Case study –HR - 1

Satish was a Sales Manager for Industrial Products Co in City branch. A week ago, he was promoted and
shifted to HO as Deputy Manager - Product Management for a division of products which he was not very
familiar with. 3 days ago, the company VP - Mr.George, convened a meeting of all Product Managers. Satish's
new boss (Product Manager Ketan) was not able to attend due to some other preoccupation. Hence, the
Marketing Director - Preet - asked Satish to attend the meeting as this would give him an exposure into his new
role.

At the beginning of the meeting, Preet introduced Satish very briefly to the VP. The meeting started with an
address from the VP and soon it got into a series of questions from him to every Product Manager. George, of
course, was pretty thorough with every single product of the company and he was known to be pushy and blunt
veteran in the field. Most of the Product Managers were very clear of George's ways of working and had
thoroughly prepared for the meeting and were giving to the point answers . George then started with Satish.
Satish being new to the product, was quite confused and fared miserably.

Preet immediately understood that George had possibly failed to remember that Satish was new to the job. He
thought of interrupting George's questioning and giving a discrete remider that Satish was new. But by that time,
George who was pretty upset with lack of preparation by Satish made a public statement " Gentlemen, you are
witnessing here an example of sloppy work and this can't be excused"
Now Preet was in two minds - should he interrupt George and tell him that Satish is new in that position OR
should he wait till the end of the meeting and tell George privately. Preet chose the second option.
Satish was visibly angry at the treatment meted out by George but he also chose to keep mum. George
quickly closed the meeting saying that he found in general lack of planning in the department and asked Preet to
stay back in the room for further discussions.
Before Preet could give any explanation on Satish, George asked him "Tell me openly, Preet, was I too
rough with that boy?" Preet said "Yes, you were. In fact I was about to remind you that Satish is new to the job".
George explained that the fact that Satish was new to the job didn't quite register with him duing the meeting.
George admitted that he had made a mistake and asked his secretary to get Satsih report to the room
immediately.
A perplexed and uneasy Satish reported to George's room after few minutes.
George looking Satish straight into his eyes said " I have done something which I should have never even
thought of and I want to apologize to you. It is my mistake that I did not recollect that you were new to the job
when I was questioning you."
Satsih was left speechless.
George continued " I would like to state few things clearly to you. Your job is to make sure that people like
me and your bosses do not make stupid decisions. We have good confidence in your abilities and that is why we
have brought you to HO. For everybody time is required for learning. I will expect you to know all the nuances
of your product in 3 months time. Unitil then you have my complete confidence." George closed the
conversation with a big reassuring handshake with Satish.

Now the questions in this case study::

1. Was it at all necessary for George to apologise to such a junior employee like Satish?
2. If you were in Satish's place, how would you to respond to George's apology?
3. Was George correct in saying that Satish is there to correct "stupid mistake" of his boss and George?
4. Would you employ George in your company?
5. Did Preet make a mistake by not intervening during the meeting and correct George's misconception about
Satish?
6. As an HR man, how would you define the character of George - bullying but later regretting? Does his attitude
need to be corrected?
7. Would you be happy to have George/Preet as your boss?
Case Analysis

1. Yes it was necessary for George to apologize to Satish. Even though Satish is new to the HO and is much
junior to George, inorder to keep up the morale of Satish, George should apologize. This will not only resassure
Satish's attachment towards the company but also motivate him in learning things faster

2.If I were in Satish's place, I would thank George and promise him to learn things well within the given time.

3.The word 'stupid mistake' creates confusion. George only meant that Satish should not make the top-authorities
feel that they have made a wrong decision by promoting Satish. What George wanted was Satish's support.
Hence the bosses expect Satish to work according to the policy (both written and unwritten) of the company

4.Yes I would employ George in my company. The ability of one to realise his mistake is truly appreciable
especially if he is in a much senior position

5.Not really. It was alright for Preet to remain quiet dring George's talk. But he made it a point to remind him
after the meeting.

6.George is a natural task-oriented leader. He becomes people - oriented only when stimulated. When he is into a
task he does it with full dedication. He is a trustworthy person. He has to enhance his soft-skills by making him a
equal task-oriented and people-oriented leader.
7.Yes I would be haapy to have George or Preet as my boss.

