Wednesday, October 20, 2010

"IT"s Impact !

Its been close to 2+ years since the world turned into global recession. The worst effected was US, which indirectly effected countries like India and China, who had bulk revenues coming from the US.

These countries were seen more as revenue generators than revenue creators in the IT fraternity. However, a lot has changed in the recent times, with a stable GDP each year recorded by China & India they are looked upon as the next destination for investments by all. We have every other country, government and political leaders lobbying for making their mark in these economies. To support my argument I am giving the example of IBM
Net Income Rises 12 Percent buoyed by strong performance in Brazil, Russia, India and China as well as solid sales of analytics software and services.

IT has always been an everygreen field for investment right from its inception. It might have faced a few hiccups once in a while, but has always comes back to business with a bigger boom. This is turing power and economoy into the hands of the 3 world countires. This only exmplifies the magnitde of impact IT has!!! Hence organizations who are not IT-friendly must start looking at it more seriously and be up-to date with the current technology.


  1. "IT is good for investment", "organizations must be IT friendly". How is this two related? Your observation is perfect, your conclusion isn't.

  2. If organization are IT friendly then they can reach the maximum potential of their firm! Hence, its always good to invest in IT.

    To validate my theory, I would give the below example:

    For every $1 invested in IT you get $17 returns, in form of direct cash, increased sales, increased marketing, increased customer satisfaction etc. On the other hand every $1 invested in tangible items like manufacturing, production etc would give a $1 return. Hence if organizations are IT friendly; then they would do good investment in it and hence achieve profitability. This is the main goals of most organizations.

  3. Hmmm... I misunderstood the term "investment" in your article. Makes sense.