Shai Agassi, earlier a senior executive with SAP, is the founder-CEO of Better Place. In this TED talk, he blows us away with his thoughts about how we could make countries “oil-free” by 2020. He shares his passionate vision for an electric cars and a network infrastructure to enable the migration to and operation of emission-free vehicles.
Let me stop here and let’s hear from the man himself.
Consulting firm McKinsey has launched a new website called “What Matters”. The site builds on the knowledge derived from some of the best thinkers in the world. They asked though leaders to focus on 10 big issues and take a long view on these. Some of these issues include Geopolitics, Internet, Biotechnology, Energy, Climate Change, Innovation etc. Authors include Andy Grove, Rick Wagoner, John Thackara, Clay Shirky, Eric Schmidt, Gary Hamel among others.
Check it out!
I am no insurance whiz-kid, but, no doubt, it is a fascinating area. I find the field of actuarial science very interesting because of the way it borrows from multiple disciplines like mathematics, finance and economics. And, in many cases, some great application of behavioral economics too.
I was discussing a company’s employee benefits package with a group of people the other day. Specifically, I found their health insurance program very intriguing and couldn’t help chuckling about it.
This company is based in Singapore and has a self-administered health insurance plan i.e. the company doesn’t buy group insurance for the employees from the market, but instead provides health benefits to employees from it’s own funds. In Singapore, the medical system typically works in the following way:
The insurance plan of the organization I was talking about, reimburses 80% of the total medical expenses, if you go to the GP. And, it reimburses 70% of the total medical expenses, if you need to see the Specialists after the GP consultation. So, effectively, if you have bigger health problems, there is a lower percentage of reimbursement. One could look at this benefit structure as the company’s way to manage risks i.e. not making itself liable for higher payouts for medical bills of employees with relatively more complicated health problems. But, to me, there is a more subtle message in here. I also sense that this is a small, gentle incentive for employees to pay attention to their health and stay healthy. It is almost akin to having a small penalty if you have slightly complicated health problems.
The economics of incentives continue to fascinate me!
The Strait Times carries a piece of news today titled “$100 m boost for service”. It says:
A $100 million push to bring Singapore service to the next level has been launched.
The money will go towards funding training and other programmes for staff and supervisors in the retail, food and beverage, health and transport sectors.
It will also be used to pay for research on service, and to monitor customer satisfaction levels.
Also part of the plan: Promoting, publicising and recognising good service.
While this is a well-intended initiative, I hope there is sufficient focus on “incentivization” of good service. As I noted in my earlier post on the “built-in” service charges in Singapore restaurants, the practice doesn’t adequately encourage great customer service, because the “incentive” is guranteed. So, in my humble opinion, a more balanced approach which focuses both on behavioral changes and up-skilling, alongwith dangling a ‘carrot’ would be more useful.