A general comment : Satish's boss should have familiarised Satish with the formalities of the meeting with
George.
Conclusion :
When a person goes up in a career ladder he has to have an over all view of the people and the processes. He has
to understand that it is people who does the processes. He has to understand the importance of HR Management.
At the same time he should be uncompromising in the processes and quality. This would make a leader a class
apart.
1.Was it at all necessary for George to apologise to such a junior employee like Satish?
2. If you were in Satish's place, how would you to respond to George's apology?
3. Was George correct in saying that Satish is there to correct "stupid mistake" of his boss and George?
4. Would you employ George in your company?
5. Did Preet make a mistake by not intervening during the meeting and correct George's misconception about
Satish?
6. As an HR man, how would you define the character of George - bullying but later regretting? Does his attitude
need to be corrected?
7. Would you be happy to have George/Preet as your boss?

1. definitely its necessary to ask sorry.

2. thank you sir. i wil prove my best . (since vey honestly he has apologised)
3. we cant say it is the right ans. but it would help an empoyee to undestand that they are also human beings and
so some time they too do mistake
4. i wil 5.yes . he should hav explained on the spot. 6. of course 7. no
Adam was new to the job, therefore himself was in the process of getting oriented to the job. However he did
faulter by not taking the buddy request by Roy seriously.
This was probably the only mistake that he committed....for which he later apologised
Case study – HR - 2
Adam, fresh from school was a newly recruited HR practitioner. During his 1 month into the job, he was
asked to be in-charge of the orientation programme for the entire organisation. Being new, he followed
closely to the processes. Recently, Roy joined the organisation and Adam is required to orientate him. On
Roy's first day of work, Adam brought him around the organisation for introduction to the rest of the
staffs. Unfortunately, Roy's assigned mentor was not around hence, Adam was unable to make an official
introduction for Roy to meet up with his mentor. In the afternoon, during the HR briefing, Adam
mentioned to Roy that there is a buddy system in place but is only on an opt-in basis. Roy requested to
opt for a buddy. Adam was rather surprised by Roy's request as according to Adam's manager-Jean, that
no one in the organisation has requested for a buddy.

Hence, Adam checked with Jean on the criterias in getting a buddy for Roy and according to her, Adam
found out that it need to be someone preferably from Roy's dept. Having clarify on the criterias, Adam is
supposed to get a buddy for Roy, unfortunately, this issue was clearly forgotten by Adam due to his busy
schedule as he was involve in other HR matters as well and he did not follow up with Roy's request
promptly.

One week later, Adam met Roy in a lunch gathering and Adam greeted Roy and asked him casually how
is he doing and if he has adapted well to his job. Roy, asked Adam blatantly and angrily where is his
buddy that he has requested. At that moment, Adam recalled on the existence of this request and
unwittingly told Roy jokingly that he thought Roy was joking with him on the request for a buddy as he
did not admit to Roy that he has clearly forgotten about the whole issue. Roy was very angered by Adam's
response and told him off that he was very serious in getting a buddy and that its Adam's responsibilty to
do so. Adam, clearly embarassed and guilty about his mistake, apologised immediately and promised to
get him a buddy. On the very day, a buddy-Sam, was found for Roy. Roy, was very unhappy with Adam
and confronted Adam and his buddy when he is able to have an official meet up session with his mentor.
Adam explained to Roy that the organisation has no current practice in place for meet up sessions to be
arranged between mentors and mentees and its a practice for mentees to take self-initiative to do so in
arranging for meetings with their mentors and also that his mentor is currently out of town and will only
be back the next day. Adam, himself being a new staff also was at that moment in time speaking on
personal experience and also based on what Jean has told him. Sam, who was present agreed and helped
to explain to Roy on the practice. Roy kept quiet and Adam unknowingly thought that Roy has
understood with the organisation practice. Hence, Adam did not continue to check with Roy on this
aspect.

