Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Access to youth employment
Youth unemployment is a current worldwide big challenge due to its great number of unemployed people. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that the global youth unemployment rate is expected to reach 13.1 percent, reaching 71 million, in 2016. Of greater concern is the share and number of young people, often in emerging and developing countries, who live in extreme or moderate poverty despite having a job. In fact, 156 million or 37.7 per cent of working youth are in extreme or moderate poverty (compared to 26 per cent of working adults).
Youth unemployment rate in Mongolia is close to world average youth unemployment rate, sharing 15.1 % according to World Bank, Youth Unemployment Rate for Mongolia, 2016. 67 % of all unemployed people is youth in Mongolia. In most of the countries today the education system is geared to enabling the youth to pass out with their qualifications based on academic knowledge and prepare for seeking a job. There is little or no focus on building and equipping the students with leadership, building awareness and giving them training for entrepreneurship. For Mongolian case, among the required skills, language skill and team work skill were named as most common barriers by the unemployed Mongolian youth. (Graduate employment research, 2015).
In the near future maybe the number will be more critical. The world is changing so fast. It requires more and more digital literate people. First came steam and water power /Industrial 1.0/; then electricity and assembly lines /Industrial 2.0/; then computerization /Industrial 3.0/ and now Industrial 4.0 with digital era. According to a book entitled The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, he describes how this fourth revolution is fundamentally different from the previous three and different skill set will be required. In this fourth revolution, we are facing a range of new technologies that combine the physical, digital and biological worlds. These new technologies will impact all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenge our ideas about what it means to be human. Technologies such as big data, advanced analytics, the internet of things, wearables, advanced robotics, learning machines and 3D printing are finding their way into factories. This mass automation means unemployment or more requirement on digital and technology at any profession area.
The rate of youth unemployment is high enough now. But the number might become more critical in the future due to the fast growing technological requirement at professional level and mass unemployment at factories due to automation. The providing access to necessary skills during the study is tremendously important. It seems a safe bet to say, then, that our current political, business, and social structures may not be ready or capable of absorbing all the changes a fourth industrial revolution would bring, and that major changes to the very structure of our society may be inevitable. Thus enriching the education system can contribute to more skilled graduates.
Everything is now about preparing technological skilled and knowledge workers in each sector. Even plumbers now started to be required to be, at least, application using knowledge to find nearby customers or post about his availability. The governments and education sectors should take aware of change of the future and prepare its future generation, by changing its obsolete education system especially in developing or least developed countries. Industrial 4.0 maybe be the next round of the game or the chance to define who will be winners and who will be losers for the next several decades. Even it is predicted to bring mass unemployment, which country will make effort or invest to be digital literate they will win in this competition. The nations who can prepare its future generation as digital literate have a great chance to develop, decrease youth unemployment and gain more from the digital era.
Resources:
1. World Bank, Youth Unemployment Rate, 2016.
2. Graduate employment research, the Ministry of Labor, Mongolia, 2015
3. What Drucker knew about 2020, Harvard Business Review, Rick Wartzman, 2014
4. The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era by Jeremy Rifkin,1995
5. “The Future of Jobs Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution”, World Economic Forum, Global Challenge Insight Report, 2016
6. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5070/index1.html
Monday, April 3, 2017
Let's talk little bit about INNOVATION VS IMITATION
In recent times, there has been rapid globalization, volatile economies and hyper-competitive markets, where any big world event, launch of new product or service or emergence of new technology has profound impact on the businesses. So, it has become imperative for organizations to innovate continuously and sustain it in order to dominate the ever-changing market conditions. Many books, researches and articles are defining innovation as a key to success for businesses, entrepreneurs and any other sectors. The word “innovation” has been in fashion in recent years, and it seems that many firms and individuals have a strong desire to be perceived as innovative.
Innovation is creativity, it is about making new ideas creativity. Being innovative does not only mean inventing. Innovation can mean changing your business model and adapting to changes in your environment to deliver better products or services. Successful innovation should be an in-built part of your business strategy, where you create a culture of innovation and lead the way in innovative thinking and creative problem solving. Innovation has been considered as a necessary, condition of a company’s survival and growth. As an innovator, they can solve old problems with new ideas or they can solve new problems with old ideas used in radically different ways. As a practical problem solver, it helps to understand more about how to succeed with innovation and how to make innovation succeed.
