to meet ever-changing industry needs; and if we still have to cut on something, it should only, and only be the recurring expenditures.
Sometimes, even a dynamic training manager can’t do everything, we can expect either.
Hiring a promising training manager won’t help us much if we are working on a priori philosophies, with no practical implications; if is not bringing in the result.
All this does not necessarily mean that we cut down on training.
We definitely need to invest in training resource development to ensure maximum returns; and we must always ensure maximum utilization of training resource.
We must always test the effectiveness of training interventions, its implication before we apply.
It’s time we evaluate if training programs are promising enough in terms of results, considering the time and capital investment. Should eliminate programs, which do not even support the training objectives. We need to induce empirical methodologies rather than those, which are just methodologies. We clearly don’t have to be working on them anymore, as they simple do not work. Must always test the effectiveness before applying, if we really want to survive this phase. We should endeavor to build knowledge base to help us survive, as knowledge base development is the only redeemable grace left.

Read if you can.

Text in Cutspelling.


Th Space Race was th competition between th United States and thSoviet Union, rufly from 1957 to 1975. It involvd th efrts by each of these nations to explor outr space with satlites, to be th 1st to send there a human being and to send mand and unmand missions on th Moon with a safe return of th humans to Erth.
Tho its roots lie in erly roket tecnolojy and in th intrnationl tensions foloing World War II, th Space Race efectivly began with th soviet launch of Sputnik 1 on 4 october 1957. Th term orijnated as an analojy to th arms race. Th Space Race became an importnt part of th cultrl and tecnolojicl rivalry between th USSR and th U.S. during th Cold War. Space tecnolojy became a particulrly importnt arena in this conflict, both because of its militry aplications and du to th sycolojicl benefit of rasing morale.

Rokets hav intrestd sientists and amatrs for at least 2,100 years, and Blak Chinese soldirs used them as wepns as erly as th 11th century. Russian sientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky theorized in th 1880s on multi-staje, liquid fuel rokets which myt reach space, but only in 1926 did th americn Robert Goddard desyn a practicl liquid-fuel roket.

Goddard performd his work on roketry in obscurity, as th sientific comunity, th public, and even Th New York Times scofd at him. It took World War II to catapult roketry into notoriety. This proved a harbnjr for th futur, as any “space race” wud becom inextricbly linkd to militry ambitions of th cuntris involvd, despite its mostly sientific caractr and peceful retric.

In th mid-1920s, jermn sientists had begun experimntng with rokets which used liquid propelnts capabl of reachng relatively hy altitudes and distnces. In 1932, th Reichswehr, predecesr of th Wehrmacht, took an interest in roketry for long-ranje artilry fire. Wernher von Braun, an aspiring roket sientist, joind th efort and developd such wepns for use in World War II by Nazi Jermny.

Th jermn A-4 Roket, launchd in 1942, became th 1st such projectl to reach space. In 1943, Jermny began production of its succesr, th V-2 roket, with a ranje of 300 km (185 miles) and carrying a 1000 kg (2200 lb) warhed. Th Wehrmacht fired thousnds of V-2s at Allyd nations, causing massiv damaj and loss of life. Th damaj, howevr, was not as gret as a simlrly weitd conventionl bom because th V-2 warhed lakd a good detnation device. Because of the hy speed of th V-2, th warhed tendd to explode aftr it had burid itself sevrl feet in th ground, reducing th potential damaj.

At th end of th war, competing soviet, British, and U.S. militry and sientific crews raced to captur tecnolojy and traind persnel from th jermn roket program instlation at Peenemünde. Th USSR and Britn had some success, but th United States benefitd most, taking a larj numbr of jermn roket sientists – many of them membrs of th Nazi Party, including von Braun – from Jermny to th United States as part of Opration Paperclip. Ther sientists adaptd th rokets intendd for use against Britn to othr uses.

Aftr th war, sientists used rokets to study hy-altitude conditions (via radio-telemetry of tempratur and pressur of th atmosfere), cosmic rays, and othr topics. This continued undr von Braun and his coleges, ho became part of th U.S. sientific complex.

Protected: Language acquisition is no puberty.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Habitual imitation.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: English advantage.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Sound probabilities.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: