Remote hiring opens up new opportunities for IT employees & companies post Covid-19


Initially we weren’t happy being forced to work from home for months. But, now that it has become the new normal, most of us would hate to give up our ability to control location or working hours. There are advantages and disadvantages. First let’s take a  look at the advantages.

Better productivity

Productivity surveyˇ

There are many surveys including the one conducted by the author in his company which point to an increase in productivity. The pie chart shows how our employees thought their productivity had changed.

Two main reasons why our employees thought they had become more productive while working from home were –

  • Better work life balance – more family time.
  • No commute. Saves time and energy.

Research conducted by RescueTime also concurs with our observations.

“The data shows us that people who work from home are more productive” – RescueTime

Credit: RescueTime

Credit: RescueTime

Better Quality of life

As mentioned earlier, our employees experienced better work life balance while working from home. Those who had ageing parents or families that needed their attention could move to their home-towns. This move had 2 benefits

  • Being closer to their parents and family.
  • Being away from the urban epicenters of the pandemic.

Also as per the survey done by RescueTime , most of the employees felt satisfied that  they were able to complete their work well within 8 hours.

Credit: RescueTime

Credit: RescueTime

Career reset

As per a news article in “Livemint” – “Faced with projected fall in revenues and a complete hiring freeze, several IT services companies in India are working on re-skilling initiatives for employees to reduce time spent by employees, waiting for the next client project”

“According to estimates, the online education market in India was valued at  ₹39 billion in 2018 and is expected to reach ₹360.3 billion by 2024. “

Last few months have seen unprecedented growth in online training programs, webinars, workshops, online consulting or counselling sessions etc. Many prudent engineers are using this as an opportunity to reset their careers. Recent upsurge has given rise to economies of scale which has made these opportunities extremely affordable.

This observation is further reinforced by the actual demand reported by Udemy.

A comprehensive look at online learning and teaching around the world and the findings reveal significantly increased demand globally across every segment:

  • 425% increase in enrolments for consumers
  • 55% increase in course creation by instructors
  • 80% increase in usage from businesses and governments

Cross company mentorship chains 

 Online training programs are complimented by e-mentoring which has also seen an upsurge.

There are thousands of mentors and many more mentees on various e-mentoring platforms. The following article lists 20 such platforms.

Here’s what Lis Merrick of CoachMentoring of UK had to say in her article titled transition mentoring to enable your employees to thrive in a pandemic.

“the greatest gift an employer can give at this time is a mentor to support through these incredulous changes in our lives caused by the Covid-19 virus.” -Lis Merrick


The new normal also has had its disadvantages for some. When old models get disrupted it does affect those who aren’t ready for it.

 As per a news article “Benched IT Employees In Cognizant, Hexaware Forced To Resign; Capgemini Cancelling Earned Leaves”

Given the level of uncertainty in the corporate jobs, professionals would tend to work as freelancers or gig-workers.

Geeks are becoming gigworkers

Gigs or teams working on interesting projects could potentially evolve from groups of like minded geeks being co-mentored or being co-tutored in an online program. These new relationships could cut across geographical or company boundaries.

As per a recent article published in The Economic Times

“25-30% of workforce in sectors such as internet business companies, IT, ITES, startups, hospitality, quick-service restaurants (QSR), retail and logistics will get converted to freelance roles over a period of time “

U.B. Rao (COO) at Infosys in an interview says

“Infosys, which employs freelancers, or “gig workers”, expects the so-called “gig economy” coders to constitute 35% of the industry’s workforce in future.”

Notice period

One of the biggest pain points felt by the the IT managers is the long 60 to 90 day notice period that a candidate is required to serve. Hiring readily available freelancers could bring some relief.

Soon some companies would realise the futility of retaining resigned employees who aren’t in the company – both physically and mentally. Signs of this change are already appearing as seen in this article.
“ICICI Bank has issued a notice to a few of its employees reducing their notice period from 90 days to 30 days”

Project based

The day of jobs as we know them in the IT industry are coming to an end.

Companies have started reducing employees on the bench (meaning professionals waiting for projects). Now , they would outsource projects based specific and sometimes specialised work to gig workers. Progressive among the companies would build a force of gig-workers and mentor them by pairing them with senior professionals within the company, thus preparing them for upcoming projects.

