The National Stock Exchange of India and CME Group, the world’s most diverse derivatives marketplace has announced cross-listing arrangements, including license agreements covering benchmark indices for U.S. and Indian equities.

TCS Financial Solutions,which provides business application solutions to the banking, insurance and capital markets industries, announced that TCS BaNCS has received top accolades in Celent’s ‘Core Banking Solutions For Large Banks’ report.

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance has launched ICICI Pru Ace, which is one of the cheapest unit-linked insurance policy available in the market.

Stephen Dover, Chief Investment Officer of Franklin Templeton believes that India gives better opportunities for equity investors compared with China as the growth potential is stronger and there are more quality Indian companies to choose from.

GE Healthcare launched its first HiSpeed Computer Tomography system from Bangalore facility. The company claims that it is a further demonstration of its commitment to Indian healthcare industry to reduce cost, increase access and improve quality

As India strives to emerge as a major global economy, significant investments are mandated in a number of core sector domains to facilitate this transition.

Only a small percentage of young people have realised the real potential in learning a foreign tongue. They are still unaware of the kind of opportunities available, experts tell

by Jeffrey Phillips There’s a difference between knowing “about” innovation and having experience doing innovation. Just as I don’t compare myself to Lance Armstrong although we both ride bikes, there are skills and knowledge that are manifest in people who lead effective innovation programs that may not always be manifest in your organization. These skills can be learned through training and through careful exercise within your organization, but it is dangerous to presume that people who have an interest in innovation possess the skills and best practices to carry out innovation efforts. This was brought home to me in a meeting I attended recently. I was at a meeting with a number of other people interested in innovation, and we were asked to brainstorm to help solve a particular problem. A person who is an “innovation” leader in his company was asked to facilitate the brainstorming session. An executive from the firm who was facing the problem gave a brief presentation on their challenge and needs, and then the facilitator asked for ideas. The meeting quickly disintegrated because the challenge we were addressing was too large and poorly defined, and the timeframe too small. While the challenge had been presented by the firm’s CEO, it was unclear whether we were supposed to provide incremental or disruptive ideas, or merely validate a course the CEO identified in his presentation. Additionally, no one had done a good job setting a scope – what to include in your thinking or what to leave out for the purposes of this session. At one point one participant suggested that we couldn’t generate ideas until we’d evaluated all the health care systems in all the major economic powers in the world. Unfortunately we only had two hours. So, we got off to a rocky start because the problem was poorly framed (not the facilitator’s fault) and really had far too many interlocking and interchangeable parts (again, not his fault). Also, we did not have a good understanding or framing of the scope – perhaps his fault, perhaps that of the sponsor. Even when the participants tried to extend the scope, the facilitator did not try to reframe the question. Next, one participant, clearly a “Clarifier” from the Foursight model , kept asking clarifying questions rather than submitting ideas. Being able to recognize a clarifier, and understand their needs, would have been helpful, but the facilitator also had failed to establish the rules of engagement. Once we entered brainstorming, we should have been focused on generating ideas instead of asking questions. Without a commonly held set of beliefs and rules, each person was participating in the session with their personal beliefs and rules. Since we didn’t set out a scope or an expected process or set of rules, there was no orderly process for generating ideas. To give credit where it is due, the facilitator did “take off” his facilitator hat and contribute ideas, so he nimbly stepped into and out of the facilitator role, and did a good job capturing ideas. This, though, in my mind was another signal that best practices weren’t being followed. It was clearly a struggle to write down ideas and to manage the group simultaneously. Ideally we would have had a facilitator and a “scribe” to document the ideas. This session led me to believe that many people conducting “idea generation” sessions in corporate America are doing more damage than good. If this example is indicative of what happens everyday in most organizations, then idea generation and brainstorming deserves a negative rap – and many innovation leaders and teams need training on conducting and facilitating brainstorming and idea generation. Here’s what should have happened: Set the ground rules. There are a consistent set of rules for brainstorming, including “encourage wild ideas”, “Go for quantity not quality”, “Don’t judge while ideating”, etc. Clearly define the opportunity or challenge. Make the issue smaller or simpler if necessary. Define the scope – what should be considered and what should be ignored. We should have placed “all health care systems in the world” out of bounds from the start. Allow people to ask clarifying questions before we start brainstorming. Once we start generating ideas, limit the questions, which often change scope. Pick a scribe to capture ideas so the facilitator doesn’t have to write down ideas and manage the group Encourage the reticent and moderate the talkers. Any group, and ours was no exception, has people who are happy to toss ideas out all day long, and those who won’t speak at all. We need to hear from everyone, and perhaps a bit less from some people (me included). Keep the team on task and on target. When the “evaluate all health care systems in the world” statement was made, we should have been reminded that that was out of bounds, and we needed to refocus on what we could solve. Stretch the group when necessary. The facilitator can/should occasionally ask questions that shift the group’s thinking or introduces a new perspective. These ideation rules and best practices are documented in a set of slides OVO has posted here . There are a number of good books written on this subject as well, probably the best is ” Think Better ” by Tim Hurson. These skills aren’t innate and must be learned and reinforced. My concern is that people who work on innovation activities may be leading events but may not be fully trained or may not have all the skills and capabilities necessary to be very effective. And effectiveness in this context matters, since we were trying to solve big problems very quickly with a heterogeneous group. Only good methods and good facilitation was going to get it done well. If your organization is trying to generate new ideas internally and desires to be guided by internal staff (which we think is a good thing), invest in some training to ensure the innovation leaders understand their roles and best practices. Innovation is too important to leave to chance. If it is important to your organization, train your team to be effective idea facilitators! Don’t miss a post – Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group! Jeffrey Phillips is a senior leader at OVO Innovation . OVO works with large distributed organizations to build innovation teams, processes and capabilities. Jeffrey is the author of “Make us more Innovative”, and innovateonpurpose.blogspot.com .

