In any economy all corporations operate within a macro economic, social, political and cultural systems. These differ from country to country regarding the role of markets

even in the era of globalization. That is the role of market and government interventions in the market differs from country to country. However, in the era of globalization and trade liberalization most countries allow market forces to determine economic affairs to a greater extent.

In the 21st century the technological developments became more rapid compared to the previous centuries particularly in the information technology. This to some extent has an impact on changes in business practices and business models and enabled companies to embark business on a global scale. This also enabled the companies the ability to co-ordinate activities and to share information on real time and plan international operations. This also enabled the emergence of international capital flows. This gave rise to the emergence of multinational corporations and transnational corporations operating in many countries. In addition, the liberalization of trade and the dismantling of trade barriers increased trade between countries. It also changed the nature of competition. That is the competition became dynamic than static in nature. For example e-commerce, business networks, alliances, joint ventures and changes in decision about inbound logistics, outbound logistics, when where to produce at what scale, marketing and sales, distribution channel strategies to gain cost leadership, differentiation and focus became vital for sustainable profitability in the long-term by corporate entities of small, medium and large enterprises.

In the context of nations, governments are to provide a stable economic and political environment and prudent regulation of the financial system. As well, build social capital by improving knowledge base and skill development. Government also must provide a stable social climate so that market can work efficiently and attract capital and allocate capital efficiently where the economy can reap the maximum benefit and continue to upgrade its competitive potential by technological innovation and investment in research and development. This addresses the ability to improve the efficiency and productivity and quality of its products and service on a continuous basis. That is, the government can encourage innovation in the private sector by private public partnership in research and development and commercialization and provide incentives and fiscal measures for that to happen.

In addition, it can encourage entrepreneurship in the private sector so that the economy as whole encourages new branch of industries to emerge and provide a dynamic business environment. In addition, the nations can improve its competitive potential by investing in physical infrastructure developments like roads and rail network. communication

networks, energy and electricity infrastructure and assist in the development and application of information technology in small and medium firms to improve their productivity and competitiveness. These initiatives are vital particularly to developing countries at various stages of development to participate as quickly as possible in international trade opportunities as well to gain competitive potential to enable to increase their standard of living and the quality of life in general for the majority of citizens and reduce income disparities. In summary, the role of government is to provide an environment in terms of regulation, institutional structure and policy initiatives in micro and macro economic level to enable corporations to make economic decisions and to facilitate to have the possibility to enhance its productivity, provision of quality human resources, provide and improve the physical and communication infrastructure. Above all, to assist corporations to continually gain competitive advantage by reforming its processes and products and innovate new process and products on a continual basis. Governments must also provide rules for effective corporate governance to be socially responsible.

In essence, the role of government in this era of globalization, is to provide the corporations a dynamic market environment, where technical progress and innovation takes place in a dynamic manner to continually upgrade their competitive edge in industries and sectors, which has the maximum benefit as an economy as whole.

In addition, it can make the labor market more flexible to improve the productivity and the cost competitiveness of firms and their fore contribute to sustainable profitability of enterprises of all sizes and control inflationary pressures. This is also vital to gain

competitive advantage to become more cost effective and there fore improve their ability to compete dynamically in an international market place.

Corporate competitiveness depends on the corporation internal strengths and weaknesses and the opportunities and threats it faces in its immediate microenvironment as well as the opportunities and threats faced by the macro environment. In other words, the competitive advantage of a corporation depends on its strategic planning and its effective implementation. That is, the corporation business model must able to develop appropriate and effective strategies analyzing its competitive forces, from new entrants, substitutes, supplier bargaining power, intensity of rivalry of existing corporations in an industry, consumer bargaining power as well as recognizing the dynamic nature of market in the contemporary global market environment. It must also take in to consideration the role of government and regulation and the environmental and social impact of its operations particularly if the corporation is operating on a regional or global level.

The corporations competitive advantage comes in general from cost leadership, differentiation and focus by continually innovating new processes and products using appropriate inbound logistics, outbound logistics, marketing and sales strategies and determination of where to locate operations. It also have to decide when to produce and the level of co-ordination, which will give cost leadership and quality of its products and services comparable to its competitors to earn profits sustainable in the long-term in a socially responsible manner.

