Friday, October 2, 2015
Monday, August 23, 2010
Satera Team at Imatron Systems abstract ( for all you guys :) )
The following report will provide an analysis and assessment for Imatron Systems, Inc. (ISI) who are developing a satellite camera to monitor environmental threats with a contract received from the U.S. government. The Remote Imaging Division (RID) of Imatron is charged of developing this system and has formed a team to develop this system. This project is of extreme importance to the RID division in that it will provide future technology and profitability stability for Imatron in the future. The project is on a timeline to meet the target requirements set forth in the contract and contains penalties in payments should the project not meet those deadlines.
More specifically this report will focus on three individuals to be named in the following pages that are assigned to develop the system and detail the dysfunctional dynamics that is taking place. The three key individuals identified within the team are hindering the development, which could possibly derail the project. This report will highlight what dysfunctions are taking place, an assessment of personality styles and interpersonal relationships which is contributing to the inadequacies of the project. Personalities, work styles and group dynamics will be assessed of the key players within this group and will be analyzed to explain what, if any might be contributing to the situation. These will be based on the reading provided and on concepts relating to work-place teams and relations.
Also included in this report will be several recommendations for collaboration of the key parties involved. The recommendations should also help set the tone for the overall group function on the project.
Situational Overview
Upon receiving the contract to develop the new satellite camera, ISI formed a team to develop and implement the Satera System. The team consisted of seven individuals that worked solely on the project. All seven are highly intelligent, educated and experienced engineers who have worked in group settings previously. The group is led by Mr. Gary Pinto, whose role is to coordinate the overall project and make the final decision to Mr. Rick Levinger, Vice President of research and development of RID. Several project meetings to date have been stalled by the debate about the design of the mechanical carrying device for the camera. This portion of the project had two individuals who co-lead the design of the mechanical aspects. This segment of the project was lead by Mr. Ira Lovas and Mr. David Bennett. Both Mr. Lovas and Mr. Bennett have developed a design but cannot agree to validity of each others design. These disagreements have lead to a stalled consensus between the two thereby possibly derailing the project. This phase of the project seems to be the crutch as the others in the team have implemented and who have successfully collaborated their respective portions and assignments.
The open disagreements between Mr. Lovas and Mr. Bennett have turned hostile in nature and have alienated the others within the group. The acerbic relationship is threatening the entire project and has placed a strain on Mr. Pinto who is running out of time and options in deciding the best application for the system.
Individual Dynamics
Mr. Gary Pinto has been employed ISI for 15 years and was selected to be the team leader of the project. He holds a masters degree and according to his bio in the paper he has expertise in both mechanical and electrical engineering. He was selected by management because they felt he can effectively manage groups based in his previous assignments as a team leader. Mr. Pinto’s management style appears to be democratic bordering on laissez-faire in that he welcomes input and encourages openness by all of the members of the team in letting the project get done. Based on the case provided, Mr. Pinto appears to have introverted tendencies and is sensitive in nature. He is very aware of the dynamics surrounding the two main protagonists and is sensing what must be done, from the decision he must make to have some type of collaboration between them. He has been very conscientious when dealing with the conflicts and is very accommodating to the entire group as a whole as they appear to be also be negatively affected by the conflict presented by the two individuals.
Mr. Pinto “prided” himself in resolving interpersonal conflict when working on previous
assignments. This conflict seemed to be a new sort of circumstances in which he seemed to be dealing with. Although the goal and span of the project is significant the usual and customary manner in which Mr. Pinto had used previously was not working with the two protagonists involved this time.
Mr. Ira Lovas is a senior mechanical engineer with Imatron. He is very educated and experienced and highly respected by management. Based on the case study his MBTI type is probably ISTJ. He has been very conservative in his approach for the new system and his very introverted and seems to lack confidence in a group setting when conflict is evident. He has been consistent in previous work projects and is very reliable in completion of projects. He is very patient in his demeanor and appears to have better communications in a smaller group or in one-on-one situations. He has influence of both position and expertise and holds legitimate power within the group as being the co-leader in the imaging system. Is influence seems to be behind the scenes in nature and seems to get somewhat frustrated with others when they do not “step up” during group meetings. This personal style, very similar to Mr. Pinto’s has been effective in previous assignments and group workings but seems to be stalled when dealing with a more aggressive and bold personality.