by Mike Myatt You cannot separate leadership from decisioning, for like it or not, they are inexorably linked. Put simply, the outcome of a CEO’s decisions can, and usually will, make or break them. Those CEOs who avoid making decisions solely for fear of making a bad decision, or conversely those that make decisions just for the sake of making a decision will likely not last long. The fact of the matter is that senior executives who rise to the C-suite do so largely based upon their ability to consistently make sound decisions. However while it may take years of solid decision making to reach the boardroom, it often times only takes one bad decision to fall from the ivory tower. As much as you may wish it wasn’t so, as a CEO you’re really only as good as your last decision. “CEO Decisioning” is a skill set that needs to be developed like any other. As a person that works with leaders on a daily basis I can tell you with great certainty that all CEOs are not created equal when it comes to the competency of their decisioning skills. Nothing will test your metal as CEO more than your ability to make decisions. I happen to be the type of person that would rather make the decision than have to live with someone else’s decisions. In fact, I absolutely love to make decisions, and whether it is in my role in the business world, or my role as a husband and father, I want to be the one making the tough calls. That being said, nobody is immune to bad decisioning. We have all made bad decisions whether we like to admit it or not. Show me someone who hasn’t made a bad decision and I’ll show you someone who is either not being honest, or someone who avoids decisioning at all costs, which by the way, constitutes a bad decision. For more than 25 years I have either served in the capacity of a principal owner, senior executive, or professional advisor, and have generally been well regarded for my decision making ability. However like everyone else, I have also made some regrettable decisions along the way. When I reflect back upon the poor decisions I’ve made, it’s not that I wasn’t capable of making the correct decision, but for whatever reason I failed to use sound decisioning methodology. Gut instincts can only take you so far in life, and anyone who operates outside of a sound decisioning framework will eventually fall prey to an act of oversight, misinformation, misunderstanding, manipulation, impulsivity or some other negative influencing factor. The complexity of the current business landscape, combined with ever increasing expectations of performance, and the speed at which decisions must be made, are a potential recipe for disaster for today’s executive unless a defined methodology for decisioning is put into place. If you incorporate the following metrics into your decisioning framework you will minimize the chances of making a bad decision: Perform a Situation Analysis: What is motivating the need for a decision? What would happen if no decision is made? Who will the decision impact (both directly and indirectly)? What data, analytics, research, or supporting information do you have to validate the inclinations driving your decision? Subject your Decision to Public Scrutiny: There are no private decisions. Sooner or later the details surrounding any decision will likely come out. If your decision were printed on the front page of the newspaper how would you feel? What would your family think of your decision? How would your shareholders and employees feel about your decision? Have you sought counsel and/or feedback before making your decision? Conduct a Cost/Benefit Analysis: Do the potential benefits derived from the decision justify the expected costs? What if the costs exceed projections, and the benefits fall short of projections? Assess the Risk/Reward Ratio: What are all the possible rewards, and when contrasted with all the potential risks are the odds in your favor, or are they stacked against you? Assess Whether it is the Right Thing To Do: Standing behind decisions that everyone supports doesn’t particularly require a lot of chutzpah. On the other hand, standing behind what one believes is the right decision in the face of tremendous controversy is the stuff great leaders are made of. My wife has always told me that “you can’t go wrong by going right,” and as usual I find her advice to be spot on. Never compromise you value system, your character, or your integrity. Make The Decision: Perhaps most importantly you must have a bias toward action, and be willing to make the decision. Moreover as a CEO you must learn to make the best decision possible even if you possess an incomplete data set. Don’t fall prey to analysis paralysis, but rather make the best decision possible with the information at hand using some of the methods mentioned above. Opportunities and not static, and the law of diminishing returns applies to most opportunities in that the longer you wait to seize the opportunity the smaller the return typically is. In fact, more likely is the case that the opportunity will completely evaporate if you wait too long to seize it. If you develop the appropriate blend of a bias to action with an analytical approach to decisioning your stock as CEO will surely rise. Good luck and good decisioning… Don’t miss an article – Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group! Mike Myatt, is a Top CEO Coach, author of ” Leadership Matters…The CEO Survival Manual “, and Managing Director of N2Growth .