The following day, Roy had a feedback session with his manager and Adam was called upon to sit in as
part of the orientation programme. Roy brought up the issues on Adam's failure to get him a buddy
promptly and that he was not introduced to his mentor at all. He complained about the poor management
of the HR mentor and buddy system and that it was not effective at all and that he expressed that he is
very unhappy with Adam as he felt that he is not doing his job at all. Adam tried to explain to Roy and his
manager about what happened and also reassured Roy that he will take his suggestions of improving on
the system and was apologetic about the issue. He told Roy's manager that he will bring Roy to see his
mentor after the session as his mentor is back in the office after being on leave for the past week. Roy was
still very unhappy with Adam and continued telling Adam off in front of his manager.
Qn:
1. On a HR practitioner point of view, what should Adam do to resolve the issue?
2. Roy is very unhappy with Adam and holds it against him even though all has been done and followed
up. What should Adam as HR do to resolve this and should Jean,as Adam's manager do something?
3. What role does Roy's manager play in this issue and should he be implicated?
.

As an HR practitioner, Adam should let Roy know the whole situation and apologise, which he
does. As far as Roy's manager is concerned, it is upto roy whether he wants to implicate him or
not. Implicating him will only complicate the situation which is not needed.

As for Roy, he should get a life and move on in the organisation rather than harping on a single
fault by Adam. It s understandable that he felt disappointed by the firm, but he should consider
the fact that in organisation sometimes these lapses happen. that is not to say it doesnt matter but
after Adam apologised, he should forgive that.

Fair enough, he complained about Adam, I think Jean should just warn Adam, as he is new. Also
Jean should make sure Adam goes through the necessary procedure and knows them well, lest he
should repaet such a mistake.
 Case study HR- 3

Case Study on New Performance Appraisal System at Xerox - In the mid-1980s Xerox
corporation was faced with a problem—its performance appraisal system was not working.
Rather than motivating the employees, its system was leaving them discouraged and
disgruntled. Xerox recognized this problem and developed a new system to eliminate it.

Old Performance Appraisal System - The original system used by Xerox encompassed seven
main principles:

 The appraisal occurred once a year.  The ratings were on a forced distribution,
 It required employees to document their controlled at the 3 level or below.
accomplishments.  Merit increases were tied to the summary rating
 The manager would assess these level.
accomplishments in writing and assign  Merit increase information and performance
numerical ratings. appraisals occurred in one session.
 The appraisal included a summary written
appraisal and a rating from 1 (unsatisfactory) to
5 (exceptional).
This system resulted in inequitable ratings and was cited by employees as a major source of dissatisfaction. In
fact, in 1983, the Reprographic Business Group (RBG), Xerox’s main copier division, reported that 95 percent
of its employees received either a 3 or 4 on their appraisal. Merit raises for people in these two groups only
varied by 1 to 2 percent. Essentially, across-the-board raises were being given to all employees, regardless of
performance.

New Performance Appraisal System - Rather than attempting to fix the old appraisal system, Xerox formed a
task force to create a new system from scratch. The task force itself was made up of senior human resources
executives; however, members of the task force also consulted with councils of employees and a council of
middle managers. Together they created a new system, which differed form the old one in many key respects:

 The absence of a numerical rating system.  Prohibition in the appraisal guidelines of

 The presence of a half-year feedback the use of subjective assessments of
session. performance.
 The provision for development planning.
The new system has three stages, as opposed to the one-step process of the old system. These stages are spread
out over the course of the year. The first stage occurs at the beginning of the year when the manager meets with
each employee. Together, they work out a written agreement on the employee’s goals, objectives, plans, and
tasks for the year. Standards of satisfactory performance are explicitly spelled out in measurable, attainable,
and specific terms.

