New technologies emerge in a far shorter time span than ever before in the history of mankind. While many of these technologies are incremental improvements over what is already available, others completely break from the pattern and redefine entire industries, change our mode of thinking about something, or just introduce new concepts to our knowledge bank.

In his 1997 best-selling book, "The Innovator’s Dilemma," Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen segregates new technology into two categories: sustaining and disruptive. Sustaining technology relies on incremental improvements to an already established technology, while Disruptive technology is new, and unexpectedly displaces an established technology. By its very nature, disruptive technologies lack refinement, often have performance problems because these are new, appeal to a rather limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application.

Creativity and Innovation are topics that many of you may have come across in literature, business seminars, and in working through tough problems every other day. Some attribute creativity to designers and artists, others regard innovation as the sole preserve of inventors and engineers. These are certainly not new concepts. And yet, very few people actually realize the importance these concepts have in the age we are living in.

Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, CEO and Co-Founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks—including death itself—at the Stanford University’s 114th Commencement on Sunday in Stanford Stadium. Wearing jeans and sandals under his black robe, Jobs delivered a keynote address that spanned his adoption at birth to his insights into mortality after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about a year ago. In plainspoken terms, his address struck a balance between the obstacles he has encountered during his notably public life and the lessons he has gleaned—for example, from his high-profile ousting in 1985 from the computer company he helped start.

It’s not everyday that you come across a product that makes you sit up and just wonder if you’ve been sleeping all along. And I can simply say there is one upcoming product that made me feel just like that. Never before in my 18 years of working with technology have I encountered a product for which the word ‘wow’ wouldn’t suffice. I guess Google’s search engine is the only technology that comes ‘second’ in my mind…

I agree it might just be the lure of a sexy new technology. But then, if you just go through Microsoft Live Labs’ Photosynth product, well, you’ll realize what I’m saying. So, what is this Photosynth? Nothing much really, if you just look at what it says it does. But then, if you look at what goes behind the front-end and what the ultimate objective of the project is, it’s nothing short of ‘amazingly wowwwwww’.

Outsourcing is no longer a buzzword it once was. From the mid-80s to now, it has reshaped the business landscape in a way that no other management concept has. And it has done so quietly, without the usual hype that so surrounds most new initiatives.However, there have been a fair amount of failures where outsourcing hasn’t quite delivered value. In most cases, this has been the result of poor planning and lack of understanding of how to prepare as your organization looks to outsource its business processes and technology development.

The attached presentation discusses some important concepts related to outsourcing readiness and was delivered by me at an event organized by San Diego State University and its Entrepreneurial Management Center on June 7, 2006. This presentation highlights some of these key challenges and highlights the role of an assessment in mitigating risks associated with outsourcing.

Download the presentation!

For more details on the Entrepreneurial Management Center (EMC) of the San Diego State University, see http://www.SDSU.edu/EMC

I remember the days when data was data, and information was a structured, usable form of that data. And then came knowledge, and a horde of definitions distinguishing data from information, and information from knowledge. We moved on from ‘data’ management to ‘information’ systems. And then we got ‘knowledge’ in knowledge management systems, knowledge bases, knowledge repositories, and more such systems.

I am often asked if this distinction even matters anymore. After all, Google has taken on itself the task of codifying and storing all the ‘knowledge’ that humankind has accumulated over the ages, and for most people, it seems to be succeeding in doing just that. (Although I beg to disagree)!! Imagine a world without Google today. Yes, it’s scary, but is it ‘knowledge’ that we get on Google, or merely ‘information’. Or is it ‘data’? Again, does it matter?

Over the past few years, the Web has evolved from a storehouse of data to a ‘global repository of knowledge’ for individuals, organizations, governments, and every social community for that matter. It has become a pervasive support system for people in their daily routine. How many of us can live without email today? Or Blogs? Or Community Forums?

A fundamental transition that characterizes web today is from a uni-directional information flow, where the publishers of content controlled the web (as in the traditional world), to a more federated structure where user-generated content gives a platform its value. The ‘power’ has moved from the publishers to the users.