The business model can be based on Porters five forces model, which considers economic competitive factors on a static manner, which is a sever limitation to develop strategies. The companies must also consider the dynamic nature of competition and the value of alliances and networks as well as joint ventures as a strategic option and e-commerce initiatives to upgrade or gain competitive advantage. As well, it can also use balance scorecard, which is financial and non-financial to measure performance in critical indicators of performance, which determines its competitive strength or potential compared to other firms in the industry. This will enable the companies to identify weaknesses and develop strategies to upgrade those performance deficiencies and to innovate new processes and its ability to innovate and commercialize new products on a continual basis, which is competitive in price and quality compared to its competitors.

In addition, it must also have an organizational culture, which recognizes the importance of environmental issues and social responsibility. As well, the companies must recognize the importance of sustainable development principles as a guide to its policy formulation and decision-making processes to meet regulatory standards. This will increase the potential to self-regulation rather than to be regulated by government regulation, which may be very costly and may erode competitive advantage compared to other industries and firms.

Porter model bases corporation's strategies by studying the external environments opportunities and threat. Porter has identified five forces that shape every industry and every market.

According to Porter, these five competitive forces determined the intensity of competition and the profitability and attractiveness of an industry. In Porters model, the objective of corporate strategy must be to revise these competitive forces that improves the position of an organization or corporation. In Porter's view, analyzing these five forces and information derived from this analysis management can decide how to use some characteristics to gain competitive advantage.

The five forces in Porters model are threat of new entrants, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of consumers, threat of substitutes and competitive rivalry within the industry.

In porters view, the bargaining power of suppliers is high when few large suppliers dominate the market, no particular substitutes for inputs, the customers for the suppliers are fragmented, the switching costs to one supplier to the next is high, suppliers integrating forward in order to obtain higher prices and margin.

In Porter's model, the bargaining power of customers is high when there is concentration of buyers, the supplying industry comprise a large number of small operators, supplying industry operates with high fixed cost, the product is undifferentiated and can be replaced by substitutes, switching to alternative product is relatively simple and not costly, customers have low margins and price sensitive, can produce the product themselves, the product is not strategically important to the customer, the customer is aware of the cost of the product, possibility the customer integrating backwards.

The threat of new entrants is high in Porter's model, which depends on the extent of barriers of entry. They are economies of scale, high initial investment and fixed cost, cost advantage of existing players due to experience curve effects of depreciated assets, brand loyalty of customers, protected intellectual like patents and licenses, scarcity of important resources such as qualified expert staff, access to raw materials is controlled by existing players, distribution channels are controlled by existing players, existing players have close customer relations, high switching costs for customers, legislation and government action.

In Porter's model, the threat of substitutes is determined by brand loyalty of customers, close customer relations, switching costs of customers, relative performance of substitutes in terms of price, current trends.

In addition, Porter's model the rivalry between existing firms will be likely to be high when there are many players of about the same size, players have similar strategies, there much mare differentiation between players and their products and there fore more price competition, low market growth rates and barriers for exit is high.

The Porter's model can be used to determine industry attractiveness as it provides insights about profitability and there fore supports to enter in to an industry or exit from an industry. As well, the model can be used to compare the impact of these five forces on the organization and the competitors. Competitors may have different options to react to changes in competitive forces dependent on their resources and competencies and may change the structure of the whole industry.

In this manner the Porter model enables the organization corporate planning and strategy development to gain competitive advantage. In combination with PEST-analysis, five forces Porter's analysis can reveal the future attractiveness of industry. Political, technological, economic and socio-demographic changes can affect the five competitive forces and thus affects the industry structures. In this regard, tools such as scenarios may determine potential changes in competitive forces. If organization can analyze using the Porter's model, the current and future state of competitive force the management can develop options to influence these forces to their organizations interest. However, the organization must be aware of industry-specific models, which will limit options to compete effectively. But the organizations industry-specific strategies change the impact of competitive forces on the organization. In this respect, by influencing the power of five forces it has an objective to reduce the power of competitive forces by appropriate strategies so that it can change the impact of these competitive forces to its advantage and gain a competitive edge in the industry. For example, if one uses the Porters model to reduce the bargaining power of suppliers depending on its resources and competencies of its managers and staff it may pursue strategies such as partnering, supply chain management, supply chain training, increase dependency of suppliers, build knowledge of supplier cost and methods, and take over of suppliers or a combination of strategies which suits its internal strengths and organizational resources.