The second stage is a mid-year, mandatory feedback and discussion session between the manager and the
employee. Progress toward objectives and performance strengths and weaknesses are discussed, as well as
possible means for improving performance in the latter half of the year. Both the manager and the employee
sign an “objectives sheet” indicating that the meeting took place.
The third stage in the appraisal process is the formal performance review, which takes place at year’s end. Both
the manager and the employee prepare a written document, stating how well the employee met the preset
performance targets. They then meet and discuss the performance of the employee, resolving any discrepancies
between the perceptions of the manager and the employee. This meeting emphasizes feedback and
improvement. Efforts are made to stress the positive aspects of the employee’s performance as well as the
negative. This stage also includes a developmental planning session in which training, education, or
development experiences that can help the employee are discussed. The merit increase discussion takes place
in a separate meeting from the performance appraisal, usually a month or two later. The discussion usually
centers on the specific reasons for the merit raise amount, such as performance, relationship with peers, and
position in salary range. This allows the employee to better see the reasons behind the salary increase amount,
as opposed to the summary rank, which tells the employee very little.

A follow-up survey was conducted the year after the implementation of the new appraisal system. Results were
as follows:

 81 percent better understood work group  70 percent met their personal and work
objectives objectives
 84 percent considered the new appraisal fair  77 percent considered the system a step in
 72 percent said they understood how their the right direction
merit raise was determined
In conclusion, it can be clearly seen that the new system is a vast improvement over the previous
one. Despite the fact that some of the philosophies, such as the use of self-appraisals, run
counter to conventional management practices, the results speak for themselves.

Questions:

1. What type of performance appraisal is central to new system at Xerox? Which, if any, of
the criteria for a successful appraisal does this new system have?
2. Given the emphasis on employee development, what implications does this have for
hiring and promotions?
3. How do you think, management feels about the new performance appraisal system?
Why?
4. Are there any potential negative aspects of the new performance appraisal system?
 CASE STUDY – HR 4
CASE STUDY - Sheila Learns Through Experience
Three months ago Sheila looked forward to her promotion to supervisor. After four years in the
department, she was confident of her abilities, and knew her staff was capable and experienced.

Today, Sheila isn't so sure she was cut out to be a supervisor. There seems to be no end to her
workday. During office hours her day is filled assigning work and reviewing results. Also, there is
a steady flow of visitors, and the phone rings constantly. In the evening, when she would like to
relax, she has to take care of administrative matters such as reading mail, answering letters,
preparing budgets and completing performance appraisals.

In frustration, Sheila asked her friend, Carol, to join her for lunch. Sheila said she had something
important to talk to her about. At lunch, she told Carol she was thinking about giving up her
supervisor's job. She said she just couldn't face a career of working 60 hours a week. Carol listened
and then said there might be another way. If the only issue was the time required to do the job,
perhaps a review of how Sheila was using her time might help. After listening to Sheila describe a
typical week, Carol asked the following questions:

Consider Sheila's situation and, answer the following questions:

1. Does she appear to be making effective use of delegation?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

2. If her visitors are employees, how might she avoid interruptions?

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

3. Should Sheila consider establishing a "quiet time" when she would receive no calls or
visitors? If so, when might be the best time of day?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

4. Sheila feels she should assign all departmental work and review all results. Is there a more
efficient way?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

5. What other ways could Sheila gain more control over her use of time?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Case Study – HR 5

Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd – uses stay interviews to keep flock together

Maruti Suzuki Uses Stay Interviews to Keep Flock Together SHREYA BISWAS NEW DELHI
Exit interviews, when employees quit, are common practice in many companies. But automobile major
Maruti Suzuki (MSIL) is using ‘stay interviews’ to cement a long-term tie with its employees. For the
past three years, MSIL has regularly reached out to its employees to understand their aspirations,
problems and expectations. It has subsequently come up with several changes in the performance ratings
scale, career progression policy and employee referrals. “It makes sense to probe employee minds while
they are still working in the company and take their feedback for changes rather than asking for it after
losing them to competition. Then you have the time to implement these,” says SY Siddiqui, MSIL
managing executive officer, administration (HR, finance, IT).