Mr. David Bennett, like Mr. Lovas is a highly educated and tenured mechanical engineer. He is also charged as a co-leader in the imaging system. Mr. Bennett appears to be an extremely motivated and capable individual but is considered forceful in his dealings with others. His MBTI type more than likely is an ESTJ as he is very focused on his own contributions and ideas. He seems to have tunnel vision in his approach to this project. Given his position in this assignment he holds a degree of legitimate power. His influence appears to be forceful in nature bordering on bullying and intimidating. He does have legitimate and expertise power in his capabilities and role and he does however, have a history of unproven risk taking. His unwillingness in cooperation is tolerated by Mr. Pinto in that his innovation and “thinking outside the box” will pay dividends to Imatron in the future.
There appears to be many failings of intra-group dynamics at play within the Satera team as well as well individual cooperation differences. The lateral relations within the group and most notably with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas are negative in nature. The collaboration for the design of the image system is nonexistent. The engagements thus far between the two are poor and stifling the process. The group think with the rest of the team is one of almost apathy. Although not specifically stated in detail in the reading, gossip and behind the scenes communication that is relating to the project is certainly taking place causing more complications to the process. It is adversely affecting the group as a whole and is delaying the decision to be made by Mr. Pinto. Mr. Bennett in his design approach is not providing any positive feedback for Mr. Lovas and his ideas.
Being the two senior members of the team are at odds over the design the social networking of the group probably is further deteriorating the flow. The group is looking at Mr. Pinto to provide the leadership in the matter and is instead seeing the two senior members at odds. Both Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas are probably have social capital within the group and with the division now shared is/or starting to make further divisions within the group as a whole. That the group, as a whole is not as verbal to come up with a consensus or engage in more talk is risking the project in what appears to be “risky shift”. It appears that by hiding behind the anonymity of the group as a whole. Whether the group as a whole is engaged in social loafing is happening is still undetermined but given the position of the two senior members at odds this might be happening. It is obvious Mr. Pinto is meeting the emotional needs of the group as a whole to accomplish their goals and objectives it is also obvious the actions of the impasse is straining the group.
Given that the project by its nature needs a work team to develop the system an effective team approach is needed for its completion. The structure of the Satera team has only one individual assigned to a specific component with the exception of the imaging system which is headed by both Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas. Ideal team structures, as opposed to work groups usually have a clearly defined leader for each component of the project. The following areas of intergroup relationships that apply to the team concept are evident in the Satera team but is not functioning.
• Accountability – Mr. Bennett does not appear to be mutually accountable to Mr. Lovas.
• Orientation – The focus of the entire system is being held up due to the differences in the imaging carrying system design.
• Leadership – As stated previously, the only portion of the system that has shared leadership is the imaging system.
• Work Assignments – The entire goals and objectives of the project is being held up by Mr. Bennett and the lack of cooperation.
• Meetings – Meetings are taking place however, there are no open-ended discussions or effective problem solving.
• Decision Making – Divergent thinking is happening but no consensus is being obtained.
The biggest issue of the two is that no trust is being developed to form an effective partnership in the project particularly by Mr. Lovas. This in turn is probably forming the group to be losing faith in Mr. Pinto to a degree. With the lack of trust developing it is more than likely that the perception of the abilities of the all three senior members is being questioned. Conditional trust is probably being lost on Mr. Bennett by Mr. Lovas in that his lack of collaboration and his subsequent behavior when questioned is very evident by the reaction now being displayed by Mr. Lovas. Mr. Pinto appears to have an unconditional trust in all of the team members even though he is aware of the friction between Mr. Lovas and Mr. Bennett. What is not really known is what culture of trust is evident at Imatron as whole organization. Is there a reward system in place within the structure would need to be further explored.
