 "Now, India has to make the brand story a real one: Soumitra Dutta")
Soumitra Dutta, the 11th dean of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, and the first of Indian origin to hold the post, says it is time India builds on its prowess in low-cost innovation and the creative business. Dutta has served as the Roland Berger Chaired Professor of Business and Technology and founder and academic director of the eLab at INSEAD, a top-ranked graduate business school in Fontainebleau, France. In an interview with Alokananda Chakraborty and Devina Joshi, he explains how India could capitalise on its strengths. Edited excerpts:
What would you say is the innovation opportunity for Indian businesses?
India has tremendous strengths in some key sectors like technology and in the creative business (like movie making). One strategy would be to build on your strengths that can be used to stimulate innovation across the economy. For instance, figure how ICT (information & communication technology) can be used to innovate in retail, supply chain, etc. The second opportunity is to take your innovations and export and monetise them. This is a softer element of innovation. Consider Indian movies and the various awards shows that are held across the world. That's a breakthrough idea. Do the French hold their movie awards outside of France? No. India has a lot of strengths in the creative business of movie making and it is showcasing that strength globally. That's something that hasn't been done before. Of course, this sort of innovation is not in the realm of the first one - that would be the kind of innovation that fundamentally changes a business or the economy for the long term. It is useful nonetheless. Innovations from India can, in effect, be shared back with not just the West - like what (Vijay) Govindarajan refers to as reverse innovation - but also other emerging markets.
I think it is a very good idea. As I said before, there are two kinds of innovation: One is technology-driven or push innovation, the other is market-driven or pull innovation. The former is about inventing a technology like laser and a whole domain of applications and innovations open up as a result. You create technologies that dynamically changes the fundamentals of that industry.
In the latter case, say, a farmer needs a solution like for irrigating his field or pricing of some commodities. You combine the technologies you have to satisfy that need. So you don't create new technologies. Frugal innovation is typically market-driven.
India can certainly do more market-driven jugaad innovation in a cost-effective way but what will be more useful is to create new technologies that can solve problems in a different way. Electricity is a key issue here. So, the question you should be asking is, can we come up with a new way of supplying electricity in remote locations? That requires scientific institutions in India to invest in technologies that support innovation. The government has a huge role to play here.
A criticism India has faced is on the nature of collaboration between industry and academia. How has the collaboration or the lack of it affected the industry in general and innovation in particular?
I feel industry needs to have a stronger voice inside universities and this can come through participation in research, in governance of the institution and faculty support. You need to have industry that is willing to spend time with universities; you need to have university curricula that allow for this collaboration with industry. In Germany, for instance, you have universities that let students spend three months in the classroom and three in the real world. This is a unique system where the link is built in a fundamental, deep manner. In essence, we need to change the way education is structured in this country and the way the voice of the industry is heard at the university level.
Is that one reason why India hasn't been able to build a global brand or, for that matter, an Indian multinational?
It is a good time for India to build global brands and some have done it, especially in the information technology sector - like Infosys and Wipro. I don't think it is difficult at all. India today has a very positive brand externally. It has changed quite dramatically in recent years. About five years ago, I was at the border in Switzerland and the immigration officer looked at my passport and asked me if I am a software programmer. That is the image people have of India outside - that India has clever people and the country produces technology wizards, great programmers and Bollywood dancers. This is very positive compared to the image of India 30 years ago. When I first came to the US as a student, people would ask - mind you, very sincerely - if I went to school in a bullock cart.
I would say India has done a very good job of marketing itself. Geopolitically, it has aligned itself successfully with the US, giving it a positive halo effect. That has been topped by the success of Indians abroad and of certain Indian business sectors - all of that has led to a positive brand association. The challenge is to live up to this positive brand association because the brand outside is bigger and brighter than the reality inside.
In that sense, India is more of a marketing success than success on ground. But building a brand is expensive and takes more time, so India has done the hard part. Now it has to make the brand story a real one. Compare India with China - its external brand is much weaker than its internal capabilities.
What would you say is the innovation opportunity for Indian businesses?
India has tremendous strengths in some key sectors like technology and in the creative business (like movie making). One strategy would be to build on your strengths that can be used to stimulate innovation across the economy. For instance, figure how ICT (information & communication technology) can be used to innovate in retail, supply chain, etc. The second opportunity is to take your innovations and export and monetise them. This is a softer element of innovation. Consider Indian movies and the various awards shows that are held across the world. That's a breakthrough idea. Do the French hold their movie awards outside of France? No. India has a lot of strengths in the creative business of movie making and it is showcasing that strength globally. That's something that hasn't been done before. Of course, this sort of innovation is not in the realm of the first one - that would be the kind of innovation that fundamentally changes a business or the economy for the long term. It is useful nonetheless. Innovations from India can, in effect, be shared back with not just the West - like what (Vijay) Govindarajan refers to as reverse innovation - but also other emerging markets.
More From This Section
Indian companies have mostly done frugal innovation so far, scoffingly referred to as jugaad (Hindi for makeshift) by many. Is it such a bad idea?
I think it is a very good idea. As I said before, there are two kinds of innovation: One is technology-driven or push innovation, the other is market-driven or pull innovation. The former is about inventing a technology like laser and a whole domain of applications and innovations open up as a result. You create technologies that dynamically changes the fundamentals of that industry.
In the latter case, say, a farmer needs a solution like for irrigating his field or pricing of some commodities. You combine the technologies you have to satisfy that need. So you don't create new technologies. Frugal innovation is typically market-driven.
India can certainly do more market-driven jugaad innovation in a cost-effective way but what will be more useful is to create new technologies that can solve problems in a different way. Electricity is a key issue here. So, the question you should be asking is, can we come up with a new way of supplying electricity in remote locations? That requires scientific institutions in India to invest in technologies that support innovation. The government has a huge role to play here.
A criticism India has faced is on the nature of collaboration between industry and academia. How has the collaboration or the lack of it affected the industry in general and innovation in particular?
I feel industry needs to have a stronger voice inside universities and this can come through participation in research, in governance of the institution and faculty support. You need to have industry that is willing to spend time with universities; you need to have university curricula that allow for this collaboration with industry. In Germany, for instance, you have universities that let students spend three months in the classroom and three in the real world. This is a unique system where the link is built in a fundamental, deep manner. In essence, we need to change the way education is structured in this country and the way the voice of the industry is heard at the university level.
Is that one reason why India hasn't been able to build a global brand or, for that matter, an Indian multinational?
It is a good time for India to build global brands and some have done it, especially in the information technology sector - like Infosys and Wipro. I don't think it is difficult at all. India today has a very positive brand externally. It has changed quite dramatically in recent years. About five years ago, I was at the border in Switzerland and the immigration officer looked at my passport and asked me if I am a software programmer. That is the image people have of India outside - that India has clever people and the country produces technology wizards, great programmers and Bollywood dancers. This is very positive compared to the image of India 30 years ago. When I first came to the US as a student, people would ask - mind you, very sincerely - if I went to school in a bullock cart.
I would say India has done a very good job of marketing itself. Geopolitically, it has aligned itself successfully with the US, giving it a positive halo effect. That has been topped by the success of Indians abroad and of certain Indian business sectors - all of that has led to a positive brand association. The challenge is to live up to this positive brand association because the brand outside is bigger and brighter than the reality inside.
In that sense, India is more of a marketing success than success on ground. But building a brand is expensive and takes more time, so India has done the hard part. Now it has to make the brand story a real one. Compare India with China - its external brand is much weaker than its internal capabilities.