On the other hand, the imitation has mostly bad rap. Copying others has a bit of a stigma. Even there is a quote “it is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation”. It’s not just in the modern world and in business that imitation has a bad name. Professor Shenkar shows how scientists for a long period derided imitation as “a low-level ability, a behavior typical of the mentally weak and the childish and a process much less demanding than individual trial and error,” he says. Nineteenth-century naturalists considered imitation to be “characteristic of women, children, savages, the mentally impaired and animals” who had “little ability to reason for themselves.”
So, what is imitation? How is it defined now? The term imitation is also fairly simple to define, and the simplest to accomplish: a person or company notices what someone else is doing, and decides to mimic their actions in hopes of achieving the same results. Imitation is looked down upon, and perhaps rightly so, as it's often the result of an individual of inferior intelligence or insight who is merely copying a pattern of behavior he doesn't understand and putting blind faith in his ability to achieve similar results.
“In the real world, companies copy and succeed. The iPod was not the first digital-music player; nor was the iPhone the first smartphone or the iPad the first tablet. Apple imitated others’ products but made them far more appealing. The pharmaceutical industry is split between inventors and imitators. Some innovators, such as Pfizer, have joined the copycats, starting generic-drugs businesses themselves. The multi-billion-dollar category of supermarket own-label products is based on copying well-known brands, sometimes down to details of the packaging. Fast-fashion firms have built empires copying innovations from the catwalk.”
As Mike Rowe defined “Innovation without imitation is really a complete waste of time or? Can imitation be core of the business? Is there really no success without copying some part of other existing ideas? In my point of view, imitation can be more important to business growth than innovation is. If only imitation is not mindless repetition and “blind copy paste”. It should be intelligent search for cause and effect. True innovating is really a combination of copying the best ideas of others, adding new things to them, improving on them, learning from the mistakes of others, and continually experimenting. Imitation can not only save time and money for businesses, but also, most importantly, give opportunity to learn from best practices and mistakes. imitation can be more important to business growth than innovation is. But just following every part and every active of the other successful business never be succeed. It’s not only important for entrepreneurs to innovate and imitate their own processes, but that it’s important to imitate, innovate slightly, and then imitate once again to find success.
In business, as in other aspects of life, we learn and grow from the examples set by others. Imitation can lead to innovation. Most innovations do not, however, involve breakthrough inventions but are deeply rooted in existing ideas. Our lives are full of mini breakthroughs that build on top of each other to create long-term success. It’s a collective effort as innovators and imitators work together, borrowing each other’s ideas while adding a little more innovation for the benefit of their consumers. It is important for entrepreneurs to not focus on creating something entirely new, but to focus on copying the best innovations in the world today while adding innovations to make it slightly better. As written in the book, “Imitation to Innovation, the dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning”, by Linsu Kim, Harvard Business School Press Boston, 1997, Innovation is defined as a pioneering activity, rooted primarily in a firm’s internal competencies, to develop and introduce a new product to the market. Distinction between innovation and creative imitation is, however, blurred.
Support-1: There are many famous examples of how company's imitations actually surpassed the original innovator’s product. One more surprising finding is that according to “Imitation is more valuable than innovation”, Harvard Business Review, by Oded shenkar, 2010, innovators capture around 2.2% of the total value of their innovations. The rest 97.8% probably went to imitators. Imitation is underappreciated in today’s business. There are more and more examples of companies that innovated new products but lost out in the marketplace to others afterward. For example;
• Coca Cola imitated RC Cola in replicating its diet cola product
• Visa and Mastercard imitated the credit card concept from Diners Club
• McDonalds took the fast food chain concept from White Castle
• EMI created CAT scans but the market today is dominated by General Electric.
Oded Shenkar, a business professor at Ohio State University, supported that idea in a new provocative book called Copycats: How Smart Companies Use Imitation to Gain a Strategic Edge, published by Harvard Business Press. The argument that imitation is smarter than innovation is borne out by numbers. He says innovators as a group get only a small fraction of the value of an innovation. Typically, the better returns go to businesspeople often derided as copycats. Shenkar also cites executives and reports involving famous companies that you’d think would be big champions of innovation, yet suggest that innovation isn’t the end-all, either. Explaining Pfizer ‘s decision to enter genetic drugs, for instance, David Simmons, general manager of the company’s newly formed “established products” business, once said: “We’re always about innovation, and it will always be the lifeblood and sustaining element of Pfizer, but we don’t see it as the be-all and end-all,” Shenkar writes, citing The Wall Street Journal. But, as Obed Shenkar points out; simply copying the market leader in your category is unlikely to work because a) you are different, and b) your consumer is likely to be different. Instead, you need to innovate by adding an adaptive and differentiating twist. Companies, rather than just imitate, should combine creativity and imitation, and come up with their own competitive advantage. This group of businesses is what Shenkar calls “imovators.” For an imitation strategy to work, you can’t just blindly copy – you need to imitate smartly – by adding a twist that gives you a competitive advantage by building on your strengths and targeting an unsatisfied market niche.