The type of team gathered for the project seems to be a project and problem-solving setting and
function. Mr. Pinto’s style of leadership creates the group to be self-managed in that he is letting the group come to a consensus prior to his decision. This is setting a high degree of autonomy for the group for the group and given the make-up of its members should good results. This self directed team structure set up by Mr. Pinto probably seems appropriate given the complexity of the project. The group interdependence on each other is crucial for the entire project. Each others area of responsibility is reciprocal for the completion of the project. The clash of the carrying design for the camera is impeding the project. Further tests of the completed project cannot go as scheduled until that component is done.
Outside influences such as the complexity of the device and the financial impact that relates to the outcome of this project also are having an effect on the team, particularly the senior members. This added component is always a common denominator of all group projects but this a new technology and has extreme importance as to future projects with the U.S. government. That conflict is inevitable is certain however, given the personalities of the two senior members of the team the conflict is making the entire team and project dysfunctional.
The following of managed conflict is not taking place with the group as a whole and particularly the senior engineers.
• Avoiding – Mr. Lovas and the other team members seem, to date to be avoiding the conflict by speaking up during meetings or with Mr. Bennett.
• Competing – This is very evident in the actions of Mr. Bennett in his obstinate stance of other ideas.
• Accommodating – This seems to be what the other members are utilizing when a lack of perspectives are asked for by Mr. Pinto.
• Compromising – Mr. Bennett in particular and Mr. Lovas both seem unwilling to compromise to date.
• Collaborating – Again, there seems to be no collaborating between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas.
Recommendations
While having conflict is inevitable and needed for group projects and team management the impasse now evident by Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas is threatening the entire project. Mr. Pinto, although seems to have allowed a healthy team environment and provide support now must act in a more autocratic manner. Given the two conflicting styles of confrontation between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas it is beyond any reconciliation and collaborative that would take place between them. Mr. Bennett’s lack of collaborating with Mr. Lovas has crippled the project to seriously jeopardizing it. The degree to which he wants to satisfy his own concerns as well as Mr. Lovas’s concerns have lead the group, and project and team in a non-functioning unit. Time is becoming a factor in the completion of the project and decisions have to be made.
1. Mr. Pinto should call a meeting with just Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas and seek a consensus with qualification. If a consensus is made with the two of them then that will be the final delivery device. If no consensus is made then Mr. Pinto will decide which of the two is the most relevant based on his judgment and they will make the final decision with input from the rest of the team. Mr. Pinto should realize that an impasse of the two needs to be broken and given his position makes it his burden so to speak. This consensus with qualification creates a sense of fairness in that all parties have had equal input, participation and process in which the decision was made. Given the time constraints now imposed this is a faster and fairer solution.
2. With the experiences that Team Satera shared on this project it would wise to consider the addition of more emphasis on the emotional intelligence of any members on a next team assignment. Research indicates that trust among members, a sense of group identity and efficacy are needed for a group to be effective. The motions of cooperation and having all participating in a project can occur but that the team will not be as effective. It is possible given Mr. Bennett’s nature that he feels insulted and that he is not capable of designing the system by being placed on a team. His being questioned by a colleague is a defensive act on his part. Given that Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas are the only two members assigned to the same system clashes are going to be inevitable. In the future Mr. Pinto should assign one design aspect to one individual. The common goal of the overall project was lost in this aspect by having two capable individuals work to achieve the same thing. These unnecessary competitions lead to the dysfunction of the entire team and project.
More specifically this report will focus on three individuals to be named in the following pages that are assigned to develop the system and detail the dysfunctional dynamics that is taking place. The three key individuals identified within the team are hindering the development, which could possibly derail the project. This report will highlight what dysfunctions are taking place, an assessment of personality styles and interpersonal relationships which is contributing to the inadequacies of the project. Personalities, work styles and group dynamics will be assessed of the key players within this group and will be analyzed to explain what, if any might be contributing to the situation. These will be based on the reading provided and on concepts relating to work-place teams and relations.