Seth Godin has extolled the virtues of working on a project versus doing a job in this article

“Doing a job makes us defensive, it limits our thinking.”

“Working on a project opens the door to possibility.”

As per my experience , candidates prefer being hired for specific project work. However companies don’t always keep their word to the dismay of some candidates who discover that they aren’t assigned to the same or any project.

New contracts

 The loosely termed appointment letters are due to be replaced by contracts that specify the exact project for which the employee or the freelancer is being hired.

These contracts will be formalisation of the understanding that already exists between gig workers. They will be quite different from the fixed bid contracts between freelancers and their employers who don’t have any prior trust relationship. (e.g. the contracts on e-lance or get-a-coder)

No comfort zone

Neither command and control nor “micromanagement” but the peer pressure exerted by their fellow gig workers would stop them from getting in their comfort zone. By definition gigs are small teams which would make it impossible for its team members to hide non performance.

Geography is history

Specialists are accessible

Some specialised “niche” skills are never needed in large numbers. These skills aren’t obviously available in all geographies. Now its become possible to remotely tap these key skills by involving them as gig workers.

No office needed

Virtual teams can be formed without a physical office address. This means that such gigs are going to form quickly increasing the need to match project requirements with individual skills like speed dating.


There is an unmet need for a software platform that

  • Quickly matches project requirements and technical skills and justifies the recommendation and ranking based on an unbiased metric for suitability.
  • Such a platform would equally easily match “project work“ with a “gig worker” as well as a “job” with a “candidate”
  • This platform must give an excellent candidate experience to impress remotely located candidates who are unaware of the company’s brand. Features such as providing instant feedback with career advice the rejected candidates and ability to engage the star performers are essential.
  • Trust relationship with recruiting agencies in remote locations should be quickly formed by transparently sharing the actual status of the referred candidates.
  • The platform should have the ability to do a preliminary technical assessment of niche skills which are new to the company.
  • Allows the company to measure the performance of remote recruiters and recruitment agencies.

Those of you who want to see a tool that satisfies the above criteria can request a demo here


Remote Hiring – A Paradigm Shift

Remote Hiring

Remote Hiring


Covid-19 pandemic has pushed many companies beyond the tipping point to adopt remote working as the new normal. Remote working is quite easy and natural for the knowledge workers – especially those working in the field of software development. This article focuses on how remote working has impacted hiring software engineers and the demands that it puts on the hiring tool being used by the companies.

Accountability and transparency

Talent acquisition managers would no longer have their teams of recruiters next to them. They would feel disconnected and helpless due to the lack of visibility. This feeling would be even more acutely felt while working under time pressure. They will, on a daily basis, need to know what their teams of recruiters have been doing. There has to be a proper measure of performance. E.g. if a recruiter gathers a lot of missing information which results in rejection of the candidate, then the recruiter should be get recognized for saving the time of all the stake holders and for preventing a potential bad hire. Companies should use tools that have proper metrics to measure the performance of their remote teams. In addition to the conventional quantitative metrics such as number of candidates sourced, screened and tested, companies should focus on qualitative measures such as average suitability score. The tool must judiciously assign importance to various selection criteria while determining suitability.

Removing bias and getting feedback

Personal biases introduced by likes and dislikes get discovered in face to face interactions. Decisionmakers subconsciously apply corrections to arrive at an unbiased decision. We need to have a mechanism to remove biases and look at one version of truth in a remote team. A tool that has a metric associated with each selection criterion lends itself well for such a mechanism.

Such a tool would also allow companies to assign relative importance to these selection criteria by assigning weightages. The rationale behind assigning numerical weightages to these selection criteria while calculating the suitability score can be shared with the hiring managers. In fact, hiring managers should be encouraged to fine tune the requirements by refining these weightages. Changing weightages for a reason could be a way to capture and convert verbose feedback into meaningful numbers.

Technical Assessment

 Most companies administer technical tests to assess programming skills. Some of the companies are using on-line technical tests. The pandemic situation has made it virtually mandatory to conduct the technical assessments on-line. Technical assessment can be a quick test with a few MCQs or a grueling code sharing and pairing session. Given the time and attention needed by an expert interviewer to do the later, it might make sense to use the former as a filter. Mobile based gamified tech quiz can make it easy and light for the candidates. There is a bit of a resistance from the senior candidates to undergo online tests. One way to get them to agree is to explain the shortage of technical panels to do a deep dive coding session with each and every candidate. Most of them see the merit of a quick and light quiz as compared to a telephonic round by a non-technical or a semi-technical interviewer.