Senior employees, from the post of DGM and above, are specially trained to conduct such
interviews. The idea is to make candidates comfortable and draw their views in an informal conversation.
Based on their feedback, the company has brought in several changes in its HR policies. For the first time
this year, for instance, it altered its performance ratings scale. The previous four-grade rating scale, which
was: excellent (top 10%), very good (next 30%), good (next 50%) and fair (last 10%), was revised to a
five-grade scale: exceptional (top 10%), star performer (next 25%), high performer (next 25%), performer
(next 15%) and average (5%). Employees perceived a ‘good’ rating as ‘not-so-good’, meaning, the
rating’s connotation was not representative of performance. Also, adhering to the bell curve was
becoming difficult with ratings primarily being distributed only in the first three categories. “Wording
makes a lot of difference about how people feel. For instance, someone who gets the grade ‘exceptional’
will think he has contributed a lot towards the firm’s performance and will continue to perform well,”
says Prateek Duhan, 28, manager, steering and suspension, supply chain division. “We made our
employees happy by making an emotional connect and removing grades such as ‘good’,” adds Mr
Siddiqui.

Based on the feedback, the company has also changed its career progression policy last year. The
company shortened career tracks by offering promotions at the junior management level if employees
notched up the topmost grade for two, instead of three consecutive years. Rohan Chatwal (29), a
beneficiary of the new policy, says, “I feel extremely motivated as I am the only one to have done this
from among the batch of 20 management trainees who joined in 2008.” Since 2009, MSIL has also been
encouraging its employees to refer deserving candidates, rewarding them for this. Last year, a total of 27
candidates joined MSIL through the referral scheme. MUL’s changes have received appreciation from
other quarters too. “What is appreciable is that a company of Maruti’s scale and size has been able to
implement this. Especially the idea of stay interviews, and the fact that these are conducted by trained
people,” says Mohinish Sinha, leadership and talent head Africa, Asia Pacific, Hay Group

Questions:

1. Stay interview and employee retention is needed in current scenario – validate your analysis.
 Case study HR - 6

CASE RELATED WITH INDISCIPLINE

FACTS OF THE CASE

Spundish Engineering Ltd; having a strength of more than 500 workers . Canteen facility was
provided to its workmen. Majority of the workmen were working in three shifts. The canteen timings
were displayed outside the company and on the notice boards. The canteen timings was strictly
followed by the workmen and the management . The canteen was running on contract basis. The
contractor had clear instructions from management to follow the timings. The canteen was supervised
by Personnel officer and security officer. On Sunday (weekly off for mgmt employees) Mr. Pawar
security officer from administrative department was taking round at about 2.pm. He found one of the
workmen, Mr. Jadhav working in the first shift, lying motionless. He was shouting at canteen boys
to provide him lunch. Mr. Pawar went in canteen and asked Mr. Jadhav why he was sitting in canteen,
as the canteen was closed. Mr. Jadhav started abusing Mr. Pawar in filthy language and told him that
he was a union member, therefore he should not ask him any question. He created a scene of terror at
the place .After hearing the high pitch other workmen took Mr. Jadhav from there. Mr. Pawar
reported this matter in writing to the management

Q.1 Write your comments on the behaviour of Mr. Jadhav?

Q.2 Was there any mistake on the part of canteen boys?

Q.3 Who was liable for punishment?

Q.4 Do a swot analysis on this issue.

KEY ISSUES

Instead of welfare officer, canteen was managed by Personnel and security officer Mr.Jadhav a
workmen working in first shift, was in canteen at about 2pm,(after the working hours of canteen)and
was shouting at the canteen boys and asking for lunch. Mr. Jadhav started abusing to Mr. Pawar in
filthy language. He created a scene of terror at the place. The matter was reported by Mr.Pawar in
writing to the management.

Strengths:

Display of canteen timings on the notice board and outside the company. The timing was strictly
followed by management and the workmen. The Contractor had clear instructions from the
management to follow the timings of the canteen strictly.

Weakness:

The canteen was not managed by welfare officer

Opportunities:

Standing Orders were strictly followed . The worker visited the canteen after the canteen was closed.
Worker used Filthy language against officer

Threats:

The workmen was a union member He had the support of other workman as he was working with the
company for a long period

Alternative courses of action

Providing counseling sessions to him. Stern warning letter to be issued. Issue of show cause notice.
Charge sheet should be issued based upon preliminary enquiry.