Also included in this report will be several recommendations for collaboration of the key parties involved. The recommendations should also help set the tone for the overall group function on the project.
Situational Overview
Upon receiving the contract to develop the new satellite camera, ISI formed a team to develop and implement the Satera System. The team consisted of seven individuals that worked solely on the project. All seven are highly intelligent, educated and experienced engineers who have worked in group settings previously. The group is led by Mr. Gary Pinto, whose role is to coordinate the overall project and make the final decision to Mr. Rick Levinger, Vice President of research and development of RID. Several project meetings to date have been stalled by the debate about the design of the mechanical carrying device for the camera. This portion of the project had two individuals who co-lead the design of the mechanical aspects. This segment of the project was lead by Mr. Ira Lovas and Mr. David Bennett. Both Mr. Lovas and Mr. Bennett have developed a design but cannot agree to validity of each others design. These disagreements have lead to a stalled consensus between the two thereby possibly derailing the project. This phase of the project seems to be the crutch as the others in the team have implemented and who have successfully collaborated their respective portions and assignments.
The open disagreements between Mr. Lovas and Mr. Bennett have turned hostile in nature and have alienated the others within the group. The acerbic relationship is threatening the entire project and has placed a strain on Mr. Pinto who is running out of time and options in deciding the best application for the system.
Individual Dynamics
Mr. Gary Pinto has been employed ISI for 15 years and was selected to be the team leader of the project. He holds a masters degree and according to his bio in the paper he has expertise in both mechanical and electrical engineering. He was selected by management because they felt he can effectively manage groups based in his previous assignments as a team leader. Mr. Pinto’s management style appears to be democratic bordering on laissez-faire in that he welcomes input and encourages openness by all of the members of the team in letting the project get done. Based on the case provided, Mr. Pinto appears to have introverted tendencies and is sensitive in nature. He is very aware of the dynamics surrounding the two main protagonists and is sensing what must be done, from the decision he must make to have some type of collaboration between them. He has been very conscientious when dealing with the conflicts and is very accommodating to the entire group as a whole as they appear to be also be negatively affected by the conflict presented by the two individuals.
Mr. Pinto “prided” himself in resolving interpersonal conflict when working on previous
assignments. This conflict seemed to be a new sort of circumstances in which he seemed to be dealing with. Although the goal and span of the project is significant the usual and customary manner in which Mr. Pinto had used previously was not working with the two protagonists involved this time.
Mr. Ira Lovas is a senior mechanical engineer with Imatron. He is very educated and experienced and highly respected by management. Based on the case study his MBTI type is probably ISTJ. He has been very conservative in his approach for the new system and his very introverted and seems to lack confidence in a group setting when conflict is evident. He has been consistent in previous work projects and is very reliable in completion of projects. He is very patient in his demeanor and appears to have better communications in a smaller group or in one-on-one situations. He has influence of both position and expertise and holds legitimate power within the group as being the co-leader in the imaging system. Is influence seems to be behind the scenes in nature and seems to get somewhat frustrated with others when they do not “step up” during group meetings. This personal style, very similar to Mr. Pinto’s has been effective in previous assignments and group workings but seems to be stalled when dealing with a more aggressive and bold personality.
Mr. David Bennett, like Mr. Lovas is a highly educated and tenured mechanical engineer. He is also charged as a co-leader in the imaging system. Mr. Bennett appears to be an extremely motivated and capable individual but is considered forceful in his dealings with others. His MBTI type more than likely is an ESTJ as he is very focused on his own contributions and ideas. He seems to have tunnel vision in his approach to this project. Given his position in this assignment he holds a degree of legitimate power. His influence appears to be forceful in nature bordering on bullying and intimidating. He does have legitimate and expertise power in his capabilities and role and he does however, have a history of unproven risk taking. His unwillingness in cooperation is tolerated by Mr. Pinto in that his innovation and “thinking outside the box” will pay dividends to Imatron in the future.