It is highly desirable for the tool to ensure full video proctoring to avoid cheating. Also the questions that get asked should be picked from a large question bank to avoid repetition. Also the tool should automatically delete questions that everyone can answer or those that no one can answer.

Overcommunication and Collaboration

There’s no watercooler or cafeteria in the virtual world. Information that used to flow unhindered through these social interactions needs to flow even more rapidly to compensate for the lack of attention and context.

There are many tools that capture the first level of information. E.g. A candidate was rejected in an interview or another candidate submitted his quiz. However it lacks the next level of detail or the color. Why was the candidate rejected? Was he not as good at SQL server as we had assessed? Did the other candidate score well? How long did he take to complete the quiz?

There are many questions which don’t get asked because of the social and physical distance. E.g. a TA Manager won’t bump into a hiring manager and casually ask how he is finding the quality of candidates? Or there is no opportunity for a recruiter to ask why a candidate was rejected? Companies should acquire a tool that proactively answers such questions. Every piece of information needs to be supported by next level of data- ready to provide the detail should someone ask. The tool must provide a reason why a candidate should be considered for a job. The tool must tell why the candidate who was top ranked suddenly went down. The tool must encourage the hiring managers proper feedback and advice to the rejected candidates.

Companies should acquire a hiring tool that captures important events and alerts all the interested stakeholders using popular channels like WhatsApp and Skype. It’s also important to make these events actionable by providing links from the message to the appropriate page in the application.

There are multiple people collaborating to get work done. The agency sponsoring the candidate, the hiring manager, competing candidates and the recruiter should be alerted when the candidate successfully completes and submits the technical quiz. The interviewee candidate, the recruiter and the agency would be interested when the interviewer submits her feedback. The prolific alerts for all events would keep all the stakeholders abreast of the situation.

Employer Branding

The hiring tool should more than make up for the absence of handshakes and smiles, by providing a world class candidate experience. E.g. even rejected candidates should get proper feedback and valuable career advice. There’s nothing more frustrating than lack of communication that follows the interview. Providing proper feedback with current standing of the candidature in terms of the rank would make your company look very professional and enhance the employer brand value in the larger candidate population.

Conclusion: What has changed and how hiring tools should adapt?

Here are some challenges that hiring tools will need to address

  • Remote interviews have already become the norm. Now companies need to get more information about the candidates from all possible channels to make up for the lack of face to face interaction.
  • Companies need to identify gaps in the information shared by the candidate in her resume and get all such missing information from the candidate
  • Remote hiring is not only about remote interviewing. Companies need to remotely collaborate with all the stake holders including the recruiters, talent acquisition managers, hiring managers, interviewers, vendors and candidates.
  • Our tool must present a consistent view of not only the jobs and applicants – but also the status of each applicant in terms of her suitability, rank and interest to all the stakeholders.
  • Stakeholders should find easy answers to questions like why candidate X is more suitable than candidate Y and what Y should do to improve her ranking. This will help them drive the process to accurately identify the suitable candidates to minimize waste and disappointment.
  • To make up for the lack of warmth afforded by in person interviews, Companies need to go an extra mile to provide not only proper feedback but also some advice to the rejected candidates.

You could request a demonstration of Rezoomex- a hiring tool that promises to address all these challenges


AI spells better times ahead for the subject matter experts

It is commonly believed that AI will empower the employees who are willing to learn – others will find it hard to keep their jobs. But there’s an even bigger opportunity for the subject matter experts. They will not only learn the changes being brought about by AI , but permanently enrich their jobs by becoming the trainers and administrators of the AI apps.

Firstly, let us understand why a human being – no matter whether she is a subject matter expert or not,  is needed to train the modern AI systems.

Human-in-the-loop systems

Humans will be instrumental in building what are known as human-in-the-loop systems.

As per this article by Mothi Venkatesh human-in-the-loop system combines “Supervised Machine Learning” and “Active Learning”. I am reproducing the definition from the article.


Supervised ML, curated (labelled) data sets used by ML experts to train algorithms by adjusting parameters, in order to make accurate predictions for incoming data.