The corporations must aware that Porter's model has some major critiques in its value to develop strategies and options in its own and base their strategies only on the Porter model. The critiques of Porter model, are that it does not recognize the new entrants and other industries may completely change business model, entry barriers and relationship along the supply chain within short time and the Porter model do not give any advise for preventive action. As well, the Porter model is based on achieving competitive advantage in an industry, which does not take in to consideration the value of strategic alliances, electronic linking of information of all companies along the supply chain, virtual-networks and others.

Overall, the limitation of Porter's model arises from the fact it does not account for new business models and the dynamics of the market in the current market environment. It is necessary the corporations must be using other models in conjunction with Porter's model to develop strategies and must not rely heavily on the Porters model in its own. This is because the company may not consider other strategies and preventive strategies recognizing the dynamic nature of competition in the current market conditions and changes in business model used in other industries and by new entrants to compete effectively in an international arena. The corporations also must give due consideration of environmental issues, cultural issues and government regulation to enter in to new markets and to use of alliances, virtual networks and electronic linking of companies along the supply chain as strategies to improve their competitiveness in a global market place, which is dynamic in nature.

As discussed above in the Porters model a countries economic, political, technological and social factors affect the structure of industries and the quality of its resources in terms of human capital, managerial ability, entrepreneur culture, which determines productivity and cost structure and quality as well as to effectively respond to market changes in a timely manner. Even if the company identifies strategies using the Porter model it must be able to have the resources as explained above and competencies to implement such strategies. This capacity is dependent on economic, social, political and culture of a country. The structure of an industry is affected by these factors and it forces it affects the attractiveness of industry and the long-term profitability of an industry. This affects the profitability within an industry. The country, affects the future potential state of five competitive forces in a dynamic manner. It affects certainly the competitiveness of a company. That is the characteristics of a country affect the competitiveness of a company applying the Porters model.

In summary, competitive nature of an industry in the current global market environment is dynamic in nature. As the technological advances will become rapid every countries macro environment also will become more dynamic and unpredictable in the future. Nations and corporations must continually monitor the external environment and continually review their strategies is in these dynamic environment and to use a variety of models to develop strategies and review these models on a continual basis for its value for the corporations long-term profitability and competitive advantage. Countries must be able to create conducive environment for private sector to compete effectively and continually reform their economic, political and social institutional structure. In addition, the government must reform corporate governance of local and international companies so that the market system to work efficiently and allocate resources to industries and sectors, which will bring maximum benefit and to improve its productivity and potential for further technical and social progress.

The country also must provide efficient physical infrastructure, cost effective energy supply, information and communication network, investment in knowledge and research and development, provision of skilled force, stable financial and economic system so that the corporations have the quality resources in terms of technology and quality human resources so that they can reap the maximum competitive advantage in a dynamic market place. In addition, to become more competitive it must reform the labor market to become more flexible to improve productivity and become more competitive in cost terms in dynamic market conditions.

As discussed above the Porter model at least as an initial step in analyzing the competitive forces will shed insight in to the strategic options to enhance competitiveness. However further preventive strategies have to be developed, as the market place is dynamic and use other business models to further analyze the external situations scenarios so that it can develop a comprehensive strategy, which is more effective, and there is more probability of success.

In addition, it must also be aware of environmental issues like global warming and other environmental issues and must act as a socially responsible manner in international market to be competitive. The corporations must also consider value chain analysis to become more cost leaders; differentiation of its products in terms of price and quality compared to its competitors and develop strategies by appropriate configuration in terms of inbound logistics, outbound logistics, marketing and sales and the level of co-ordination, which meet the above objectives and contribute to competitive advantage particularly for corporations involved in international business and industries. As well, the strategies must be compatible with a corporation's strength in terms of internal resources and competencies so that they can reap the maximum benefit and the realization of such benefits.

The corporations must become more flexible to meet customer needs quickly as possible and must have a culture of innovation and product quality and customer service to meet customer needs more effectively than the competitors and change is welcome in an organization.