There appears to be many failings of intra-group dynamics at play within the Satera team as well as well individual cooperation differences. The lateral relations within the group and most notably with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas are negative in nature. The collaboration for the design of the image system is nonexistent. The engagements thus far between the two are poor and stifling the process. The group think with the rest of the team is one of almost apathy. Although not specifically stated in detail in the reading, gossip and behind the scenes communication that is relating to the project is certainly taking place causing more complications to the process. It is adversely affecting the group as a whole and is delaying the decision to be made by Mr. Pinto. Mr. Bennett in his design approach is not providing any positive feedback for Mr. Lovas and his ideas.
Being the two senior members of the team are at odds over the design the social networking of the group probably is further deteriorating the flow. The group is looking at Mr. Pinto to provide the leadership in the matter and is instead seeing the two senior members at odds. Both Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas are probably have social capital within the group and with the division now shared is/or starting to make further divisions within the group as a whole. That the group, as a whole is not as verbal to come up with a consensus or engage in more talk is risking the project in what appears to be “risky shift”. It appears that by hiding behind the anonymity of the group as a whole. Whether the group as a whole is engaged in social loafing is happening is still undetermined but given the position of the two senior members at odds this might be happening. It is obvious Mr. Pinto is meeting the emotional needs of the group as a whole to accomplish their goals and objectives it is also obvious the actions of the impasse is straining the group.
Given that the project by its nature needs a work team to develop the system an effective team approach is needed for its completion. The structure of the Satera team has only one individual assigned to a specific component with the exception of the imaging system which is headed by both Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas. Ideal team structures, as opposed to work groups usually have a clearly defined leader for each component of the project. The following areas of intergroup relationships that apply to the team concept are evident in the Satera team but is not functioning.
• Accountability – Mr. Bennett does not appear to be mutually accountable to Mr. Lovas.
• Orientation – The focus of the entire system is being held up due to the differences in the imaging carrying system design.
• Leadership – As stated previously, the only portion of the system that has shared leadership is the imaging system.
• Work Assignments – The entire goals and objectives of the project is being held up by Mr. Bennett and the lack of cooperation.
• Meetings – Meetings are taking place however, there are no open-ended discussions or effective problem solving.
• Decision Making – Divergent thinking is happening but no consensus is being obtained.
The biggest issue of the two is that no trust is being developed to form an effective partnership in the project particularly by Mr. Lovas. This in turn is probably forming the group to be losing faith in Mr. Pinto to a degree. With the lack of trust developing it is more than likely that the perception of the abilities of the all three senior members is being questioned. Conditional trust is probably being lost on Mr. Bennett by Mr. Lovas in that his lack of collaboration and his subsequent behavior when questioned is very evident by the reaction now being displayed by Mr. Lovas. Mr. Pinto appears to have an unconditional trust in all of the team members even though he is aware of the friction between Mr. Lovas and Mr. Bennett. What is not really known is what culture of trust is evident at Imatron as whole organization. Is there a reward system in place within the structure would need to be further explored.
The type of team gathered for the project seems to be a project and problem-solving setting and
function. Mr. Pinto’s style of leadership creates the group to be self-managed in that he is letting the group come to a consensus prior to his decision. This is setting a high degree of autonomy for the group for the group and given the make-up of its members should good results. This self directed team structure set up by Mr. Pinto probably seems appropriate given the complexity of the project. The group interdependence on each other is crucial for the entire project. Each others area of responsibility is reciprocal for the completion of the project. The clash of the carrying design for the camera is impeding the project. Further tests of the completed project cannot go as scheduled until that component is done.
Outside influences such as the complexity of the device and the financial impact that relates to the outcome of this project also are having an effect on the team, particularly the senior members. This added component is always a common denominator of all group projects but this a new technology and has extreme importance as to future projects with the U.S. government. That conflict is inevitable is certain however, given the personalities of the two senior members of the team the conflict is making the entire team and project dysfunctional.
The following of managed conflict is not taking place with the group as a whole and particularly the senior engineers.
• Avoiding – Mr. Lovas and the other team members seem, to date to be avoiding the conflict by speaking up during meetings or with Mr. Bennett.