Support-2: To support this idea, another intriguing presentation I totally agree is from Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute. At the end of the talk, Jeffrey “look for successful behaviors in the market. Emulate them, copy them, and improve them just slightly. That’s how people make money in a market economy.” Basically what Tucker is stating is it’s not only important for entrepreneurs to innovate and imitate their own processes, but that it’s important to imitate, innovate slightly, and then imitate once again to find success. The continual process of imitation and innovation and the freedom to do so is what leads to long-term prosperity for individuals and businesses. Building on that observation, Jeffrey Tucker encourages entrepreneurs to not focus on creating something entirely new, but to focus on copying the best innovations in the world today while adding innovations to make it slightly better. Good examples that can support his ideas might include followings
Hugh Hefner, after being denied a $5 raise at Esquire, or so the story goes, went on to start in 1953 his own publication, which would be similar to the widely acclaimed periodical but better, featuring everything from men’s fashion to literary works.
Swarovski, the Austrian producer of luxury cut lead glass, borrowed the idea for its Stardust Collection, without giving proper credit apparently, to a much younger Italian firm called PrettiBijoux, whom had launched the versatile Cristalnet concept months earlier. I learned this by speaking to PrettiBijoux’s owner, completely by chance, at a fashion event in Belgium. The Italian lady was flattered by Swarovski’s move, but not at all amused.
Finally, impromptu Apple Stores in Kūnmíng, China, near-perfect copies of the originals, had even their staff fooled into thinking they were working for the famous American technology company. As CNN reports, with the country’s middle class emancipating fast, events like these are more common than ever.
Support-3: The innovator does not necessarily invent something entirely new to act in an innovative manner, and it is by nature an innovation begins with the same observation of the imitator - the difference being that the innovator makes adaptations the act of imitation. That is, he understands what he is seeking to achieve, can perceive the way in which another person is trying to accomplish the goal, and recognize ways in which a specific behavior is likely to result in success of failure. And in that way, the innovator can adopt some parts of the process that seem beneficial, and substitute a more effective method for those parts of the process that seem flawed. Imitation without understanding the context of the product or service does not work, because it does not take into account necessary adjustments to the key environmental peculiarities that vary between the model and the imitator. Adapting the imitation to own market with market understanding is very important. It might start with what someone else is doing but creativity and innovation use that as leaping off points.
As noted in the book, Copycats: How Smart Companies Use Imitation To Gain a Strategic Edge, Chapter 4, where it details the massive successes and failures of copycatting in two key industries: airlines and discount retail. It is about the success of Southwest Air, which "imitated" the failed People Express, but figured out how to do discount air travel while avoiding a few key elements that resulted in People Express' failure. He then goes through a variety of other airlines and how they tried to mimic Southwest Air, covering many examples of both success and failure, and explaining why some succeeded where others failed. Most notable, perhaps, was the dismal failure of pretty much every single attempt by the big airlines to copy Southwest. They all appeared to copy the superficial aspects of it -- the key things that everyone knew about -- without quite grasping the underlying structural reasons why Southwest succeeded, thereby setting up a business model in conflict with itself. It's yet another fantastic reminder that the idea that big companies can just come in and copy what some innovator does is quite frequently not really true.
The same chapter also looks closely at Wal-Mart, how it, too, copied certain key aspects from others, while also learning from the mistakes some other players made. The chapter notes that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target were all founded in the same year (1962), but were hardly the first in that space. Instead, all were copying a few other players who were there before -- none of whom survived. It looks at how these three firms have changed over time, including how Wal-Mart copied many ideas from K-Mart, and then improved upon them, and how K-Mart then tried to copy Wal-Mart back, but failed (for the same reason that the big airlines had so much trouble copying Southwest -- they got the superficial stuff, but didn't realize how that clashed with certain infrastructure issues). And then it covers how Target has carved out its own highly successful niche, both by copying Wal-Mart, but also in tweeking the model in different ways as well, such as targeting higher-end shoppers. To add up, from my point of view, innovation is better to be defined a combination of the two, invention and imitation.