As discussed above, it can be argued the Porter Model has some value in developing effective strategies, if the management of corporations also use other complementary models to analyze further and refine their strategies to gain competitive advantage and recognize the dynamic nature of markets and improve its processes and products continually and adopt strategies to improve its productivity by improving its human resources, innovative potential, cost reduction strategies and the flexibility of the organization in response to the changes in the external environment.. In addition, it can be concluded that the country characteristics certainly have an effect on the competitiveness because the political, social, economic, cultural and technological factors affect and change the industry structure and there fore the competitiveness of that industry and the corporations operating in these industries and the attractiveness of the industry. As well, the country can affect the productivity and cost structure of company and their ability to innovate and there fore affect the international competitiveness.

When companies like Ericsson announce progressive lay offs of twenty thousand staff, after a first quarter pre-tax loss of 5.4 billion Swedish kronor (US$500 million), you suspect that there is big trouble brewing. When a global giant like AOL-Time Warner announces a first quarter US$50 billion loss, your suspicions grow. It is no wonder that equities market melted around the world.

A quick perusal of the media might even have led you to conclude that the bricks brigade was justified in its belief that the fate of the clicks clique was sealed. Soon everything would be back to normal - as that word was understood in the business world for most of the second half of the 20th century.

It was (and remains) tempting to go along with that view, which is almost comforting in its implied certainty, its confidence that the world and the economy in the 21st century will grow and develop much as they did in the 20th century.

There is an alternative view, which we ignore at our great peril. That view is that we are at a point of inflection, a point from which even greater and faster waves of change are going to engulf and alter every aspect of our modern lives.

If we manage the transition well, the benefits could be considerable. For example, a credible study found that generalized use of e-commerce could increase Australia's gross domestic product by 2.7 per cent, around US$7 billion, by the year 2007. The prospects for the US would be comparable, as would be the case with any developed country.

Another study has shown that increased involvement by businesses in the Australian online economy would increase annual GDP by up to 2.6% and would also increase employment. Again, these findings would apply equally to the US economy.

This essay is an illustration of what an alternative view of our future might entail, as we move towards the middle of the first decade of the 21st century. We will start with a brief discussion of a fundamental and much misunderstood term, the new economy.

What is the New Economy?

The new economy is about the new tools, based on the acquisition and exchange of information, which enable new business models, industry structures and forms of organization. The emphasis is not on technology, but on modes of organization and on business models.

In the new economy, information and knowledge gradually replace financial and physical capital as the drivers of value creation. Information and knowledge are bracketed together because information per se is akin to an inert substance.

Information has no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance; one must add something to make it useful and that something is belief (in the form of expectations), derived from experience (or knowledge = information + belief).

The new economy is necessarily a global economy, developing beyond the range of international governance structures and challenging the form and the raison d'être that has supported nation states over the last couple of centuries. Countries themselves are being changed through economic pressure, while the emergence of truly global companies is leading to ever-greater size and greater capacity to challenge national governments.

The resources we need, particularly financial and human capital, are becoming more mobile. As a result, policy and industry changes abroad are being transmitted more quickly into our economy and society, increasing the pace of domestic change and decreasing the time for government policy responses.

In these circumstances, it is easy to see wisdom in the view that “governments should do much less…detailed short-term intervention...and [spend more time] thinking about the overall framework.”

What does this mean, in practice? It means that governments should be concerned with identifying fundamental frameworks and with building the national capability to navigate unpredictable and complex futures - for more than one possible future faces us, as we will see shortly. That capability may be described as a national innovation system.

Countries such as the USA and Australia are fortunate in this, as each country has some experience as a nation that would help to build such a system. Let us look at each country in turn.

Images of the USA

The USA is the largest and most powerful economy in the world and the most technologically advanced society. Throughout the middle and latter parts of the 20th century no one could doubt the strength of the US economy (and its military power). However, for a period that extended across the 1970s and the 1980s there was good reason to doubt the capacity of the USA to innovate.

Prior to the Clinton years, during the Reagan and Bush presidencies, the USA won the Cold War and became the only superpower, but the pundits saw these years as the prelude to the end of US economic supremacy. These were the years when most of us thought that Japan had usurped the place the USA had occupied as the pre-eminent innovator, and even Hollywood was impelled to present images of Japan rising, while the US star was waning.

The 1990s changed all that and, with the wisdom of hindsight, it was always going to be the case that the USA would remain at the top of the pile. Why is this so? As a visitor to the USA and as an observer of American society and culture, rather than a resident, my belief is that there are identifiable factors that drive innovation in the USA.