• Competing – This is very evident in the actions of Mr. Bennett in his obstinate stance of other ideas.
• Accommodating – This seems to be what the other members are utilizing when a lack of perspectives are asked for by Mr. Pinto.
• Compromising – Mr. Bennett in particular and Mr. Lovas both seem unwilling to compromise to date.
• Collaborating – Again, there seems to be no collaborating between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas.
Recommendations
While having conflict is inevitable and needed for group projects and team management the impasse now evident by Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas is threatening the entire project. Mr. Pinto, although seems to have allowed a healthy team environment and provide support now must act in a more autocratic manner. Given the two conflicting styles of confrontation between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas it is beyond any reconciliation and collaborative that would take place between them. Mr. Bennett’s lack of collaborating with Mr. Lovas has crippled the project to seriously jeopardizing it. The degree to which he wants to satisfy his own concerns as well as Mr. Lovas’s concerns have lead the group, and project and team in a non-functioning unit. Time is becoming a factor in the completion of the project and decisions have to be made.
1. Mr. Pinto should call a meeting with just Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas and seek a consensus with qualification. If a consensus is made with the two of them then that will be the final delivery device. If no consensus is made then Mr. Pinto will decide which of the two is the most relevant based on his judgment and they will make the final decision with input from the rest of the team. Mr. Pinto should realize that an impasse of the two needs to be broken and given his position makes it his burden so to speak. This consensus with qualification creates a sense of fairness in that all parties have had equal input, participation and process in which the decision was made. Given the time constraints now imposed this is a faster and fairer solution.
2. With the experiences that Team Satera shared on this project it would wise to consider the addition of more emphasis on the emotional intelligence of any members on a next team assignment. Research indicates that trust among members, a sense of group identity and efficacy are needed for a group to be effective. The motions of cooperation and having all participating in a project can occur but that the team will not be as effective. It is possible given Mr. Bennett’s nature that he feels insulted and that he is not capable of designing the system by being placed on a team. His being questioned by a colleague is a defensive act on his part. Given that Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lovas are the only two members assigned to the same system clashes are going to be inevitable. In the future Mr. Pinto should assign one design aspect to one individual. The common goal of the overall project was lost in this aspect by having two capable individuals work to achieve the same thing. These unnecessary competitions lead to the dysfunction of the entire team and project.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Salary Comparision!!!
Wanna know where you stand with respect to your salary in the group of employees having same experience, age, qualifications etc., like you ..
check this out..
www.payscale.com
A good website to know many things about your salary !!
check this out..
www.payscale.com
A good website to know many things about your salary !!
Customer Care Phone numbers of all Banks in Bangalore
Here is a small list for the customer care Phone numbers of all Banks in Bangalore.
Hope this would be useful for all. Will try to keep this updated. If you find that any of these numbers don’t work, or have a alternate number, please leave a comment.
ICICI Bank Customer Care Number
Bangalore - 4113 1877
Karnataka - 98455 78000
For other cities, click here. Phone Banking workflow click here.
Citibank Customer Care Number
All Citibank customers - Bangalore - 2227 2484. For other cities, click here
Citibank Suvidha account holders - Bangalore - 2227 2265. For other cities, click here
CitiBusiness Customers - Bangalore - 2229 4653. For other cities, click here
Citibank Credit Card - Bangalore - 2227 2484. For other cities, click here
Priority service to CitiGold Customers, Diners Club Members & Citibank Gold Card members - Bangalore - 2229- 4653. For other cities, click here
HSBC Customer Care Number
Banking related - Bangalore - 2558 9595
Credit card related - Bangalore - 2558 9696
For other cities, click here
HDFC Customer Care Number
Debit card related - 9945863333
Banking related - Bangalore - 5500 3333. For other cities, click here
Credit card related - Bangalore - 6622 4332. For other cities, click here
ABN AMRO Customer Care number
Bangalore - 4124 5555
SBI Credit Card Customer Care Number
Karnataka - Bangalore - 98441 05454 (people are reporting that this number does not work. If you know a number that works, please let me know!)