On the other hand, the imitation has mostly bad rap. Copying others has a bit of a stigma. Even there is a quote “it is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation”. It’s not just in the modern world and in business that imitation has a bad name. Professor Shenkar shows how scientists for a long period derided imitation as “a low-level ability, a behavior typical of the mentally weak and the childish and a process much less demanding than individual trial and error,” he says. Nineteenth-century naturalists considered imitation to be “characteristic of women, children, savages, the mentally impaired and animals” who had “little ability to reason for themselves.”
So, what is imitation? How is it defined now? The term imitation is also fairly simple to define, and the simplest to accomplish: a person or company notices what someone else is doing, and decides to mimic their actions in hopes of achieving the same results. Imitation is looked down upon, and perhaps rightly so, as it's often the result of an individual of inferior intelligence or insight who is merely copying a pattern of behavior he doesn't understand and putting blind faith in his ability to achieve similar results.
“In the real world, companies copy and succeed. The iPod was not the first digital-music player; nor was the iPhone the first smartphone or the iPad the first tablet. Apple imitated others’ products but made them far more appealing. The pharmaceutical industry is split between inventors and imitators. Some innovators, such as Pfizer, have joined the copycats, starting generic-drugs businesses themselves. The multi-billion-dollar category of supermarket own-label products is based on copying well-known brands, sometimes down to details of the packaging. Fast-fashion firms have built empires copying innovations from the catwalk.”
As Mike Rowe defined “Innovation without imitation is really a complete waste of time or? Can imitation be core of the business? Is there really no success without copying some part of other existing ideas? In my point of view, imitation can be more important to business growth than innovation is. If only imitation is not mindless repetition and “blind copy paste”. It should be intelligent search for cause and effect. True innovating is really a combination of copying the best ideas of others, adding new things to them, improving on them, learning from the mistakes of others, and continually experimenting. Imitation can not only save time and money for businesses, but also, most importantly, give opportunity to learn from best practices and mistakes. imitation can be more important to business growth than innovation is. But just following every part and every active of the other successful business never be succeed. It’s not only important for entrepreneurs to innovate and imitate their own processes, but that it’s important to imitate, innovate slightly, and then imitate once again to find success.
Support-1: There are many famous examples of how company's imitations actually surpassed the original innovator’s product. One more surprising finding is that according to “Imitation is more valuable than innovation”, Harvard Business Review, by Oded shenkar, 2010, innovators capture around 2.2% of the total value of their innovations. The rest 97.8% probably went to imitators. Imitation is underappreciated in today’s business. There are more and more examples of companies that innovated new products but lost out in the marketplace to others afterward. For example;
• Coca Cola imitated RC Cola in replicating its diet cola product
• Visa and Mastercard imitated the credit card concept from Diners Club
• McDonalds took the fast food chain concept from White Castle
• EMI created CAT scans but the market today is dominated by General Electric.
Oded Shenkar, a business professor at Ohio State University, supported that idea in a new provocative book called Copycats: How Smart Companies Use Imitation to Gain a Strategic Edge, published by Harvard Business Press. The argument that imitation is smarter than innovation is borne out by numbers. He says innovators as a group get only a small fraction of the value of an innovation. Typically, the better returns go to businesspeople often derided as copycats. Shenkar also cites executives and reports involving famous companies that you’d think would be big champions of innovation, yet suggest that innovation isn’t the end-all, either. Explaining Pfizer ‘s decision to enter genetic drugs, for instance, David Simmons, general manager of the company’s newly formed “established products” business, once said: “We’re always about innovation, and it will always be the lifeblood and sustaining element of Pfizer, but we don’t see it as the be-all and end-all,” Shenkar writes, citing The Wall Street Journal. But, as Obed Shenkar points out; simply copying the market leader in your category is unlikely to work because a) you are different, and b) your consumer is likely to be different. Instead, you need to innovate by adding an adaptive and differentiating twist. Companies, rather than just imitate, should combine creativity and imitation, and come up with their own competitive advantage. This group of businesses is what Shenkar calls “imovators.” For an imitation strategy to work, you can’t just blindly copy – you need to imitate smartly – by adding a twist that gives you a competitive advantage by building on your strengths and targeting an unsatisfied market niche.