Active Learning, the data is taken, trained, tuned, tested and more data is fed back into the algorithm to make it smarter, more confident, and more accurate. This approach–especially feeding data back into a classifier is called active learning.

It is obvious that we need a human being where the confidence level in the algorithm is low due to insufficient training data or the risk associated with an inaccurate inference is very high. But why would we need a subject matter expert. They are not just another “human” augmenting the algorithm’s artificial intelligence

Subject matter experts as trainers and administrators of AI

This article by Daniel Faggella explains the need for subject matter experts. I am reproducing three ways as written in the article.

  • Determining the Business Problem an AI Solution Can Solve. For example, let’s say an insurancecompany wants to become more competitive. A high-level employee at the company, who has been in the industry for more than 20 years, may know from experience that clients often complain about the time it takes to process claims.
  • Determining How AI Can Solve That Business Problem. For example, a marketermight tell a data scientist to make sure the model they build can predict the best price to bid for ad space on Google ad Network without realizing that such an application is nascent in practice and technically challenging. A data scientist would be able to explain this to the marketer, preventing them from promising their team and stakeholders too much.
  • Maintaining and Updating the System Once It’s Built. Take for example a manufacturingcompany with a large number of heavy machinery to maintain. The subject-matter experts collaborate with data scientists to develop an AI system that gathers data from IoT sensors on the machines to predict the optimal time to do preventive maintenance on them.


To understand this better we need to take a closer look at how the AI apps work.

  1. Every AI app needs training data that needs to be prepared by a human expert. E.g. we need to have a lot of data about the films and the people who watch those films to intelligently recommend a bunch of films to a new user.
  2. After preparing the training data a data scientist could use this data to train and test an algorithm. He will repeat this step till he finds a suitable algorithm to generate a model that can predict or infer as precisely as the human expert who has prepared the training data in step 1. This step could take several iterations.
  3. Once the algorithm which can most precisely predict , the same can be used to create a model. This model is handed over to the subject matter expert to be used for predictions or inferences.
  4. The SME uses this model for day to day predictions and inferences. He applies his own judgement to decide if the predictions and inferences are precise enough by comparing what the algorithm has predicted or inferred with what the SME would have done.
  5. If the model is not accurately inferring or predicting the SME would override the algorithm and manually assign predicted or inferred values.
  6. This edited data is added as new input data and the same is used to retrain the algorithm. This retraining will ensure better results going forward. Step 4 to 6 are repeated by the SME with no intervention from the data scientist. The SME would really make the application more and more precise. As it becomes more precise it will more closely mimic the expert’s inferences and predictions.

Who can be a subject matter expert.

You don’t have to be highly placed or academically well qualified. There’s nothing better than years of expertise. E.g. a security guard knows how to spot an intruder in a crowd. He can help a data scientist build an automated threat detection system



IT hiring as seen by interviewers/hiring managers: Part 2

In this part, we will propose a solution to the problems perceived by the hiring managers as concluded in part 1 of this article. Ideally, there’s no need to have such an elaborate solution if the hiring manager did everything from writing the job description, determining and communicating the selection criteria to conducting the interviews. Practically as we have learned, only 50% of the hiring managers write the job descriptions. Only 64% of them are engaged in determining and communicating the selection criteria and most of the interviews are conducted by interviewers who are not the hiring managers. Hence the need to have a solution that facilitates collaboration and communication.

The diagram below describes the proposed solution. Here are the steps of the solution.


Step 1– Hiring manager creates the job description and the software will help him decide the selection criteria based on the JD.

Step 2– A software service applies the selection criteria to the resumes uploaded by the recruiters and computes the suitability scores.

Step 3– Top-rankers based on the suitability score are identified. Recruiters follow up to gather any missing information and administer a technical quiz to each one of them.

Step 4– The technical quiz is a quick, in-camera assessment, conducted on the candidate’s smartphone. The candidate can take the short 20-minute test at her own convenience. Recruiters can ensure authenticity by checking the video recording.

Step 5– Only those few top-rankers who score well in steps 3 and 4 are presented to the interview panel.

Step 6– Feedback from all the interview rounds is processed by the hiring manager and any obvious disconnects between the recruiters and the interviewers can become visible to the hiring manager on the dashboard. E.g. The top-rankers as per steps 3 and 4 get rejected and bottom-rankers get selected.