All India Toll Free - 1600 180 1290 (works only on BSNL and MTNL Line)
Try : 1800 180 1290 too. May work!!!
Other lines : 39 02 02 02
UTI Bank Customer Care Numbers
Bangalore (M G Road) - 2537 0615
Bangalore - 2531 7830
Mumbai - 022 5598 7700
For other cities, click here
IDBI Bank Customer Care Number (Phone Banking)
Karnataka - Bangalore - 080 22297000
Mumbai - 022 66937000
Delhi - 011 23627000
Chennai - 044 28295550
For other cities, click here
Manhattan Credit Card Customer Care Number
Bangalore - 3030 1969. (this number seems to work in Mumbai too! Give it a try in your local city!)
Standard Chartered Credit Card Customer Care Number
Bangalore - 2558 8888 (updated). For other cities, click here
Deutsche Bank Customer Care Number
6601 6601 (this number is available in Aurangabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolhapur, Kolkata and Mumbai. If dialing from Gurgaon / Noida please prefix 9511 before dialing.)
Airtel Customer Care
Dail 121 from your airtel mobile
Karnataka - 98450 98450 - For prepaid if you are calling from landline
Karnataka - 98450 12345 - For postpaid if you are calling from landline
Hutch Customer Care
Karnataka - Dial 111 from your Hutch phone or dial 98860 98860
BSNL Mobile Customer Care (Cellone & Excel)
Karnataka - Dial 94480 24365
For other cities, click here.
Reliance Mobile Customer Care
Call 3033 3333 Or dial *333 from your Reliance Mobile
For other numbers, click here.
Reliance Broadband Customer Care
Call 022 - 3033 7777 Or dial *377 on your Reliance phone
SpiceJet Customer Care
From BSNL/MTNL : 1800 180 3333
Others (GSM/CDMA): +91 98718 03333
LIC Policy Details (Life Insurance Corporation)
Call - 1251 or
New Delhi 011 - 2332 9595
Mumbai 022 -2612 5555
Kolkata 033 - 23341765, 23211893/94/95
Chennai 044 - 28602626/28602929
Hyderabad 040 - 2329 7455
Bangalore 080 - 2248 5210
Pune 020 - 2553 6161
Ahmedabad 079 - 2550 7777
Yahoo! India Customer Care
I am not sure if these numbers work, but give it a try & leave a comment!
Bangalore : (080) 39805078
Chennai : (044) 39119494
Yahoo! US “Customer Service”: 1-866-562-7219 (for yahoo.com)
Yahoo! Small Business/Store: 1-866-800-8092
Other US Yahoo! numbers to try
+1 866-850-4303
+1 866-562-7228
+1 408-349-1572
+1 408-349-3300
+1 408-329-5151
+1 800-318-0631
If you feel some service is missing and would be useful to list, drop a comment.
Hope this would be useful for all. Will try to keep this updated. If you find that any of these numbers don’t work, or have a alternate number, please leave a comment.
ICICI Bank Customer Care Number
Bangalore - 4113 1877
Karnataka - 98455 78000
For other cities, click here. Phone Banking workflow click here.
Citibank Customer Care Number
All Citibank customers - Bangalore - 2227 2484. For other cities, click here
Citibank Suvidha account holders - Bangalore - 2227 2265. For other cities, click here
CitiBusiness Customers - Bangalore - 2229 4653. For other cities, click here
Citibank Credit Card - Bangalore - 2227 2484. For other cities, click here
Priority service to CitiGold Customers, Diners Club Members & Citibank Gold Card members - Bangalore - 2229- 4653. For other cities, click here
HSBC Customer Care Number
Banking related - Bangalore - 2558 9595
Credit card related - Bangalore - 2558 9696
For other cities, click here
HDFC Customer Care Number
Debit card related - 9945863333
Banking related - Bangalore - 5500 3333. For other cities, click here
Credit card related - Bangalore - 6622 4332. For other cities, click here
ABN AMRO Customer Care number
Bangalore - 4124 5555
SBI Credit Card Customer Care Number
Karnataka - Bangalore - 98441 05454 (people are reporting that this number does not work. If you know a number that works, please let me know!)