Support-2: To support this idea, another intriguing presentation I totally agree is from Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute. At the end of the talk, Jeffrey “look for successful behaviors in the market. Emulate them, copy them, and improve them just slightly. That’s how people make money in a market economy.” Basically what Tucker is stating is it’s not only important for entrepreneurs to innovate and imitate their own processes, but that it’s important to imitate, innovate slightly, and then imitate once again to find success. The continual process of imitation and innovation and the freedom to do so is what leads to long-term prosperity for individuals and businesses. Building on that observation, Jeffrey Tucker encourages entrepreneurs to not focus on creating something entirely new, but to focus on copying the best innovations in the world today while adding innovations to make it slightly better. Good examples that can support his ideas might include followings
Hugh Hefner, after being denied a $5 raise at Esquire, or so the story goes, went on to start in 1953 his own publication, which would be similar to the widely acclaimed periodical but better, featuring everything from men’s fashion to literary works.
Swarovski, the Austrian producer of luxury cut lead glass, borrowed the idea for its Stardust Collection, without giving proper credit apparently, to a much younger Italian firm called PrettiBijoux, whom had launched the versatile Cristalnet concept months earlier. I learned this by speaking to PrettiBijoux’s owner, completely by chance, at a fashion event in Belgium. The Italian lady was flattered by Swarovski’s move, but not at all amused.
Finally, impromptu Apple Stores in Kūnmíng, China, near-perfect copies of the originals, had even their staff fooled into thinking they were working for the famous American technology company. As CNN reports, with the country’s middle class emancipating fast, events like these are more common than ever.
Support-3: The innovator does not necessarily invent something entirely new to act in an innovative manner, and it is by nature an innovation begins with the same observation of the imitator - the difference being that the innovator makes adaptations the act of imitation. That is, he understands what he is seeking to achieve, can perceive the way in which another person is trying to accomplish the goal, and recognize ways in which a specific behavior is likely to result in success of failure. And in that way, the innovator can adopt some parts of the process that seem beneficial, and substitute a more effective method for those parts of the process that seem flawed. Imitation without understanding the context of the product or service does not work, because it does not take into account necessary adjustments to the key environmental peculiarities that vary between the model and the imitator. Adapting the imitation to own market with market understanding is very important. It might start with what someone else is doing but creativity and innovation use that as leaping off points.
As noted in the book, Copycats: How Smart Companies Use Imitation To Gain a Strategic Edge, Chapter 4, where it details the massive successes and failures of copycatting in two key industries: airlines and discount retail. It is about the success of Southwest Air, which "imitated" the failed People Express, but figured out how to do discount air travel while avoiding a few key elements that resulted in People Express' failure. He then goes through a variety of other airlines and how they tried to mimic Southwest Air, covering many examples of both success and failure, and explaining why some succeeded where others failed. Most notable, perhaps, was the dismal failure of pretty much every single attempt by the big airlines to copy Southwest. They all appeared to copy the superficial aspects of it -- the key things that everyone knew about -- without quite grasping the underlying structural reasons why Southwest succeeded, thereby setting up a business model in conflict with itself. It's yet another fantastic reminder that the idea that big companies can just come in and copy what some innovator does is quite frequently not really true.
The same chapter also looks closely at Wal-Mart, how it, too, copied certain key aspects from others, while also learning from the mistakes some other players made. The chapter notes that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target were all founded in the same year (1962), but were hardly the first in that space. Instead, all were copying a few other players who were there before -- none of whom survived. It looks at how these three firms have changed over time, including how Wal-Mart copied many ideas from K-Mart, and then improved upon them, and how K-Mart then tried to copy Wal-Mart back, but failed (for the same reason that the big airlines had so much trouble copying Southwest -- they got the superficial stuff, but didn't realize how that clashed with certain infrastructure issues). And then it covers how Target has carved out its own highly successful niche, both by copying Wal-Mart, but also in tweeking the model in different ways as well, such as targeting higher-end shoppers. To add up, from my point of view, innovation is better to be defined a combination of the two, invention and imitation.
Is Innovation Without Imitation A Completely Waste Of Time?
Thus, I tried to explore more about why innovation need part of imitation or why imitation bests innovation while others still cheer up only innovation. What’s the quickest way to succeed in business? Maybe one is to think of a great innovation. Another is to copy someone else’s great innovation. But “Is innovation without imitation a complete waste of time?”. Is innovation really cannot succeed without copying some part of other existing ideas? My conclusion is that imitation bests innovation. I am totally agreeing with it. But imitation is not mindless repetition or blind copy paste; it’s an intelligent search for cause and effect. Imitation must be creative. It must fill the existing empty spaces and can be the combination of copying the best ideas of others, adding new things to them, improving on them, learning from the mistakes of others, and continually experimenting. There’s also a long history of successful startups that are built on imitation, not innovation.