Step 7– Based on the results as seen on the dashboard the hiring manager can tweak the selection criteria and the technical quiz to align the recruiters’ and the interviewers’ understanding of the requirement.

Let’s take a closer look at the problems identified in the conclusion section of part 1 of this article to understand their magnitude and severity. Let’s also examine if the proposed solution addresses those problems.

Problem 1 : The interviewer is not completely plugged in and it results in a lower hit rate. On an average 3 out of 5 candidates are found to be unsuitable in the face to face interviews. This may be the tip of the iceberg as we are assuming that those who are selected are perfectly suitable. Bad hiring decisions are rarely acknowledged.


Solution 1: Sharing the job description, and the selection criteria with all the interviewers will improve everyone’s understanding of the real requirement. Assigning weights to the selection criteria would further refine this understanding. It will bring cohesion between the job description, the selection criteria, the quiz questions and the interviews in steps 2, 3 and 5.

Problem 2: As already seen in part 1 of this article majority of the interviewers think that they are wasting a lot of their time in the hiring process. On average an interviewer spends 45 minutes per interview.


Solution 2: Justify to the interviewer the time spent by her by sharing the reason why the candidate deserves to be selected, with specific reference to the weighted selection criteria as stated in steps 2 and 3. This will positively orient the interviewer going into the interview, and keep the preliminary screening process honest.

Problem 3: The recruiters are unwilling to reject candidates at their level. It’s obvious that the recruiters need better tools than preliminary phone screens and tests. Technical tests are inconvenient and time-consuming. Some candidates cheat while appearing for the online tests.

Solution 3: Improve overall quality in the preliminary screening process by doing the following

  • Recognizing fact-finding work resulting in the rejection of candidates by the recruiters as their value addition. Presently, in most companies, the recruiter gets no credit for rejecting a candidate at her level. We should stop looking at the number of interviews scheduled as the measure of the recruiter’s performance. Recognizing the value of rejection will bring quality consciousness and reduce the stress placed on the interviewers by mindless overcrowding of the recruitment pipeline.
  • Having some kind of metric to measure the suitability as depicted in step 2. Such a metric will encourage the recruiters to focus their attention on sourcing more suitable candidates. Recognizing average and total suitability scores as measures of the recruiter’s performance would improve the choice and quality of candidates.
  • Having a lightweight and efficient technical screening in step 4. This would eliminate candidates who can’t answer simple questions on topics that are important.

Problem 4: The formal feedback process is geared to capture the overall impression of the interviewer, but doesn’t help to improve the next batch of candidates. We need to learn and improve by a better understanding of the reasons for rejection.

Solution 4: The interview feedback should require the interviewer to indicate his acceptance or rejection against the commonly shared weighted selection criteria and the reasons for proposing the candidate as suggested in solution to problem 2. This will enable the recruiters and the interviewers to change the selection criteria as needed and capture the reasons for such changes in the interview feedback forms.

Problem 5: Interview feedback is not shared with all the stakeholders. As the purpose of the feedback is more for documenting the reasons for selection, the same is shared with HR and other managers who are supposed to take further action upon the selection of the candidate. The need to share it with the recruiters is not felt. Recruiters often don’t have access to the detailed feedback provided in the system. They have to remain content with short “Selected” or “Rejected” status that shows up in the system. Part of the problem is also because the recruiters rarely state the specific reasons why a candidate deserves to be selected, hence they forfeit their right to know the reasons for rejection.

Solution 5: In step 6- the interview feedback process the interviewer could provide some tips on what the recruiter could have done to reject the candidate at her level. This information can be used by the recruiter to improve her hit rate. With some additional work, the recruiter can also pass on a part of the feedback to the rejected candidates. Useful for the candidate to improve herself. Maintaining this level of transparency will go a long way in building the employer’s brand.


IT hiring as seen by interviewers and hiring managers: Part 1

In a recent survey conducted by the author, the majority of the interviewers said that the hiring process was wasting a lot of their time. More than 20% felt the need to complain as they could use that time for more important project-related work. About 50% didn’t complain, although they felt that their time was being wasted.TimeSpentRating

Why do they get involved?