The first is history, as manifested in culture. The USA was settled and created by entrepreneurs and by non-conformists - though some of the latter proved to be conformists in disguise, starting with the Puritans. The process of conquest and settlement has created a myth that drives and sustains American self-confidence and fuels a risk-taking culture. Americans do not shun failure, as Australians do, for example. Being a bankrupt in a sunrise industry can be a badge of honor in the USA if failure was the result of a daring and innovative approach to business.

Then there is demography. Thanks to the continuing influx of migrants, especially Latinos, the USA remains a young nation and youth generally prevails over age and wisdom in the innovation stakes. Also, the American melting pot continues to provide opportunities for diversity and diversity is another important ingredient of innovation.

Thirdly, there is size. The sheer size of the American economy generates innovation. It is possible for the US economy to support a thousand flowers blooming, with the expectation that at least a few will provide an opportunity to make a buck. Smaller economies cannot afford this luxury; every dollar counts and small economies do not attract much investment to start with.

Let us not forget government. The US Federal Government is a powerful driver of innovation. Without US tax dollars spent in defense-related industries, such as aerospace, the USA would not be the creative powerhouse that it is today. Government purchasing funds large companies, which, in turn, fund large R&D efforts, knowing that, eventually the wheel will go full circle and that the US Government will purchase the innovations the R&D labs turn out.

Lastly, there is education. One might debate whether the average American is well educated, if a liberal education and awareness of the world beyond US shores were the benchmarks. However, the US university system is the best in the world and produces growing numbers of bright, knowledgeable and entrepreneurial graduates, outpacing any comparable system elsewhere. Moreover, because US universities are so well enmeshed in the world of business, there is synergy between educational and business objectives that benefits both.

I may have missed some factors, but I think the images I have chosen tell the right story, as they explain why the US innovation system is and is likely to remain the best in the world. Let me now offer a contrasting view, by painting a sketch of the country where I live, where I am not a mere observer.

Images of Australia

There is a pervasive view here and abroad that while Australians are early adopters of new technologies, Australia is not a “new economy”. Australia is generally regarded as an old economy, relying on primary industries or manufacturing to support its relatively high standard of living.

This is not helped by the images we project abroad. From Nicole Kidman to our golden beaches, to the Outback to selling our wines and our lamb and so on, our promotion of Australia abroad is in line with the view that it is a land of milk and honey, the proverbial lucky country - not a go-getting, entrepreneurial, knowledge-based society.

A factual example might help us to understand what is actually going on. In Australia ten years ago, mining, agriculture and manufacturing stock made up 74% of the stock market's value, with finance and services stock adding up to only 26%. Those proportions have reversed in the last decade, with mining, agriculture and manufacturing making up one third, and finance and services stock two-thirds.

Another pertinent fact: Australia is one of the leading countries in the world in terms of Internet infrastructure, penetration and use. According to benchmarking studies Australia was ranks highly in the world, together with countries such as the United States and Sweden.

Don't misunderstand me, it would be foolish not to sell Australia as a great tourist destination and exports of primary or manufactured products will continue to be very important economically and socially, even in the 21st century.

However, if Australia wants to attract the level of interest and investment required to build our future, it needs to project a more complex, sophisticated image. Australia needs to establish itself as a unique tourist destination, as a producer of resources for the world, and as an innovator in technology and its economic and social uses.

In the words of Michael Krokenberger, the 21st century will require us to build a “cool, light and dry economy”, based on “innovation, knowledge, doing more with less, value adding, being clever”.

This is not new for Australians - and there are lessons here that can be replicated elsewhere.

Building on Old Virtues

Over the years, Australians have pioneered many imaginative solutions to social, cultural, political and technological problems.

The Australian bent for innovation is due to many causes, including the circumstances of the original settlement by Europeans. The harshness of the natural environment, the fragility of the soil and the scarcity of water, together with the blend of many cultures that have settled in Australia, have demanded creative problem solving. Australians have a talent for crafting ingenious solutions to complex problems.

Some solutions responded to uniquely Australian problems, like the stump-jump plough for agriculture. Other great Australian ideas had more universal application, like the black-box flight recorder for aircraft. Many of these innovations have been widely adopted in other countries, often in societies that are larger, wealthier and more powerful than our own, such as the USA.