All India Toll Free - 1600 180 1290 (works only on BSNL and MTNL Line)
Try : 1800 180 1290 too. May work!!!
Other lines : 39 02 02 02
UTI Bank Customer Care Numbers
Bangalore (M G Road) - 2537 0615
Bangalore - 2531 7830
Mumbai - 022 5598 7700
For other cities, click here
IDBI Bank Customer Care Number (Phone Banking)
Karnataka - Bangalore - 080 22297000
Mumbai - 022 66937000
Delhi - 011 23627000
Chennai - 044 28295550
For other cities, click here
Manhattan Credit Card Customer Care Number
Bangalore - 3030 1969. (this number seems to work in Mumbai too! Give it a try in your local city!)
Standard Chartered Credit Card Customer Care Number
Bangalore - 2558 8888 (updated). For other cities, click here
Deutsche Bank Customer Care Number
6601 6601 (this number is available in Aurangabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolhapur, Kolkata and Mumbai. If dialing from Gurgaon / Noida please prefix 9511 before dialing.)
Airtel Customer Care
Dail 121 from your airtel mobile
Karnataka - 98450 98450 - For prepaid if you are calling from landline
Karnataka - 98450 12345 - For postpaid if you are calling from landline
Hutch Customer Care
Karnataka - Dial 111 from your Hutch phone or dial 98860 98860
BSNL Mobile Customer Care (Cellone & Excel)
Karnataka - Dial 94480 24365
For other cities, click here.
Reliance Mobile Customer Care
Call 3033 3333 Or dial *333 from your Reliance Mobile
For other numbers, click here.
Reliance Broadband Customer Care
Call 022 - 3033 7777 Or dial *377 on your Reliance phone
SpiceJet Customer Care
From BSNL/MTNL : 1800 180 3333
Others (GSM/CDMA): +91 98718 03333
LIC Policy Details (Life Insurance Corporation)
Call - 1251 or
New Delhi 011 - 2332 9595
Mumbai 022 -2612 5555
Kolkata 033 - 23341765, 23211893/94/95
Chennai 044 - 28602626/28602929
Hyderabad 040 - 2329 7455
Bangalore 080 - 2248 5210
Pune 020 - 2553 6161
Ahmedabad 079 - 2550 7777
Yahoo! India Customer Care
I am not sure if these numbers work, but give it a try & leave a comment!
Bangalore : (080) 39805078
Chennai : (044) 39119494
Yahoo! US “Customer Service”: 1-866-562-7219 (for yahoo.com)
Yahoo! Small Business/Store: 1-866-800-8092
Other US Yahoo! numbers to try
+1 866-850-4303
+1 866-562-7228
+1 408-349-1572
+1 408-349-3300
+1 408-329-5151
+1 800-318-0631
If you feel some service is missing and would be useful to list, drop a comment.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Eye Pee Yell :)
Here goes my first blog in my life!!
Eye Pee Yell
Hahh haa.. Eye Pee Yell at last has come to the final stages..Loads of entertainment is what it gave from the last 3 fortnights..Only 3 more matches decide the final team who go on to become the 'Invincible Indians'-- the team name given by me to the winners of Eye Pee Yell.. So guys, we need to wait for a week to know whozz gonna win the title.. I personally for Delhi Dare Devils
only because of Sehwag ;) Please visit the poll @ the end in this blog page and vote ur choice of winner for the IPL!
Eye Pee Yell
Hahh haa.. Eye Pee Yell at last has come to the final stages..Loads of entertainment is what it gave from the last 3 fortnights..Only 3 more matches decide the final team who go on to become the 'Invincible Indians'-- the team name given by me to the winners of Eye Pee Yell.. So guys, we need to wait for a week to know whozz gonna win the title.. I personally for Delhi Dare Devils
only because of Sehwag ;) Please visit the poll @ the end in this blog page and vote ur choice of winner for the IPL!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