Are the interviewers a willing party to this waste of time? Why do they get involved? A short survey showed that only a few times the hiring manager interviews candidates for a project in which he or she is directly involved. This means he or she is merely an interviewer working for some other hiring manager. The majority of the time the interviewer is roped in by HR or by his superior for his or her expertise. Organizations do want their best experts involved in the selection process. There are a few times when the interviewer gets called in at the last moment because the pre-appointed interviewer is unavailable. Would the interviewer serve as a good proxy for the hiring manager? Would he be as familiar with the job for which the candidate has applied as the hiring manager? One wonders what impact all this has on the quality of hiring.

Broken communication starts with the job description

The hiring manager is supposed to write the job description and decide the selection criteria. The interviewers are supposed to select candidates based on the selection criteria and the JD. Very often the JD is not written by the hiring manager. Some hiring managers said that they don’t look at the job description, many said that they believe in a short one-line description of the requirement.

Does everyone know when the Job Description changes?

Given this initial low level of participation in the creation of the JD by the hiring managers, it’s not a wonder that only 20% of the respondents are able to always keep using the initial job description. In the remaining 80% cases, the job description changes. When it does, ideally, the hiring manager should change the selection criteria.

Surprisingly 36% of the respondents didn’t see any need to communicate this to the recruiters and “Almost Always” kept the selection criteria secret! It must be quite frustrating for the recruiters as they are left guessing the real job requirements.

How do you communicate changes to the selection criteria?


Impact of broken communication on the hiring process

We asked the hiring managers whether they noticed some gaps in the way the hiring process identifies and short-lists candidates. They were unequivocal in their feedback – “Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t” (see the table below). There are some obvious facts that the recruiter can check at her level even before sending a resume to the hiring manager. E.g. Whether the candidate has relevant experience? Whether the candidate’s pay expectations are within budget? Has the candidate been a rolling stone?

What are some of the obvious weaknesses in the resumes that are overlooked in the pre-screening stage?


When we talked to some recruiters, we discovered that they were maximizing the number of candidates interviewed. As a result, there is an overall resistance by the recruiters to reject a candidate. They would like to maximize the chances of selection by recommending as many candidates as possible. As a result, the interviewer’s available time is quickly consumed. This has two downsides

  • With so many candidates to be interviewed, multiple interviewers conduct interviews for the same position. This makes objective comparison difficult. Hiring standards become inconsistent and the quality of hiring suffers.
  • Interviewers are overworked. Fatigue sets in. The communication between the interviewer and the recruiter becomes tenuous. Recruiters feel that their hard work is not rewarded and the interviewers are frustrated by interviewing unsuitable candidates.

Are we using the interviewers’ feedback to improve the success rate?

We discovered that the same reasons for rejection appeared multiple times in the feedback provided by the interviewers. Does that mean that the recruiters are not using the feedback to improve their selection? In which form is the feedback provided by the interviewers?

We asked this question and please see the responses we received in the table below.

What is the mechanism for providing interview feedback?


It is evident from the table that there’s no commonly followed standard process. Each company follows its own process. The majority (17 out of 25) seem to be using some kind of form. It appears that the primary objective of the form is to put on record the impressions of the interviewer.

We are wondering whether the feedback reaches the recruiter and whether the recruiter is able to change the selection criteria based on the feedback. These two are topics for further research.

Reasons for rejection would reveal what changes we need to make to the selection criteria. Informal conversations with the hiring managers led us to believe that the feedback forms are mainly meant for justifying the selection and not enough importance is given to the reasons for rejection. Also as seen in the table, about 40% of the respondents “frequently” send emails justifying selection, but find no need to justify rejections. Without this information, one wonders if the interviewers’ feedback is used for reducing the number of rejections.


We can conclude that hiring for software engineers is a broken process

  • Not every interviewer is “plugged in” to have a good understanding of the job.
  • Most interviewers and hiring managers feel that their time is being wasted- even though majority don’t complain.
  • Recruiters are averse to the idea of rejecting candidates. They often overlook easily detectable weaknesses evident in the resumes. They try to maximize the number of interviews. This results in overwork, fatigue and tenuous relations between the interviewers and the recruiters.
  • The established feedback mechanism doesn’t serve the purpose of improving selection rates. More stress is given on the reasons for selection than those for rejection.
  • Selection criteria do change but the links carrying the communication back to the recruiters are weak.

We will take a look at the impact of these shortcomings on the organizations and suggest some probable solutions in part 2 of this article.