Australians do not innovate for the sake of novelty or in an effort to be different or to impose their preferences on others. They take a hard nosed and pragmatic approach, focused on realizing the undoubted social and economic benefits technology makes possible. The School of the Air and the Royal Flying Doctor Service are good examples of the positive results that can be obtained by marrying technological solutions to social needs.

A Vision for the Future

How is all this relevant to the rest of the world? Wherever we may be, we live in a global economy. All nations are in competition for the resources needed to make the transition from a traditional to a knowledge economy. There are global competitors, such as the US, the EU and Japan, and regional competitors such as, for example, Australia, Singapore, Korea, and Hong-Kong.

To be effective competitors, developed economies must position themselves as knowledge/service economies, in a world where other economies are catapulting over historical barriers to catch up to us and to overtake established leaders.

If this were a race, then first place would not be in doubt; it belongs to the USA, at least until the latter part of the 21st century, when China may return to the central position it has occupied for most of history. That leaves the rest of us to compete for minor placings, or, alternatively, to avoid oblivion, in the shape of cultural, economic and technological stagnation.

The world is changing fast. Ireland's GDP per head is now higher than Australia's, as is Singapore's. On the other hand, New Zealand, which used to be level with Australia or thereabouts is now way behind economically. Similarly for Argentina, powerhouse of the early 20th century and consigned to the economic doghouse in the early 21st century.

Every developed country has a choice to make: do we go forward, as the Irish have done, or do we stand still, as New Zealand and Argentina have done?

The Foundations of Positive Change

The aim in developed countries should be to promote competitiveness and participation in the global economy. This encompasses both social and economic objectives. There is a strong synergy between economic objectives (“competitiveness”) and social objectives (“participation”), because a sophisticated demand side is crucial to the development of an innovative indigenous knowledge economy.

As more people go online, the network externalities inherent in the technology grow, as do the chances of achieving a critical mass of online activity. Greater cultural receptivity to technology and its uses is likely to engender both greater demand and greater capacity, in a virtuous cycle.

Among its competitors, Australia has some inherent advantages. Australia has low research and development costs, relative to at least some competitors, and relatively sophisticated business service markets. Australia also has a sound regulatory framework - which may prove to be a growing weakness for the USA in the wake of Enron, WorldCom and so on - and an improving environment for competition.

However, smaller economies (such as Australia or Belgium or Thailand or Chile and so on) face significant challenges.

The scale and depth of markets for capital, skills and other resources are small compared to the USA or the EU. This means that countries need to specialize, but without painting themselves into a corner, without ending up in an “ecological” dead end. Australia, in particular, is a long way from the key global centers of economic activity and corporate decision-making - small countries need to compete for notice, for a place at the tables where decisions are made that will shape the future of the world.

Although Australians regard themselves as innovative, translating that into economic and social gains is hampered by a risk-averse culture (hence the importance of cultural receptivity). There is also a negative feedback loop between scale and capacity to manage risk.

The Keys to the Future

In most developed countries, government and private sector activity has focused on the supply side of the knowledge economy equation. For example, Australia has a deregulated telecommunications market and a legal and regulatory environment that facilitates the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure and the development of new communications products and services.

The Australian Government has also provided financial assistance to commercially disadvantaged communities to enable the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure.

In recognition of the potential demand that exists in such an environment, industry must continue to develop new products and services for electronic commerce, security and authentication, mobile communications and general information management. The telecommunications carriers must continue to deploy infrastructure (including broadband), but only in response to known demand.

With all that, the rate of increase in Australian households going online is declining as the number of connected, technically literate households reaches saturation point. All countries will reach this point, even the USA.

If the objective is continuing economic growth and increasing community connectivity, the emphasis must shift to the demand side, to focus on the needs of users of the technology, rather than the suppliers.

One of the main challenges for industry and government is to identify value propositions for users. New products and services need to be tailored to the community and be compatible with users' lifestyles. The technology must integrate itself into the cultural and social fabric and at the same time immerse people in it.

This kind of top down and bottom up integration is not easy to achieve. However, the development and widespread adoption of compelling applications in fields such as health, education, community development and entertainment will drive the further development of the knowledge economy.