Evaluation of alternative course of action

Issue of chargesheet Reasons: Use of abusive language against his superior officer , Creating a scene
of terror , He was showing attitude as he was the union member

Recommendation of the best course of action

Preliminary enquiry To issue charge sheet to the workman Domestic enquiry should be conducted,
following the Principles of Natural Justice According to the report of the enquiry officer, appropriate
action should be taken by the Disciplinary authority.

Q.1 Write your comments on the behaviour of Mr. Jadhav?

Very rude and aggressive towards canteen boys Showing disrespect to the management by using
filthy language Creating a scene of terror

Q.2 Was there any mistake on the part of canteen boys? No, canteen boys were following the
instruction given by management.

Q.3 Who was liable for punishment?

The workman Mr. Jadhav, was liable for punishment for his severe misconduct.
Case Study – HR 7

May 2008

Sam is a final semester student from a B-school and specialising in marketing. Sam gets a campus
placement in a leading bank beating 33 other students who appeared for that vacancy for the post of
area sales manager.

Jan 2010

His marriage is on the cards and he has been asked to put down his papers next month.

June 2008 –December

Sam was reporting to Regional sales head -S.K. Sam not only performed well in induction program
but also did reasonably well in his sales. During this period the bank was in aggressive expansion
mode and branch output was watched with hawk eyes by the top management.

In no time Sam realised that sales is no mean task and started feeling the heat. The pressure kept on
building on all the branches of the bank.

His personal life during this period:

Sam was a guy who was quite sociable in nature; he had to look after several non works assignments
like attending marriages, parties and all sort of get together. He had a close friend P.K. who used to
commute with Sam in Sam’s vehicle. P.K. had to stay late in the office as he was in accounts
department. Sam would wait for P.K. and then they both used to leave the office quite late. To
unwind in the evening, Sam used to chat on the net and this way he tried to relax. Sales being a high
pressure job, and to relax, by and by Sam got addicted to chatting. During the course of time, as
sometimes happens in sales, one quarter did not go well for Sam. He received a “pep talk” from
national head for that. Owing to his addiction, coupled with a feeling to vent off his tension, Sam
started chatting in the office on his system. So his normal routine would be : coming to office, couple
of sales call in the field , followed by coming back to office and chatting for couple of hours, then
meeting with his boss, then waiting for P.K. and while waiting he would chat again…. His sales
figures went downhill and his boss S.K. was under pressure to take a call on Sam’s future in the bank.
One day he was caught chatting by his boss. Boss immediately called him in his cabin and gave him a
choice: either resign in one month or be terminated.

Q.1.Is the boss S.K justified in his decision? Give reasons

Q.2.Assuming you are in Sam’s shoes give a solution

Ola Cabs – business Model

Ola Cabs is a taxi aggregator - just an entity between end user and cab drivers. Ola and Uber, both
are just following the strategy for expanding their business operations and gain customer base in
India (and around the world for Uber). So, Ola started after Uber and hence Ola 90% is a copied
model of Uber. Though, the founder claims it isn’t. Ola use to pay heavy payouts to drivers when they
were new. This pay has got drastically down now. So their strategy was to gain the maximum number
of cab drivers to get into their business model, and of course they got success. After this, they made
the cab service extremely cheap by offering various deals to the customers - to which even people
who use to travel in bus were taking cabs (I hope most of us remember the free trips with Taxi for
sure for 5kms, when Ola bought it) Again Ola got success here.

Since, Ola is trusted company and has a brand name, they are still not cheating anyone - neither
the customer nor the drivers. As their business model is very strong. The business model has not yet
changed. I really appreciate it. So, during early days Ola promised minimum Rs. 18000/- per month
to a driver, if his device is active for 12 hours a day. Even if the driver didn’t get trips and got a
revenue of less than Rs. 18000/-, Ola gave it from its pocket. [This model is still in effect] Those days
the drivers use to get huge incentives. There were drivers who earned more than a Lac a month. By
paying these incentives Ola was at a loss, because everyone here knows Ola charged less from
customers and paid more to the drivers.

