Taking the Lead : Manu Parpia

Interview Questions

Full Interview with Manu Parpia

Manu Parpia:

Manu Parpia: The first thing you need to be clear about is the fact that you cannot be always right. What matters is your mental makeup. You need to do two distinct things: first, constantly isten to your customers. And second, harbor a fear of failure. Customers tell you what they need the most — not how you should innovate or come up with radically different products or services. That, you need to do yourself. But listening to your customers ensures that you are always abreast of evolving market changes. That keeps companies constantly driven and ensures that they come up with good ideas. It also forces them to keep their minds open, to think radically, and to develop solutions that meet relevant requirements.
The fear of failure or the paranoia that their competitors are gaining on them, keeps companies grounded and on their toes. When this fear is added to innovative ideas that companies develop by listening to their customers, they create a path to get to the top and the ability to stay there. This is my recipe to gain competitive edge and be a market leader.

Manu Parpia:

It is a fact that companies have to balance the two to survive. If you just keep looking at long-term goals, it is only a matter of time before you're dead. And, with shorter-term goals alone, yogeu will not be able to survive  for too long. Here, planning is quite critical for the organization that wants to figure out its long-term goals and then create a roadmap to achieve them. With the direction in sight, they will be able to move faster towards their goal.
Another critical factor is to keep questioning that direction itself. Otherwise, you'll continue to be oblivious to the changes occurring around you, your organization, and your stakeholders.
You need to remember that at every stage you are answerable to your stakeholders and it is your responsibility to do your best to ensure steady returns for them. If you are embarking on a plan that may not guarantee immediate returns then you should be transparent with your stakeholders.

Manu Parpia:

Let me give you an example. Let’s say you are implementing ERP at your organization, which promises to provide consolidated results in a very short time. If the project is not able to achieve that, then according to me, it's a failure. But if you have achieved your promised benefits by increasing your budget by 50 or 100 percent then the perception of that being successful changes. In that case, you can at least say that though you spent double, generations to come will benefit from your initiative and build further on, depending on their needs.
But perception of success can be tricky and should be carefully dealt with becasue success means different things to different people. While success for a user means that his or her expectations are met, IT leaders may get lost in the specifics of a project. Even our development staff gets bogged down in the ‘how’ and not ‘what did you achieve’. The ‘what’ is more critical than the ‘how.’ I would say that the definition of success for a project boils down to this one question: Did you achieve what you set out to achieve?

Manu Parpia:

Well, a company may establish all sorts of indices to measure customer satisfaction. But, though there is no malignant intent, these indices can easily be distorted. Customers are usually nice people and when they give feedback they do not want to unnecessarily rock the boat. Hence, the real way to judge customer satisfaction is to figure out the number of issues that were escalated and whether you got repeat business. You also need to ask yourself if your users consider you a partner or a pain. If you are considered a partner, people will come to you with their problems. If you are considered a pain, people will avoid coming to you. This can simply be the best way to judge customer satisfaction.

Manu Parpia:

I think both engineering services and PLM solutions have been extremely conservative. In fact, I feel that in some ways they have been laggards as IT revolutions do not take place so easily in this domain. I think this is a mindset problem because even CIOs often keep themselves away from it. Though things are changing now and CIOs are increasingly getting involved with engineering IT, engineering services are still restricted to product design and manufacturing departments. It is considered a niche-within-a-niche and is controlled extensively by users. The engineering services and PLM on the other hand, still report to the relevant business groups and not to the IT department. The outsourcing opportunities in PLM and engineering services have been in the nascent stage for the last five years. They are developing at a far slower pace than BPOs and other IT businesses. That’s why I think it is a conservative sector.

Manu Parpia:

This has a lot to do with the size of an organization. While CIOs at smaller organizations are swiftly getting involved with the engineering and PLM technologies, CIOs at larger organizations are slow movers in that regard.
Because if you are implementing SAP corporatewide in a large organization, it touches every element of the organization in one way or another. But when it comes to the niche aspects of PLM, it is relevant to no more than 15 percent of users. But things are changing and now we are approaching a number of our customers for our PLM solutions through their IT departments.

Manu Parpia:

The best way is to say that you will provide clear competitive advantage. I think it is the best way to get the full attention of your management. For example, in 1996, when I was at Godrej Pacific, we deployed a nationwide online network through VSATs for our supply chain. It provided our customers with an updated status of their stocks and receivables, among other things, irrespective of their location in India. None of our competitors had that edge. This project, thanks to IT, gave us the competitive advantage that lasted for about five years. Hence, I believe IT should strive to be more than just an enabler; it should be a provider of competitive advantage. This way, IT has an opportunity to not only transform organizations and individuals, but also change market dynamics.
Obviously, the second best way to get management buy-in is traditional and also effective in nature: establish concrete ROI justification.

Manu Parpia:

First of all, you need to have ownership. You must take responsibility for yourdecisions. Innovation is the other factor. You can follow the tried-and-tested path, but it is always nice to deviate and dothings differently. I believe that seniormanagement should expect IT leaders tocontinuously learn and innovate.

Manu Parpia:

It is more important to consider what others perceive of my style rather than how I define it. I would like to believe that I am decisive and lead from the front. Rarely, would I ask someone to do something that I wouldn’t do myself. The core of my leadership style is integrity. I am upfront and say what I mean, obviously with reason, objectivity and responsibility. I am fairly aggressive and there is always a hint of paranoia in me that keeps pushing me, as I strongly believe that we as a company should always be at the forefront.

Manu Parpia:

I don’t think boards can drive the role of a CIO, barring a few exceptions if there are any at all. The board can be an instigator or a catalyst. A CIO’s role has to be driven by initiatives. However, it completely depends on the CIO. In my perception, most Indian CIOs are currently driven by costs and implementation rather than innovation. It's time that it changed.

Manu Parpia:

Personally, I think CIOs need to be on the management team or managing council. I believe that any C-level person has to be there. I am sure CIOs would want to be among the top management. The fact that he is not on the managing council makes me wonder why one would stick on in such a company. If a CIO is not part of the managing committee he will be able to contribute just like any other employee who isn’t a part of the management council: by following instructions. It’s a fairly unreasonable expectation from a CIO, who is not on the managing committee, to deliver out-of the-box. He can be an implementer — not an innovator. Hence, I think it is critical for CIOs to be on the upper management echelon if they are to add significant value to  business.