To achieve this, application providers need to go beyond “digitization” and automation of existing services, to exploit new capabilities. There is a need to move beyond applications and content generated for the high user audience of males aged 13-25 years, those working in the high tech sector and white collar workers in IT intensive industries.

For this to happen, it will be necessary to tap into the needs and lifestyle expectations of retirees - a fast growing group with an interest in leisure and quality of lifestyle and recognize the trends in consumer demand towards greater customization and interactivity, giving communities the skills and tools to directly participate by making their own content. After all, what is relevant for most of us is what's happening in our local community.

This level of online adoption would embed the technology into the day-to-day lives of families and communities.

New Challenges

There are two main challenges facing the industry in the identifying and development of compelling applications: a shortage of widespread, affordable broadband infrastructure; and the apparent lack of commercially viable market for new, high-bandwidth content products.

In a deregulated market, telecommunications carriers will deploy broadband infrastructure only where there is sufficient demand. In the current environment, few risks are taken with demand forecasts and rightly so. Content publishers will purchase high-bandwidth, sophisticated content only when it is profitable to do so.

These challenges give further emphasis to the need for applications developers to identify and provide products that are culturally relevant and compatible with peoples lifestyles and have high levels of “embedded value” - these are “compelling applications”.

The development of compelling applications will require increased interaction between the technology and the creative sectors - between the scientists and engineers and the designers and artists - to encourage innovation and creativity.

There is also a challenge for government - national, state and local - to ensure that the decisions made in the past do not shackle innovation. Existing networks of interests, public and private, will and must come under pressure, as the new economy reshapes value chains.

The future will be better served by focusing on innovation, creativity, and on forging partnerships across traditional boundaries.

Creating the Future

Developed countries will want a diverse, creative, innovative and financially successful communication industry, where value is created through content and where business models drive technology - and are not driven by regulation. We all want communities and individuals to have access to the content they want, at a price they are prepared to pay. The means of delivery should not be a concern for the user.

We need service providers selling packages of services tailored for each market, with options tailored for individual preferences within those markets. The same range of services may be delivered by broadband Internet in one location, by digital television in another, and by a combination of technologies in yet another.

We may need regulations governing gambling, adult content and spectrum management, but the rest could be left to the market and to general legislation protecting privacy, intellectual capital and so on. The incipient regulation by stealth of the online entertainment in the USA may well be rued by those who want to grow the market, rather than short-term shareholder profits.

A diverse mix of communications technologies is the key to universal access. It may well be the case, for example, that cable services dominate in large cities where a large proportion of the populace is wired and technology savvy. Meanwhile, retirees in Florida may prefer high definition entertainment programming based on digital broadcasting infrastructure. Sports fans could keep up with their chosen sports by watching multi cast subscription television, by cable, satellite or whatever means is best in each area.

It may not be enough that many of the above services are currently available via the Internet. For example, Australia has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world, but Australian Internet take-up rates have slowed and may plateau at around fifty per cent, leaving a sizable proportion of the population without access to networked technologies.

Service delivery via the ubiquitous television set would not be a panacea, but would increase penetration significantly. The objective should be to ensure that people can gain access to government services through a selection of means appropriate to each community and the individual selects the means of delivery, as well as content. Commercial interests could value add to free government services, providing packages tailored to consumers.

For example, a small business may combine e-commerce capability with entertainment for the family and the capacity for narrowcast advertising in the local area. A local government authority may use its service delivery platform to provide services to ratepayers and to service small businesses in the area, in association with a commercial provider that provides access to the “outside world”.

To sum up, while the challenges before us are great, the possibilities are endless, flowing from an orderly transition from the regulated, technology-focused world of today to a world where the focus is on consumers and on content. In the USA, as well as in Australia, the future belongs to the innovators, not the regulators.

References:

• Ananova.com
• ABC.net
• NOIE.gov

Whatever strategies best suited and decisions taken, affects overall activities of an organization and put an organization to top most position. These issues must not be ignored. Staff must not disregard the malevolent certainty of management. Realities of management issues are competitiveness, customer satisfaction, and resources. Strategic management assists managers to work out more successfully.

They must pursue rules and regulations to place their organization at sky high because administrative discipline is of great importance to control the management. They must know policies, threats and benefits for their organization to continue in competitive world. These are the widespread elements of planning.