Saturday, January 26, 2008

Singapore's Existence

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, 2nd Minister of MICA, visited Google recently to learn and share insights on the development of IT and engineering in Singapore, US and globally. We had a fairly long discussion, about 2 hours, talking on issues ranging from how Google works to the rationale behind scholarships with bonds.

As the new guard of the Singapore government, I talked away with the impression that the minister had thought long about Singapore and its role in the global economy - a very poignant quote from him (paraphrased) "what why and how can Singapore, a place which logically does not deserve to exist, continue to thrive?"

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Technical Jobs in Singapore

Revisiting a popular (relative to this blog) earlier rant on technical jobs in Singapore - what are the problems with technical jobs in Singapore?

Respect, Not Fear

The culture in Singapore is rift with infusions from Confucianism, and one theme is that the young should respect the elder, all else being equal. This somehow translates to managers expecting that junior employees will execute orders almost unconditionally, despite the manager's lack of technical expertise (and even if the manager is an engineer, he or she should know when the topic is out of their own expertise). Managing engineers is like herding cats - organized chaos. You really cannot tell engineers exactly what to do and when to do it. Engineers will feel much more respected if you outline the problem, and allow them to explore and develop solutions by themselves, other than micromanaging them and inspecting their work at every minor milestone. A pet peeve of mine is when managers suggest that a solution should be trivial or easy when they have no technical understanding of the issue at hand, this raises a major major red flag for me - this is why engineers should be managed by other engineers, preferably superstars who have done it all (Maybe people like Vinton Cerf, Ken Thompson, Amit Singhal, and obviously, Larry Page, Segrey Brin and Eric Schmidt). In engineering though, good ideas are king and bad ideas should be vilified - it does not matter if the idea came from the janitor or the superstar engineer. Herein lies another problem with "respect your elders". It has evolved to "fear your managers" in the Singapore context (partially because managers are given so much more power in organizations, which I discuss next) - engineers simply feel uncomfortable pointing out and rejecting an idea that the manager presented because they feel obliged to accept the idea. This phenomena is present to some extent everywhere, but I feel this is particularly problematic in Singapore.

Look, in the sky, it's not a bird, not a plane, it's your new boss

As outlined in my previous article, one, if not the biggest, problem is that in Singapore IT companies, managers are more valued and better compensated than engineers. Everyone pays lip service to "oh, engineers are number one". Even if there is a career path for engineers that reaches to senior management, there will inevitably be a non-technical person with higher status (or more likely, a whole bunch of people) in the organization. This sends a signal that propagates throughout the organization that engineers are not number one - and as non-technical people gain more traction and start making organizational decisions that make no technical sense, engineers will feel segregated and meekly allow non-technical people to make decisions for them. Lather, rinse, repeat, and the original motto of "engineers are number one" is watered down to somewhere along the lines of "engineers. oh. they do stuff that we tell them".

Meritocracy, also from the tenets of Confucianism, is alive and well in Singapore - scholarships are given to individuals who perform exceptionally in examinations and are rewarded with a fast-track career in the civil service. I believe that this is actually an excellent system that has resulted in an efficient and frankly, world-class caliber civil service.

However, it is common to "parachute" management from other parts of the civil service to technical organizations in Singapore (which, unfortunately, constitutes the major players in IT R&D in Singapore). Not to pick on the army (because management movement happens in the entire civil service), but the current policy is for generals to retire when they reach about 45 years old (give or take a few years) - they are considered senior civil servants who are able to head an entire organization, even R&D and IT organizations, which brings me back to the point - are engineers number one?

Treat smart engineers right, and great things happen. Most engineers actually do not be look to be the CEO, or to earn outrageous salaries (which, ahem, people do in the civil service) - but we do hope to be respected. I would feel insulted if engineers are "respected", but are the minority in management. That's lip service, and we know it.

100% right the first time always means ...

The last point which I will not dwell on too much is that we Singaporeans on the whole need to be more advantageous in our thinking - fall a few times, it is ok. IT organizations too, have to accept that good ideas result from a gazillion bad ideas accumulating. If everything you did worked and you reached all your goals, you are not trying hard enough.

Organizations in Singapore expect results very quickly, which is good in the industry, as you want to move fast, but also expect that these results to be the "next best thing". No, separate the two - you want to develop prototypes quickly, but be just as quick to discard it if it turns out to be bad (and to reward that behavior). Otherwise, you just have a bunch of people trying out safe alternatives to get tangible results (but not the next best thing).

Labels:

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

This Article Writes Itself

Mike is a dear friend whom I have known since my undergraduate days in Waterloo. Mike is an astute observer of life and I refer to him as "Mike the Critic".

Blogging is hard work

me: I should just use your quotes.
mike: you should start by saying... blogging is just too much work [smile]. That's what Mike the critic would say

Using Mike Quotes

me: oh yeah
reminds me that i do have a textfile in my home laptop
titled "mike quotes"
mike: that's "Mike's" quotes
(you can add grammar nazi too)

AAPL is a good buy

Mike: so I feel safe with my AAPL investment
missed out on the iPod
so hopefully this'll be a catalyst for even greater returns
I've hated the cell phone industry for so long
now the hate is gone.

Very critical

me: You are overly critical of everything.
mike: yep, that's me
snob of everything

Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Buying and Selling Lemons

The market of lemons explains why company insurances are so cheap, and the professionals call the key effect adverse selection.

I mean, this has bugged me for some time - why is it so expensive to buy personal insurance for myself, but it only costs a few dollars a month to get excellent life coverage as part of a work package, possibly from the same insurance company that was going to charge you a hundred dollars a month?

It is a simple explanation, and it begins with information, or, to be precise, the asymmetric nature of it. Insurance companies can gather and calculate statistics for life expectancy for the general population, and they can use these numbers to formulate life policies to sell to people at fair value. However, when these insurance companies try to sell such policies, less healthy individuals are more inclined than the more healthy individuals to buy these policies. If you know you are sick, your expected returns from buying a life insurance is higher than if you know (or think) you are as fit as a horse.

Insurance companies have no way of differentiating between the more healthy and less healthy individuals, but soon realize that the people who buy the insurance are more likely to be sick. (And they pay out more than the statistics suggests) To counteract this, companies will undoubtedly increase the prices of the life insurances, which further discourages healthy individuals. No matter what price the insurance is set at, this trend continues. Even if life insurance costs $10,000, individuals who are sick and find the returns profitable will be more likely to buy the insurance than healthy individuals. The asymmetry of information, in this example the health of oneself, causes adverse selection.

In the workplace, however, everyone is given the same life insurance as part of work. Because everyone buys the same life insurance, adverse selection no longer plays a part, and the "fair price" (plus obligatory obscene profit-margins) for life insurance can be given to employees.

Labels: , ,