One thing which not everyone knows is that Ola use to charge 20-24% of each trip as a service
charge. They are charging this since the starting but drivers didn’t notice it as they were getting 3-4
times of that 20-24% as incentives. Now that there are ample number of vehicles on the road, all
those good days for the drivers are gone. Incentive is limited to Rs. 500/- for 10 trips a day and Rs.
700/- for 12 trips a day. Still cutting off 20-24% as service charge. Drivers are still at a profit if they
complete minimum of 10 trips a day. Ola, as we all know is a well funded company - so it didn’t affect
Ola to pay more to the drivers. People are used to cabs now because of many many reasons - comfort,
fast, easy, anywhere, etc. So it will not effect it if some drivers leaves Ola which is not a good idea as
still they make good monthly income.

"And now Ola makes 200000 trips in a day!"

Many cab drivers are now not able to complete 10 trips in a day. Still the company is not going in
profits like Flipkart. But now the Ola days are coming. What they have invested will take back in
double. BTW Ola was valued at $5 billion as of September 2015. Once the company goes public, will
bring a few more billions to the valuation.

OLAcabs was founded by Mr. Bhavish Aggarwal and Mr. Ankit Bhati in December 2010. Mr. Bhavish
Aggarwal has graduated with a B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering from IIT Bombay in 2008
and worked for Microsoft Research for 2 years. Ankit Bhati has done his B.Tech in mechanical
engineering and MTech in CAD and Automation and had been working for start ups like Wilcom,
QED42 etc. Both of them had the entrepreneurial itch in them and thus started OLAcabs, headquartered at
Mumbai. What began in 2010 and what it is now, I really need not have to elaborate, because I am sure
each one reading this article must have benefitted from a OLA ride whether as a pleasure visit somewhere
or for a important business meeting and today they are spread across several cities and have in offer many
different size cars to suit a customer’s need at the most competitive price.

Mr Bhavish says that Many of us would have faced bad taxi experiences and that the main reason to start
OLA is to overcome this and avoid difficult situations of an operator leaving you stranded in the middle
or the cab just not showing up.

THE BUSINESS MODEL - The business model works on a very simple concept. OLAcabs acts as a
facilitator in providing cab-booking services to customers through multiple channels. Customers can book
their cabs through the website, call centre or the popular app. OLA does not OWN any of the cabs. Only
those drivers with valid permits duly authorised and verified by transport authorities can sign up with
OLA and they could be either self-employed or work for an operator who owns multiple cars. Just like
how we use an OLA App, the drivers get access to a driver mobile app on their Smartphone once they
register with OLA. This is done only after a thorough check of authenticity and conducting due diligence
of commercial papers and personal papers of driver and operator. The drivers have a flexibility to decide
their own time to login to OLA Application and accept requests for rides from customers. They may
choose to remain logged out of the system as per their convenience.

The source of revenue for OLA is the commission for each drive and the costs they incur are also quiet
low as they majorly have to invest only on the technology. From when they started in 2010, the sales have
doubled month on month and the graph is a super upward trend and may you not be surprised to note that
during the year 2014, the revenues grew more than 10 times over past year.

RECENT BUZZ

OLA not only bridges the gap between customers and drivers but also are bringing micro-
entrepreneurship to students. A civil engineer, a BA student, a student of journalism and psychology have
one thing in common , that is, they are all cab drivers. It serves as an extra income for the students to
support their education and their family and they also seem to enjoy driving. Since OLA does not have
strict contracts regarding days, hours and time period for driving cars, it’s all on the stamina and
flexibility of the students.

During March 2015, OLA acquired taxi for sure to expand its lead over Uber and Meru.

Innovation has no full stop and change is but inevitable, OLA has now started a pilot project called OLA
store to deliver groceries and this is being made available to select customers. The store proposes to cater
not only to the general needs like vegetables, fruits, groceries but also electrical products, health
supplements and medicines.

They aim to cross the coveted $ 1 billion gross revenue by next quarter by clocking at least 5 lakh trips
every day.

CONCLUSION - So OLA has been and will be a great technology platform for transportation and
offering flexible options of booking and payment to customers and flexible timings and facilities to
drivers. And shortly, we are going to experience a big boom and great facility of getting our grocery
delivered to us with ease. Kudos to the idea of the founders and something more to make us proud is that
it has been started in India by two genius Indians. Jaihind!!