by Janelle Noble Open Government is everywhere. Governments at all levels, municipal, city, and federal agencies are taking dramatic steps to open the traditionally closed processes and reform their IT structures to go open source and embrace cloud computing. What is the end goal? Well, there are several. At the highest level one could say it is to use the latest technology and social web tools to provide better services to constituents while opening up channels for communication between government, its employees, and citizens to gather feedback and new ideas on pressing issues such as the budget, safety, and transportation. In September of 2009, Tim O’Reilly (who coined the term Web 2.0 in 2004) wrote an opinion piece outlining his vision for Government, or Gov. 2.0 and stated it was more about transforming government into a technological platform. In it he references sites like Whitehouse.gov and data.gov , highlighting the difference between governments providing a purely static informational web site or a site that is a kind of ‘collaboration platform’ and offers web-based services that provide more value to the user. Open Government has been championed not only by President Obama in his Directive , but also on a city level, with Mayor Newsom’s Open Gov Initiative for the City and County of San Francisco which focuses on open data, open participation and open source. With the recently launched ImproveSF.org , the city is furthering its commitment to recognize and tap the valuable ideas from city employees on the city’s most pressing issues, starting with the budget. The campaign, open to all city employees, has only been running for a few weeks and since launching in late February, has gathered 300 ideas, 380 comments, and over 2,000 votes. There are many other forms of open government popping up in lesser known town and city governments across the US. And the trend is not just limited to the United States. Your Country, Your Call is an online competition looking for ideas that will create jobs and prosperity for Ireland. The brainchild of President McAleese’s husband, Dr. Martin McAleese, two winners will receive 100,000 Euros each and benefit from a development fund of up to 500,000 Euros per project. The site is definitely garnering local and international attention and is being promoted through traditional mediums such as television ads as well as through social media channels like Facebook and Twitter. Over 35,000 visitors from dozens of countries have checked out the Your Country Your Call site since its launch a few weeks ago, with thousands voting and commenting on the over 2,000 proposals already submitted. Ireland’s Your Country Your Call TV AD As more and more towns, cities, and federal governments opt to embrace part or all of what Open Government stands for, the platforms that power these initiatives will become more central to their overall success. Brightidea has been offering open-innovation solutions through its WebStorm, Switchboard, and Pipeline offerings for years. These truly enterprise-level platforms incorporate the best of the social web and allow governments to link individual public or private initiatives, create rollup activity reporting across multiple campaigns on a centralized admin dashboard in order to track and monitor activity at all levels. These functions could truly help expand the rollout of Gov. 2.0 as a standard technological platform (as Tim O’Reilly pointed out, one that reaches well beyond IT) which truly transforms the way people interact with government, bettering the lives of citizens all over the world. Don’t miss an article – Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group! Janelle Noble is the Digital Marketing Manager at Brightidea and frequently contributes for Brightidea’s corporate blog, Innovation at Work . Follow her on twitter @janelletnoble .