For hundreds of years, imitation has had bad rap or experiencing negative meaning such as “a low-level ability, a behavior typical of the mentally weak and the childish and a process much less demanding than individual trial and error”. Like that, still now that tends to be exist among business and strategies. For the question that what’s the quickest way to succeed in business, one may think of a great innovation while another is to copy someone else’s great innovation. But is innovation without imitation a completely waste of time?
Imitation can be more important to business growth than innovation is. Even many might be disagreeing with “Innovation Without Imitation is A Completely Waste of Time”, I will agree on it. Imitation can not only save time and money for businesses, but also, most importantly, give opportunity to learn from best practices and mistakes. But just following every part and every active of the other successful business never be succeed. It should be intelligent search for cause and effect. it’s not only important for entrepreneurs to innovate and imitate their own processes, but that it’s important to imitate, innovate slightly, and then imitate once again to find success. The imitation must be CREATIVE. Because of market differentiation, mindless repetition and “blind copy paste” never work. True innovating is really a combination of copying the best ideas of others, adding new things to them, improving on them, learning from the mistakes of others, and continually experimenting. Many successful examples including Wal Mart, Apple, Facebook, Starbucks, Mc Donald’s, Master and Visa card could tell us or approved us innovation with imitation, especially the creative imitation
From my point of view, innovation is better to be defined a combination of the two, invention and imitation. The innovator does not necessarily invent something entirely new to act in an innovative manner, and it is by nature an innovation begins with the same observation of the imitator - the difference being that the innovator makes adaptations the act of imitation. That is, he understands what he is seeking to achieve, can perceive the way in which another person is trying to accomplish the goal, and recognize ways in which a specific behavior is likely to result in success of failure. And in that way, the innovator can adopt some parts of the process that seem beneficial, and substitute a more effective method for those parts of the process that seem flawed.
Жуулчдад ээлтэй Као Сан гудамж /Тайландын аялал/
Као Санг сонгосон нэг шалтгаан нь жуулчдын ихээр очдог Grand Palace, Wat Arun, Wat Phra Kaew-руу алхаад очих боломжтой байсан юм. Гэвч зорьж очсон газар маань үнэхээр сэтгэлд хүрсэнгүй. Жишээ нь Grand Palace гэхэд жуулчдаар дүүрэн, баахан хүмүүс дунд урсгал дагаж явсаар гарч ирсэн. Тайландын эртний хаадын үе дамжин амьдарч ирсэн ордон нь их гоёмсог тансаг харагдаж байсан ч нээх сонирхолтой зүйл байсангүй. Ядаж байтал үзэх зүйлсийн бараг хагас хэсгийг нь гадны жуулчдад үзүүлдэггүй болгосон байсан учраас гаднаас нь хараад л өнгөрсөн.
Харин санаандгүй хийсэн сонголтууд маань бидэнд сонирхолтой байлаа. Уг гудамжинд 1,2,3 өдрийн аялалын багцуудаар үйлчилдэг жуулчны газарууд нилээдгүй байрладаг юм билээ. Тухайн аялалаас хамаараад дундажаар 1000-4000 Бахт. Мөн энэ гудманд Лаос, Комбож, Энэтхэг, Вьетнам зэрэг хэд хэдэн орнуудруу аялуулдаг аялалын багцууд ихэнх аялал жуулчлалын үйлчилгээ явуулдаг газруудад нь байсан. Ямартаа ч энэ гудамжнаас жуулчдад хэрэгцээт мэдээллүүдийг хангалтттай авах боломжтой. 3 өдрийг Као Санд байрлахдаа ойр орчим газрууд болон ирэхээсээ өмнө байрлахаар эргэлзэж байсан хотын бусад гол гол хэсгүүдийг автобус болон завиар /яг буудал буудал дээрээ зогсоод хүнээ буулгаад, суулгаад явдаг үйлчилээ/ яваад үзсэн. Завин үйлчилгээ миний л хувьд үнэхээр 10-с 10 оноо өгөхөөр үйлчилгээ санагдсан. Халуун оронд тун тохиромжтой үйлчилгээ байсан.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Солонгосын Засгийн газрын тэтгэлэг Сонирхож байгаа нэгэнд нь хэрэгтэй байх. Хэд хэдэн найзууд маань надаас асуугаад байсан болохоор өөрийн... -
1.1.1 Чөлөөт худалдааны хэлэлцээр гэж юу вэ? Орчин үеийн даяаршилын эринд улс орнуудын эдийн засаг улам бүр харилцан хамааралтай,нэгдмэл бо...